The Instigator
oboeman
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Presence of a universal truth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,702 times Debate No: 4339
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (19)

 

oboeman

Pro

The presence of a universal/absolute truth has been the subject of enthralling discussion between philosophers for quite some time.

In this particular debate, I am arguing that such a universal truth does exist.
Allow me to define:
A universal truth is a statement/claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false. Such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual.

I will cite a simple example:
Trees exist in Minnesota.

Of course, I will get more in depth in future rounds.
Rezzealaux

Con

I need to ask my opponent a few questions before I form my specific arguments, just so I don't waste space and time thinking about things that my opponent doesn't really mean.

- Your definition says "a statement", implying one. I would like to know the statement that you plan on asserting.

- On your definition of "truth", who exactly is ascertaining if something is true or false?

- If there is one, what is the significance of the word "presence" in the resolution?

I apologize if anyone expected something different this round.
Debate Round No. 1
oboeman

Pro

First and foremost, I apologize for not clarifying my first round to a greater extent, as it may seem somewhat vague.

I would also like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

To answer your questions:

"Your definition says "a statement", implying one. I would like to know the statement that you plan on asserting."

I am not necessarily planning on ascertaining any particular statement, but instead, my objective is to prove that a universal truth does indeed exist. However, for the sake of debate, if you request that we use a particular statement as a guide throughout debate, I will offer a few suggestions, as shown below:

Trees exist in Minnesota.
Obama would be a better president than McCain.
2+2=4.

The above examples of universal truths, again by definition, are certain to exist as either true or false (but not both) on a universal basis (including everyone).
Remember, I am not arguing whether or not a particular statement is true or false. Instead, I am arguing that a universal truth does indeed exist.

"On your definition of "truth", who exactly is ascertaining if something is true or false?"

No one must necessarily ascertain a universal truth. The point is, it CAN be ascertained. Instead, a universal truth is just naturally there. It is possible that one group of people would think that trees DO exist in Minnesota, and for another group to think that trees DO NOT exist in Minnesota. However, regardless of how the people think, trees, nonetheless, either DO or DO NOT exist in Minnesota. Therefore, one of those groups of people is wrong, and one is right, logically. A universal truth, I am arguing, is in fact ascertained when people logically deduce that a particular statement is either true or false. Until then, the status of that statement as true or false is unknown, but nonetheless, still exists as a universal truth (i.e. definitely either true or false, but still unknown until deduced).

"If there is one, what is the significance of the word "presence" in the resolution?"

I am arguing that a universal truth does exist, and therefore is, naturally, present. I think that you, as being the con in the debate, are arguing the contrary.

If you have any further questioning before actual argumentation begins, if you prefer, it would be acceptable with me for you to use the comment box, in which I can answer such questions.
Rezzealaux

Con

I, too, apologize for the confusion. I now understand my opponent's position.

Simply put, oboeman's position is that each statement is either objectively true or false.

I accept his definition of universal truth for this debate. Again, it is "a statement/claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false. Such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual."

Based off of those lines, I negate, that there is a universal truth.

Everything is based off of interpretation; nothing is objectively true or false. To begin with, not everyone has the same definitions for things. A kiwi that may be sweet to me may be very sour to someone else, whereas a car that seems to be traveling very fast to one person may look as slow as a snail to some others. Whereas there is a general consensus on many things, that general consensus changes when you move from place to place. But even if we disregard the amount of people that believe certain things (to do so would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy), who's to say that they are objectively right? My opponent provided an example statement in his R2, the statement that "2+2=4". From what we know so far, if I prove the statement either right or wrong then he wins, but right here, I'm going to show that the statement is neither right nor wrong – it is all based on what point of view you have.

This is an AIM conversation a friend and I had a while ago. The screennames are overwritten to protect privacy; I am RZA and he is PSC.

