The Instigator
bodhiBit
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Objective truth/reality exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,800 times Debate No: 16326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

bodhiBit

Con

There is NO objective reality since we all have each our own subjective world view all of which can be equally true.. There is no way of telling who is right and who is wrong..
MrCarroll

Pro

Welcome readers to this debate. First, thank you bodhiBit for presenting this debate to us. I intend to convince my readers, and possibly my opponent, that objective reality or absolute truth exist. My argument will be simple and straightforward. Let's define absolute truth, objective truth, objective reality, or whatever one wishes to call it.

absolute truth (redirected to universality) – a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism. [1]

I thank my opponent again, for he already has proven that absolute truth exists. My opponent claims, "there is NO objective reality." He has presented himself with a dilemma – either there is no objective morality, or there is an objective reality. If my opponent proves that objective reality does not exist, then that would be an objective reality in itself. In other words, "objective reality does not exist" is presented as an absolute truth. It either exists or it does not. Con's argument is self-refuting.

Let's look at mathematics, the most obvious case for absolute truth. By definition, 2+2=4. It cannot equal anything else because it is the Law of Mathematics. The Laws of Mathematics are objective, thus if these laws exist, absolute truth exists. We may also take logic. If my opponent proves that objective reality does not exist, he will have to use logic. Logic is an absolute. If logic was subjective then maybe my opponent could prove his point, but arguments are either logical or illogical. My opponent's arguments fall clearly under the illogical type. The main problem is that logic exists or else we wouldn't be debating this.

"we all have each our own subjective world view all of which can be equally true" I have already proven this false. Either absolute truth exists or it does not. I have shown that absolute truth does not exist, therefore the worldview that absolute truth does not exist is not as true as the worldview that absolute truth does exist. Let's take the example of other worldviews. Some believe that God does not exist, while others believe God does exist. God either exists or does not exist, therefore the two worldviews are not equally true. One is obviously is more true than the other.

"There is no way of telling who is right and who is wrong." I have proven this statement false by proving my opponent is wrong. We can clearly tell who is right and who is wrong. I think I have adequately shown that objective reality exists. The only way that my opponent can win now is by proving that logic does not exist, for all my arguments were based on logic. It is impossible to prove logic does not exist without using logic, but I'm afraid he has no choice. I'm afraid I win. Thank you Con. Readers, I urge you to vote Pro.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
bodhiBit

Con

Can you prove that logic is right without using logic..?
If every claim is based on logic and logic is fallacious then the claim is unreliable..
I know I am using logic myself, but the BOP is on Pro.. I don't have to be right, I just have to not be proven wrong..

Using logic to prove logic is a circular argument and thus flawed..

The only thing that is absolutely true, if anything is, is that everything else is not absolutely true.. that is the only constant.. everything else is variable, arbitrary and most importantly incomparable in truth..

logic is a system defined by human beings.. any attempt at determining what is true and false is merely an act of persuasion, not proof..
MrCarroll

Pro

I commend my opponent on bringing up the best argument he could, yet his argument, though the best anyone could come up with, is pitiful. Honestly, arguing that objective reality does not exist is pitiful.

"Can you prove that logic is right without using logic..?" The very nature of debate assumes logic exists.

"If every claim is based on logic and logic is fallacious then the claim is unreliable.." By definition, logic cannot be fallacious. Logic is pure reason.

"I know I am using logic myself, but the BOP is on Pro.. I don't have to be right, I just have to not be proven wrong.." My opponent is basically admitting he is wrong and then claims he does not have to be right. If my opponent is not right, then he is wrong.

"The only thing that is absolutely true, if anything is, is that everything else is not absolutely true.. that is the only constant.. everything else is variable, arbitrary and most importantly incomparable in truth.." Again, this is self-refuting. My opponent has just conceded a second time that absolute truth exists.

"logic is a system defined by human beings.. any attempt at determining what is true and false is merely an act of persuasion, not proof.." I don't think Con can prove this.

