On balance the truth is the most important aspect of any situation
Debate Rounds (4)
the resolution is kinda vague but this could be an amazing debate, with an interested opponent involved.
Here's what I'm trying to get at in this debate. Should we value the truth over what may be best for us. Let's take this reasonable example. Here assume god isn't real.
We find out, conclusively, that believing in god makes you happy and lacking a god makes you dysfunctional, depressed, and 'immoral'. If this were true, should we have fidelity to the truth, or instead should we decide that our well-being is more valuable than fidelity to the truth -- meaning we go on to make ourselves believe in god.
And, to clarify: The above senario is not the primary subject of the debate. Its an example of what the debate should be about. We could chose any of another billion possible examples.
I have side with fidelity to the truth. If anyone would like to counter-argue that contention, even as a devils advocate, please apply in Das comments.
By accpeting you agree that:
The resolution is a True/False question and should be evaluated on that basis.
That the resolution is a valid question with no alternative answer.
The rounds will be as follwos;
<br/>R1: Round thesis and description, acceptance
<br/>R2: Pro lays out their arguments, con lays out their unique arguments (no refutation)
<br/>R3: Both sides rebutt
<br/>R4: counter rebuttals
<br/>R5: Both sides explain why they should win the debate
I'd like to thank my opponent for allowing me to accept this debate on what really is an intriguing topic. As per the rules, this is my acceptance and I'll be giving my interpretation of the thesis.
I'm offering this interpretation so that my opponent can respond to anything that he believes I have misinterpretted.
From my understanding, the opponent has taken the position that the truth of or truths involved in any situation should be considered the most important aspect (part) of said situation. This means my opponent is advocating that truth is more important (in terms of value) than any other part of any situation that may reasonably arise.
Additionally, while I am taking the position counter to this, that truth is not the most valuable part of every situation, I don't wish to frame my argument as it relates to religion. As such, I will not discuss the specific example the opponent offered unless it ends up being part of his argument.
I look forward to this debate!
I'll forego this speech, as I lack time. I'll rebut my opponent's arguments and make my own after the following speech.
Well, this is certainly disappointing, but I will make my arguments as the opponent suggested, since he seems he plans to offer a case next round.
What is truth? It's an important question. Without the answer to this, we cannot even begin to understand what the opponent is proposing. In this brief section, we will attempt to reasonably define truth and determine how that definition impacts this debate.
Merriam-Webster defines truth as "the quality or state of being true", or, "the real facts about something." Since we are referring to "the truth" as it concerns physical situations, the truth of a physical situation refers to the actual facts of the situation, whether those actual facts are known or unknown.
It's important that we note that real truth cannot be known. While we often have very good reasons to believe that certain things are true, for example, "The sky is blue," we must realize that we cannot be certain of this. We know that our senses are limited and capable of error and, because of this, we cannot know with absolute certainty that any of our experiences are real or that any facts we document are an absolute reflection of actuality.
While this seems over philosophical, this is a philosophical topic and I don't believe I'm out of bounds with this recognition on the nature of truth. While my arguments are not structured in such a way to abuse this, it's worth remembering.
Contention 1: In any given situation, we use our understanding of the situation to act or not to act.
This action (or lackthereof), is crucial, as it is how we respond to the information we know about a situation. Because of the philosophical nature of truth mentioned above and because of our finite minds, it is not possible to know the complete truth of a situation. Valuing such an unobtainable goal as the "greatest value" does not benefit us in any way and furthermore detracts from more relevant values at hand.
For instance, in a high stakes shootout, the police try and get all relevant information they can. This information is always incomplete and sometimes innacurate. A policemen in this situation would be foolish to most highly value the truth, when it is much more reasonable and useful to highly value other things: such as his understanding of the situation, his skillset regarding how to handle the situation, his life, the lives of surrounding civilians, etc. Those things just mentioned are of much greater importance because they are a) obtainable goals and b) more relevant.
Contention 2: It is a waste of time, energy and capital resources to value most highly that which cannot be known.
While truth likely exists, it cannot be known. [See 'On Truth'.] The thing which a human values most is often the thing that human most often seeks. This is simple economics. Unfortunately, truth is a resource which isn't scarce -- it's simply unobtainable. However, if humans most highly valued truth, a great deal of time, energy and money would be used in an attempt to attain this. While humanity may in some way get closer to the truth, it would not be able to actually achieve knowing it.
As such, it is more useful and societally beneficial for humanity to highly value other goals -- those of which can be obtained and used in a constructive manner. This is the only way in which economics can properly work.
It is important to note, here, that there is a difference between knowledge and truth. A piece of knowledge is simply some fact (or perhaps opinion) which may or may not be true, but which is fundementally useful in some way. Knowledge is a reflection of reality that is clear enough that it can be utilized in a way that benefits society, but is never clear enough to be considered real truth.
When I argue that truth cannot be known and that it should not be sought, I am not implying that knowledge should be treated as the same. On the contrary, knowledge is a resource that can be used to do great things for society.
I've tried to make these arguments short and to the point so that the opponent has room to present his case and rebut my own within the 10,000 character limit. Any clarification needed should be requested and I'll include it in my next submission.
Thanks for reading. I look forward to the next round.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.
conceeded, vote con
Cobalt forfeited this round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.