RZA:truth is a matter of perspective.
PSC:no it is not. true is true. 2+2=4
RZA:always?
PSC:yes
RZA:alright.
RZA:i challenge that statement.
RZA:advocacy: 2+2=1
RZA:warrant: 2 water droplets + 2 water droplets = 1 water droplet.
RZA:impact: it is a matter of perspective who wins the argument and who loses the argument, as you can take it from the perspective of volume or entities that appear.
RZA:from a volume standpoint
RZA:it would be 4.
RZA:from an entities standpoint
RZA:2 water droplets merged with 2 water droplets makes 1.
PSC:2-2=0
RZA:what about it
PSC:try that one
RZA:sure
RZA:i win this one too
RZA:2-2=2
RZA:2 water droplets
RZA:split one into three
RZA:take two of those three away
RZA:you have an original and a third
RZA:from an entities standpoint
RZA:it is still 2.
PSC:but that would make it 4-2=2
RZA:that's a step in the process, yes.
PSC:so 2-2=4-2=2?
RZA:yup.

My opponent attempted to place a pre-empt to this last round, in which he said "one of those groups of people is wrong, and one is right, logically". When I look to dictionary.com, however, logic means "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" . However, reliable and correct are also subjective; there is no way to objectively say if something is right or wrong. Many people in the Middle East think it's a just punishment to cut someone's hands off in public if they were caught stealing. In the United States we don't have much of a problem with people looking at each other, but in Japan, it is common for a person to have Jikoshisen-kyofu, which is a phobia of eye contact. Different cultures and different beliefs have different definitions for what's right and what's wrong, and most of them claim that their definitions are the ones that are objectively true.

Who's to say which one is correct and which one is not?

Who's to say that two plus two HAS TO equal four?
And on that note, who says two plus two HAS TO NOT equal four?

My friend has this saying that he made up some time ago, and it goes like this: "Our beliefs define our realities, our perceptions of those realities define our dreams, and our dreams in turn are the reason for which we choose our beliefs." I think it pretty much hits this issue on the dot.

It's all based on point of view.

There is no objective truth. Not statement is absolutely "wrong" or absolutely "right", although some belief systems perpetuate that as the truth. Hell, what I'm saying in this debate might not be fully true either… but at the same time, it can't be fully false. But my opponents position has to be evaluated differently, as it claims that [there is an absolute truth] and that the statement that [there is an absolute truth] is an absolute truth. This is definitely false, as nothing can be absolutely true or false.

I urge a negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
oboeman

Pro

Here goes:

Simply put, the position of Rezzealaux states that there is no universal truth. However, considering the fact that universal truths can be either true or false, Rezzealaux's own claim is a universal truth (as his claim is false). If his claim were true, it would only be contradictory.

"Everything is based off of interpretation; nothing is objectively true or false. To begin with, not everyone has the same definitions for things. A kiwi that may be sweet to me may be very sour to someone else, whereas a car that seems to be traveling very fast to one person may look as slow as a snail to some others."

Allow me to explain:
Everything may be subject to individual interpretation; in that you are obviously correct. However, simply because something is subjected to individual interpretation does not mean it is not universally true/false. Of course, not everyone might share a mutual definition for a particular word, but regardless, a word matters little when compared to its definition and intent by the one using it. Arguing that "not everyone has the same definitions for things" is irrelevant in this debate, as it should be naturally assumed that the definition for a given word choice by the word user is mutually agreed upon.
Also, I did not say that ALL statements must have a universal truth value as either true or false. Such statements that do not have a particular universal truth value include opinions. One may ask how to identify and distinguish an opinion from other statements. An opinion uses adjectives (i.e. words that can not easily be defined, and are subject to the arbitrary preferences of an individual). In your kiwi example, the words "sweet" and "sour" are subject to an arbitrary value scale by each particular individual. One may say the kiwi is sweet, and another say it is sour. Is either one of them wrong? No, considering that it is in the eye of the beholder for such opinions. However, if one says that the kiwi is on top of the kitchen table, they are issuing a universal truth. The kiwi either is on top of the kitchen table or it is not; it is not subject to any arbitrary opinions.

Ultimately, opinions are in the eye of the beholder (containing particular adjectives that are meant to be subject to arbitrary preference, and therefore are not defined on a universal basis for everyone).
Other statements, besides opinions, are considered universal truths (i.e. true or false on a universal basis). Of course, though, one may disagree with a universal truth, but the universal truth still stands.
All definitions must be identified in a universal truth to determine the true intent of particular words.