Readers, this is the most flawed and insensible argument I have seen. My opponent clearly recognizes this, yet continues by attacking logic, the very basis of argument and debate. If logic was false, then debates would not exist. All of Con's arguments and conclusions come from logic, therefore, he contradicts himself on a number of levels denying the existence of logic. He is clearly in the wrong, and if my opponent is wrong, then he is not right. Con is a testament that logic exists.

Readers, you could vote for common sense or you could ditch it and vote for Con. If any of you does not believe in logic, there would be no point in reading or voting for this debate. In order to vote for a debate, one must use logic; if any of you readers believe in logic and reason, I urge they vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
bodhiBit

Con

Pro doesn't seem to take the debate seriously.. Or maybe he just doesn't realize how deep this topic goes.. He hasn't addressed the most important issues which I brought up in my last post..

Pro constantly resorted to logic without once having justified to do so.. He seems to have skipped the perhaps most important issue of all, which I bought up in my last post, and so I shall bring it up once more:

Using logic to prove logic is a circular argument and thus flawed..

This points out a major issue.. If only logic can prove logic then logic is biased and unreliable.. If logic is really a reliable method then it must be so because an even more reliable method has proven it to be.. And whatever method is more reliable than logic must itself be proven reliable through an even more reliable method.. And so on ad infinitum..

You can't just define logic to be the most reliable system without proving it with something else.. Anyone can define anything how ever they like.. It doesn't prove anything..

Secondly Pro seems not to understand my role in this debate.. I don't have to prove anything, because if I could then that would refute my main claim.. Nothing I say would have to make sense since that is exactly what is to be expected if no objective reality exist.. Whatever DOES make sense of what I say only makes sense because we share a similar world view with the same concepts such as logic etc...

If there IS an objective reality, then we could measure any claim against it and see which of them match up and thus are objectively true.. But if we only have a world view then we could only compare claims to that world view.. We are only able to discuss with people with whom we share a world view.. We cannot compare claims across world views..
MrCarroll

Pro

I assure my opponent that I am taking this debate seriously. Maybe I don't realize how deep this topic goes. From my perspective, this relativism is purely illogical and self-refuting. Let's go back to some points I made earlier.

"Pro constantly resorted to logic without once having justified to do so." I said earlier that the very nature of debate assumes logic exists. Therefore, I don't even have to prove logic exists. It is a prerequisite for debate. This debate is not really about whether logic exists or not.

"I don't have to prove anything, because if I could then that would refute my main claim. Nothing I say would have to make sense since that is exactly what is to be expected if no objective reality exist." Then how on earth does my opponent intend to win this debate? I don't even have to respond to these claims. I have already proven that absolute truth exists anyway, and my opponent has conceded this.

In my opponent's conclusion, he speaks only nonsense, which could be expected given his position. I have proven multiple times that absolute truth exists, so much so that my opponent cannot refute my claims and has resorted to attacking logic itself. Obviously, this debate requires logic. If logic does not exist, then there is no reason to vote for Con anyway (since reason wouldn't exist). Because of this fact, I am confident that even if my opponent has convinced some readers of his relativism, I have a good chance of getting a vote from them anyway (since their vote would likely be spontaneous). If readers are convinced that absolute truth exists, then I ask that they vote Pro. If readers are not convinced that absolute reality exists, I ask they vote Pro (I know this doesn't make sense, just do it anyway).

Thank you for reading and thank you Con for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bodhiBit 6 years ago
bodhiBit
Common sense is what logic follows from.. You can't get from logic to absolute reality when logic follows FROM absolute reality..

But what does absolute reality follow from..? Common sense.. More precisely that which no sentient being can deny to be true.. There is something rather than nothing.. Denying that will only reveal ones own existence and thus something..
Posted by Ryanconqueso 6 years ago
Ryanconqueso
he's using the fox news tactic....ahhhh what a sly one.
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
How can common sense not be logic? and what argument would you make for objective reality?
Posted by bodhiBit 6 years ago
bodhiBit
Yes, but not all logic is common sense.. So you can't argue that logic (as a whole) proves there is an absolute reality when (most of) logic presupposes an absolute reality to apply to..