Referring to your AIM conversation with your friend:
So, basically, two plus two does not have to equal four. However, the initial claim by PSC (2+2=4) utilized no definitions, and therefore, one does not know for certain whether PSC was referring to raindrops or not. For the sake of proving this argument to support my initial claim (a universal truth does exist), let us briefly assume that PSC was referring to raindrops. Therefore, two raindrops plus two raindrops equals one raindrop. Is the preceding statement not a universal truth?
Truth is a matter of perspective until definitions are used. Once one defines the twos used (i.e. defining what the twos refer to), and any other essential definitions necessary, the perspective drops. Of course, one may still say that two raindrops merged into two raindrops equals 3.14 raindrops or whatever other number they want to use, but then they are simply incorrect.
In your AIM conversation with your friend, you seemed to be cleverly taking advantage of the fact that no definitions were provided, and therefore devised your own universal truths (i.e. two raindrops plus two raindrops always equals one raindrop when merged).

"In the United States we don't have much of a problem with people looking at each other, but in Japan, it is common for a person to have Jikoshisen-kyofu, which is a phobia of eye contact. Different cultures and different beliefs have different definitions for what's right and what's wrong, and most of them claim that their definitions are the ones that are objectively true."

I have no intentions of speaking for different cultures, but only for our own, as that is the one I am a part of. I did, however, get to experience Japanese culture, as I have visited the country before. I am therefore aware of such a phobia.
In a given culture, it can be either right or wrong to make eye contact. That (i.e. preceding statement) could substitute as a universal truth, as the world is quite plentiful with a variety of cultures.
Of course, there can be a culture that does not even care if one makes eye contact or not. Yet, by the use of "can be" in the universal truth I just devised, this is permitted.

There is an absolute/universal truth. The preceding statement, I claim, is also a universal truth (stating that there IS one). That statement can be either true or false. Are you absolutely sure that it is false? Or is it merely a point of view, in which case I would still be correct?
Next, you claim that it "is definitely false, as nothing can be absolutely true or false." So, basically, you are using a universal truth to establish that a universal truth does not exist. The other option would be to state that there is a universal truth. Either way, you are not contradicting my claim.

I look forward to your rebuttal.
Rezzealaux

Con

I'm going to go about this in order of what I believe is clearest.

Oboeman says that in my proving that there is no universal truth, it essentially proves that there is a universal truth, since I claim that his case is absolutely false – in short, he puts a full case turn on me. However, this will not work as the nature of my claim, along with the definition of Universal Truth (UT); necessarily make it impossible for him to turn my position.

Let's start at the beginning.

Since R1 we have both agreed that UT is defined as "A universal truth is a statement/claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false. Such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual." My position as the CON says that nothing can be absolutely true or false, because everything is based off of interpretation, and that there is no way that one person can say that their opinion is better than another's.

PRO then comes up in his R3 and says "Aha! Since my definition says "either true OR false" and you have shown that it is false, then that means there IS a universal truth – that there is no universal truth!"

There are three reasons for why this statement is fallacious.

1) That position relies on the assumption that my case is absolutely true. His definition says "such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of personal opinions or beliefs of an individual,", and that such a statement "can be ascertained to be true or false". However, since I have told you that my case is based off of my point of view – which necessarily breaks the definition of UT – and since he has not shown how my case is absolutely true, it is impossible to use my position as a warrant for his. Right now, if you look at his case there actually are no warrants that his side is true other than my case. Since he CAN NOT make new points in the last round, it's already game over and you sign the ballot CON.

And just because my case isn't absolutely true doesn't mean I lose the debate.

I'm just proving he has no offense.

And since he has nothing for his burden of proof,

I'm winning.

2) He's attempting to cycle "universal truth", but no matter how long he chains it, from {[there is no universal truth] is a universal truth} to {[[there is no universal truth] is not a universal truth] is a universal truth} and beyond, I still win because all of those chains will be in the format of "X is a universal truth" (where X is the previous cycle), and they will all still fall under the definition of UT, which, when combined with my case, destroys all possible repetitions because none of them can be ascertained to be true or false in a way that does not involve personal beliefs or opinions.

And he's already agreed that "[e]verything may be subject to individual interpretation".

3) Speaking of which, that's another reason why his case falls. Since he used my case as an anchor, he is also bound to what my case claims. That means right now he is arguing two things: 1) That there are truths that are "true" and "false", and that 2) everything is subject to individual perspectives. Those two statements, as we know, are contradictory. This means that we must drop his entire case, as we do not know exactly what he is saying.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way…

"Also, I did not say that ALL statements must have a universal truth value as either true or false."

>ABUSE: He's changed his position several times now. First of all, his definition of universal truth reads "a statement" and his R1 says particular statement, which is fine with me. But in the second round, he then says "I am not arguing whether or not a particular statement is true or false". Since there was a lot of confusion between R1 and R2, I assumed that what he said last was the best thing to go upon. From that I made my case in R2, which said that there was no universal truth for every statement: He specified EXACTLY that he wished to debate EVERYTHING:

"Instead, I am arguing that a universal truth does indeed exist".

But NOW in R3 HE SAYS ‘not ALL'? This is clearly shifting advocacy, and therefore is a voter against him. On this issue alone I win the debate.

And NOW we go to the line-by-line.

"Such statements that do not have a particular universal truth value include opinions. One may ask how to identify and distinguish an opinion from other statements […] words that can not easily be defined, and are subject to the arbitrary preferences of an individual"

>Everything is an opinion. I'll use the same format from something on his side: "the kiwi is on top of the kitchen table". Refutation: Existence is pretty arbitrary. My girlfriend used to be on top of my world. She doesn't exist anymore.

Everything is arbitrary; even my and my opponent's cases.

"However, simply because something is subjected to individual interpretation does not mean it is not universally true/false."

>This is false. If something is subject to individual interpretation it necessarily means that it cannot be objectively true or false, as no person can claim that they are more right than another person. Oboeman has not responded to this tail component of the whole issue, and here his position again falls entirely.

"[…] it should be naturally assumed that the definition for a given word choice by the word user is mutually agreed upon."

>1) He uses the assumption that there is a universal truth to claim that there is a universal truth. This makes as much sense as assuming that majority opinion is correct to prove that majority opinion is correct. (Which it isn't; logical fallacy ‘argumentum ad populum'.)
2) If we all used words that were mutually agreed upon, we wouldn't need to define things. Like in his R1 and my R2.

"[L]et us briefly assume that PSC was referring to raindrops [...]"

>Starting from the top.
1) It is not a universal truth that two raindrops plus two raindrops equals one raindrop. It is a perspective. I stated this in the conversation.
2) Truth is a matter of perspective no matter what definitions are used. You can define all you like; people will still be able to choose to look at the raindrops/waterdrops/etc. from entities and volume standpoints. My opponent's refutation to this is that one of them would be "simply incorrect", but that again uses the assumption that there is a universal truth to claim that there is a universal truth. I explained how this doesn't prove anything earlier. His usage of "simply" is pretty much the same thing as "logically", which, as I said last round, is also up to interpretation.
3) Even if truth is a matter of perspective until definitions are used, definitions usually aren't written or said within a statement (as in people usually don't say "Abortion is wrong, whereas abort is defined as….."), so that would make it nontopical. To assume that everyone uses the same definition is not only abusive, but also ridiculous. But that's my point of view. [This also responds to "All definitions must be identified in a universal truth to determine the true intent of particular words."]

"[…] you seemed to be cleverly taking advantage […]"

>Silence is consent, so he agreed with the water droplets definitions on the second statement; "2-2=0". I proved that 2-2=0 was also a matter of perspective. There was no "taking advantage".

"In a given culture, it can be either right or wrong to make eye contact."

>Since my opponent has agreed that different cultures have different PERSPECTIVES on things, and since these "universal truths" are subject to interpretation, the "universal truths" are no longer universal and therefore he loses the debate.

Not enough space to do a wrap-up. But I still have R4.

I await Oboeman's last offense.
Debate Round No. 3
oboeman

Pro

Alright, so your argument is based off of point of view. In that case, my argument STILL stands. A universal truth still functions with these conditions. For example, the following:
"Rezzealaux's argument is based off of point of view."
The preceding statement is STILL a universal truth.