Yes, arguing DOES require logic.. But arguing usually also requires an absolute reality..
As I said in the debate, there is no way to tell who is wrong and who is right in a debate without an absolute reality..

If you have ever tried to debate before, then your should know that one of the basic principles of argumentation is to start from a common ground with our opponent and basically argue that your claim follows from premises he already agrees with..
You haven't done that.. You base your arguments on logic, which is a concept my position deems unreliably.. If I DID find logic reliable then that would rule out my position entirely..

So basically you are arguing from an assumption that I already agree with your position.. What kind of debate is that..??
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
Common sense is basic logic. Arguing requires logic and common sense.
Posted by bodhiBit 6 years ago
bodhiBit
MrCarrol > I can't see how you can assume that I can answer your questions given my position in the debate.. If there is no absolute reality, then what use is logic..?

Yes, other debates presumes logic, but they also presume that there is an absolute reality.. Yes, we ASSUME logic exists and that's exactly my point..! What justifies this assumption..? It doesn't seem you can answer that question without resorting to definitions and assumptions.. no proof..

I am well aware of logic and its applications.. I DO use logic myself.. But I also know it's limits and origin.. Logic presupposes that there IS an absolute reality.. And logic dictates that you cannot prove something by using (part of) your conclusion as a premise.. Logic cannot prove an absolute reality since you need an absolute reality to make logic apply to..

If you claim the existence of something (which you did by accepting this debate) then you have the burden of proof(BOP).. I'm not here to claim or prove anything.. I simply brought up the issue..

Not all means of persuasion requires logic.. Some merely rely on common sense..
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
How could we debate without assuming logic exists? Name one debate that doesn't use logic. My point was not to prove logic exists. We assume it exists. if you believe in no objective reality, you are being illogical, and really denying logic. To say logic is flawed would be going against definition. Im not sure what you wanted me to argue. Is there an argument that doesn't use logic? I mean I went over 2+2 is 4 and you never responded.
Posted by bodhiBit 6 years ago
bodhiBit
I thank MrCarrol for the debate, although I'm a little disappointed in his limited approaches... I think there are arguments that would be more irrefutable than a mere appeal to logic..

In the interest of full disclosure, I do in fact believe that there is an objective reality and I was hoping that my opponent would help me strengthen that belief..

Nevertheless I thank MrCarrol for the effort.. :)
Posted by bodhiBit 6 years ago
bodhiBit
e.gibson1987 > which is exactly what to expect if I'm right.. I wouldn't be able to claim anything..
Posted by e.gibson1987 6 years ago
e.gibson1987
You've rendered yourself unable to even make the claim that logic is false. You should lie down.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
bodhiBitMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to agree with RA and cliff on this one.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
bodhiBitMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dismantled this argument brilliantly... trying to assert that objective truth does not exist is foolish and self defeating. However, Pro lost the conduct point for calling his opponent's argument pathetic. While this type of forceful rhetoric is necessary in some cases... it was not in this, it simply was over the top.
Vote Placed by Lionheart 6 years ago
Lionheart
bodhiBitMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a great debate. I give credit to both opponents. I believe that objective truth/reality does not exist for we all experience reality subjectively through our own existence. There is never going to be a way to measure my conscious truth/reality against your conscious truth/reality and then proceed to find who's reality is the true reality. Neither Pro or Con never proved that objective truth/reality exists or not. Reality and truth are both subjective in my opinion, but Pro argued better
Vote Placed by Ryanconqueso 6 years ago
Ryanconqueso
bodhiBitMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate itself can be a perfect example of con's reasoning. If there were objective truth, debates would more or less be unnecessary as one would be clearly wrong and the other would be clearly right. However, both parties have their own views of truth contending they are both correct. Sources goes to Pro as he is the only one that presented them although Con did not necessarily have to provide them with his argument.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
bodhiBitMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "but the BOP is on Pro.. I don't have to be right" no it isn't you started with an assertion and had to carry it. Pro could have dealt better with the logic argument but the rest of Con was gibberish, "I am speaking nonsense thus truth does not exist" that is inane. 3:1 to pro
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
bodhiBitMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: asdf