I have proven the existence of numerous universal truths throughout this debate. For example, two raindrops plus two raindrops merge into one raindrop. This statement is either true or false, and its status as true or false will not change due to the perspectives of others. Simply because one may think that two raindrops merged with two raindrops does not equal one raindrop, and another may think that two raindrops merged with two raindrops equals one raindrop, under the same definitions and circumstances, both cannot be factually correct. Just because their perspective differs from the truth, the fact of the matter still remains:
The statement "Two raindrops plus two raindrops merge into one raindrop" is either true or false, but not both.
Thus, by proving that a universal truth even exists, I have proven that the repetitions are valid.

There are indeed universal truths, I am arguing, that are either true or false. As well, everything is subject to individual interpretation. However, these two statements are NOT contradictory.
On an individual level, anyone can think however way they so choose, as it is their mind, and no one is controlling their thought processes. Just because something is subject to individual interpretation does not mean that every interpretation may be TRUE, however.

MISINTERPRETATION by Rezzealaux:
Quite the contrary, I have not altered my position at all.
In Round 2, I said "I am not arguing whether or not a particular statement is true or false," but you misconstrued this, claiming I have changed my position from previous rounds. What I meant by this statement was that my objective was not to debate whether a particular statement is indeed either TRUE or FALSE, but merely to prove that a universal truth exists (i.e. that it IS either true or false, not necessarily which one though). My goal in this debate was not to prove that trees exist in Minnesota, for example, but instead to use it as a guideline to prove than a UNIVERSAL TRUTH exists.
Secondly, I in no way specified that I wanted to debate that there exists a universal truth for every statement.
"Instead, I am arguing that a universal truth does indeed exist."
The above statement depicts, explicitly, that I am debating the presence of A universal truth. It is utter nonsense that one would induce that I am debating that all statements have intrinsic universal truth values.
Therefore, indeed, not all statements have a universal truth value. Most definitely, however, some do.

I clearly stated in my Round 2 that opinions (statements with no universal truth value) can be distinguished by the direct usage of adjectives, such as in: "Kiwis are sour."
If one were to make a scale ranging from sweet to sour, the specific spot where something turns from sweet to sour is relative, and thus not universal.

Regarding the latter statement: "The Kiwi is on top of the table."
Existence is NOT universally arbitrary. Of course, anyone has the right to dispute the truth of the matter. However, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with the statement, it still is universally true, as it either IS on top of the table, or IS NOT on top of the table; it is a black-and-white issue. Existence is not altered by the preference of the individual; though one may choose to think that the Kiwi is not on top of the table (assuming it IS on top), it still IS on top of the table.
All statements, except for opinion statements, can be universally measured.

"If something is subject to individual interpretation it necessarily means that it cannot be objectively true or false, as no person can claim that they are more right than another person."

Anyone, assuming their brain and cognitive abilities permit it, can choose to have their own interpretation of anything presented before them.
Given: Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was originally scored for two oboes (for the section), by the composer himself.
Person A may think that this piece of music was originally scored for two oboes, while person B may think it was originally scored for fifteen oboes.
Is either person more right than the other? Of course, person A is right. Even though person B is wrong, he can still think what he so chooses, he is merely factually incorrect.

"Truth is a matter of perspective no matter what definitions are used."

Complete definitions utilized in a statement will leave no room for interpretation error. The definitions, being thorough, should include whether raindrops are referring to an entity/volume standpoint. A matter of perspective may exist when something is not concise.

"Even if truth is a matter of perspective until definitions are used, definitions usually aren't written or said within a statement . . . .so that would make it nontopical."

Nonsense. One may say that the kiwi is on top of the table, but what good does it do if someone does not understand what a table is? For example, a table could be considered a flat platform supported by vertical legs. If person A thought the table in context was being defined as such, but person B thought a table was a set of data arranged in rows and columns, a universal truth would not be able to be determined due to interpretation error. The kiwi may be on top of the flat platform supported by vertical legs, but it may not be on top of the set of data arranged in rows and columns. Thus, in order to establish a universal truth, definitions must be utilized. It must be assumed that words used in a universal truth statement are mutually defined.
Obviously, as mentioned above, not everyone might use the same definition initially (e.g. definitions of table). However, if one claims that the kiwi is on top of the table, it is up to him to define potential definition disagreements to avoid misinterpretation.

"Silence is consent, so he agreed with…. "2-2=0". I proved that 2-2=0 was also a matter of perspective."

The primary reason I did not specifically argue the "2-2=2" example was because I could get my point across just as readily by only using the example of "2+2=1." My point dealt with the definitions being used, and my response to the latter example would be quite similar to the former, of which I did rebuttal.

"There was no ‘taking advantage'."

I was merely using my own perspective of what I thought you might have been doing. Apparently, I may have been wrong. Indeed, my own perspective may have been wrong. This only proves my point further, that personal perspectives do not change inherent truths.

"Since my opponent has agreed that different cultures have different PERSPECTIVES on things, and since these "universal truths" are subject to interpretation, the "universal truths" are no longer universal."

Though examining different societies, universal truths can still be drawn. Such a universal truth would include the one I issued previously:
"In a given culture, it can be either right or wrong to make eye contact."
This statement fits accordingly to our definition of universal truth.

Reasons to vote PRO:
I have successfully proven the existence of a universal truth (according to our definition), as well as having established the truth surrounding it.
I have successfully argued my points, proving them to be correct, as well as rebutted against my opponent's arguments.

I hope that this debate and enthralling discussion brought about an amelioration of the reality of this long-debated philosophical concept.

It would be highly advisable to vote PRO: A universal truth does exist.

I thank my opponent, and I look forward to reading his Round 4 rebuttal. The debate was fun,
Oboeman.
Rezzealaux

Con

I will respond to the thesis of his case first, then the other two main issues, the line-by-line, and finish with a summary.

For convenience, the three arguments presented before "ABUSE" in R3 shall be called O1, O2 and O3, respectively. I will not be using O3 due to character limits.

_________
Every time oboeman attempts to show that there is a universal truth, he uses this format: "X is either true or false" (X being an example). Usually the follow up is either an attachment of the definition – "X is either true or false, regardless of personal opinion" – or a repeat of something he's said since R2 – "X is logically true or false, but not both."

He has used this several times in R4. I will not quote them all, but here are two examples; one for each of the two formats.

< "This statement is either true or false, and its status as true or false will not change due to the perspectives of others." > and < "The statement "Two raindrops plus two raindrops merge into one raindrop" is either true or false, but not both." >

Now, why is the statement "X is either true or false" true? The reason why you can't find a justification in his R4, ladies and gentlemen, is because I have already killed his warrant for that statement. In R2 he indeed does give a reason for "X is either true or false". Quote: "one of those groups of people is wrong, and one is right, logically." In my round directly after, I took out that reason by saying that "[w]hen I look to dictionary.com, however, logic means "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" . However, reliable and correct are also subjective; there is no way to objectively say if something is right or wrong." If you look through his R3 and R4, you will not see any counters to the refutation I just made.

Since he has not proved that statements MUST be EITHER true or false, his case already falls.

_________
""Rezzealaux's argument is based off of point of view." The preceding statement is STILL a universal truth."

>By this my opponent means "Rezzealaux's argument is based off of point of view" must logically be true or false. As I said earlier, he dropped his warrant for that. Since O1, O2 and O3 were originally made to prevent a turn of my case, apply those again here. O1 says that PRO must first prove how my case is a UT to use it as a warrant for his side – PRO simply does not. O2 also pre-empted this argument and prevents him from cycling anything to have a UT on top of it.

"I have proven the existence of numerous universal truths throughout this debate."

>He has proved nothing. He has just claimed that "X is a universal truth", and X has been quite a number of things. However, since I have defeated that statement in principle, any example he gives in that format has already also been taken out. That principle, as I have stated since R2, is that everything is subject to personal opinion and no one person can say that their opinion is better than another – and if the definition of UT is "a statement or claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false[…]", then there is necessarily no UT because we can't EVER tell who is actually right. The keyword is "Ascertain". Even if you want buy my opponent's argument that everything MUST be EITHER true or false, his case still falls entirely at this point as well because he has never told us how to tell which point of view is true or false. Because we cannot ascertain, we cannot fulfill the definition of UT, and because we cannot fulfill the definition of UT we cannot vote PRO.

_________
"MISINTERPRETATION/ABUSE"

>PRO changes his position within the same chunk in R4. "What I meant by this statement was […] to prove that a universal truth exists." As I said before, I'm fine with the lets-not-talk-specifically-about-trees sort of thing. Based on that assumption – that has now been confirmed – grammar dictates that it would mean that oboeman is talking about everything.

Let's take an example.
"A cup is plastic".
oboeman says, "No specific cup".
"Cups are plastic" would be the altered statement, due to grammar.

If we are not talking about a specific statement, then we are specifying every statement. My opponent's deviation of "most of the time" in R3 can be likened to "Cups are sometimes plastic". That's fine too, but his case no longer links to what he had stated his burden of proof was. We agreed that we would not be using specific statements, so that would mean all statements. His case, now talking about "most" things, doesn't meet the requirements that he himself set up. However, he's now claiming that he didn't make that statement, and that all the time he's said "A universal truth". That's okay with me, but "A" is singular, and we've already agreed that we aren't talking about specific statements. So what exactly are we talking about? If he didn't specify before and is specifying now, that's abuse, and if he did specify [everything] as I said then he's still a shifting advocacy.

_________
"Existence is NOT universally arbitrary."

> No warrant for this. "Either does or does not exist" has already been responded to.

"Is either person more right than the other?"

>Is it? This was the question I posed since R2. It has never been answered. All I've gotten is "THIS perspective" or "THAT perspective", but no reasons why they are true. WHY can one person say he's more right than the other? WHY can one person say that he has the universal truth? Simply put, one person cannot. This links back to the whole "ascertain" issue, in which I have already won.

"Complete definitions utilized in a statement will leave no room for interpretation error."

>{Alright, let's take it from an entities standpoint then. I think 2+2=4. Why am I wrong? Because other people think so – oh wait, that's a logical fallacy. Why am I right? I don't know. Because I said so.} Interpretation is not an "error". It is a choice. A choice that none of us as humans have the right to judge. Or perhaps we do? In any case, this issue that I have posed since R2 was never responded to by the PRO.

"Nonsense[…]"

> His winning of that point gets him nowhere, though. Interpretations precede all.

"I was merely using my own perspective of what I thought you might have been doing. Apparently, I may have been wrong. Indeed, my own perspective may have been wrong. This only proves my point further, that personal perspectives do not change inherent truths."

> Does not break "Ascertain".

_________
Since he is abusive,
And since he has failed to show why everything MUST be EITHER true or false,
And because even if we assume that there is T/F status to everything, there is no way to ascertain it,
And due to the fact that the "True or False" and "Ascertain" are part of the definition of "Universal Truth",
He fails to prove the Presence of a Universal Truth and therefore,

You vote CON.

_________
Thank you, as well, for the intriguing debate Oboeman.

Regards,
Rezzealaux
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Trees don't exist in Minnesota because neither Minnesota nor trees exist.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Thankfully, the comments section cannot be linked into the debate at this point. Good for me, since there's less stuff to talk about, and good for you because I don't have to call abuse twice.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Oboeman, I am negating a similiar resolution, you should check it out.

If you disagree with something, post a comment, because opponent closed his account, leaving me with nothing left to refute.

Thanks.

-Alexander
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Oh wait, I just realized that in my previous comment post, I wrote the opposite of my intent; I meant the following:

The statement "There is no absolute truth" is bound to be either true or false. Given that it would be contradictory if it were TRUE, one can derive it therefore must be FALSE, meaning that there is indeed an absolute/universal truth.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Oh yeah, and thanks!

:D
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Same here.

I'm having a 2 round debate with a similiar topic.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Whoops" I wrote something wrong and now I'm having a big headache figuring out how to win this thing. I'm grasping it though; it's becoming easier since I'm finding small holes in his case here and there to climb to the top, where I can make it all crumble down. I see it already, actually, I'm just trying to put it into words.

And sure you can use my examples.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Whoops, what?

Rezzealaux, can I use one of your examples?
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Hmmmmmm. Whoops.

Oh well, I'll just have to deal with it.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
So that statement is relative?

or is it neither true nor false?

I'm still a little confused.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
oboemanRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by edwardsdebater 8 years ago
edwardsdebater
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Casiopia 8 years ago
Casiopia
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
oboemanRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03