The Instigator
Cooperman88
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

There is absolute 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: 3/10/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,358 times Debate No: 3176
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (16)

 

Cooperman88

Pro

To say there is no absolute truth is a contradictory statement. By saying that is true. There has to be absolute truth in this world.
Johnicle

Con

Truth is an opinion... When seeing this debate, I had to accept to prove that opinions are variant and changing... Thus,

There is NOT absolute truth.

To prove this, I offer the following arguments...

1. Truth is an opinion.
If I were to ask 10 people what they thought of the death penalty, abortion, and President Bush... I am fairly sure that they will all have a different opinion on them all. I have the truth that abortion is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, and the current president isn't one of our best. Although I have that truth conception, does not mean that other people do. The fact that we are debating the truth on if the truth is absolute should automatically be enough to show you that truth is not absolute but is in fact an opinion.

2. Opinions don't have absolute truth.
This argument is fairly accepted. Simply cross-apply my previous explanation and if there is further argumentation, I would be happy to explain.

3. Facts don't have absolute truth.
This argument is merely proven by the variation of perceptions. For example, someone could look at fire hydrant and say it was red, but someone else could look at it and say it was dark red. Both could be considered facts but yet are not "absolute." Another example could be someone killing someone. One could say that it was murder but another could consider it an accident so not consider it "murder." Once again, both are facts but are once again, not absolute, and when looking at the topic of debate, it very specifically uses the word "is", implying that pro has to absolutely prove, absolute truth... Something that I have actually proven as opinion thus making the topic itself not absolute truth, thus, I urge you to vote Con...

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
Cooperman88

Pro

Firstly, you don't have to prove that opinions are variant and changing. The very definition of opinion implies that it is going to change from person to person.

I would first like to say that truth is not an opinion. Truth is what is true. I know you can't define a word by itself, but that's the best way. If something is true, than it cannot be changed by someone's opinion. Take the example of a murderer, which you bring up. When he goes to court whether people think that it was an accident or he murdered him doesn't matter. If in fact someone was murdered, than the truth is absolute. That person is a murderer. Even if the jury finds that person to be innocent. Someone's opinion will never change what is true. Even with your first argument, just because there are different opinions on truth doesn't mean that truth isn't absolute. To say that all the opinions are correct is absolutely absurd. There is one correct answer. They both can't be correct. If one person says that abortion is always wrong, and another says that it is right; they can't both be right. One is wrong and one is right. Different opinions do not mean that truth is not absolute. It just means there are different opinions.

Your second argument is correct, but it holds no merit if you fail to prove that truth is in fact just opinion. Which you have not done so far. Your third argument is very similar to your first. You make one flaw. Fact is true. Fact has been proven true. There is a force that holds everything down to earth. We define that force as gravity. So that force is fact. If I were to say there was no such thing as gravity, that doesn't make gravity unreal. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not mean that facts do not exist.

Now for my argument. I said in my first speech that the very statement there are no absolute truths disproves itself. By saying that, you are establishing an absolute truth. When I as the pro prove at the very minimum one absolute truth, then I must recieve your vote. The con says there is no absolute truth, and therefore establishes an absolute truth. therefore I must win.
Johnicle

Con

-You must vote Con for the following reasons,
Truth........ is in the eye of the beholder. What people perceive is their truth. People's truth is not absolute and is in no way the same. Absolute Truth does not exist as truth is only the perception of facts. Facts are not absolute and perception is not absolute. To prove this, I offer the following definition of truth (from dictionary.com; Unabridged Dictionary)...

"accuracy, as of position or adjustment"

Simply by this, you must see that truth is how accurate something is. The question then stands... can there be something 100% accurate. What you have to see is that even if you determine accurate such as my car being red, you would be right. But it is not absolute. This can be seen through the possibility of it changing in the future... (in other words, it is red now but could be blue in the future... This can also be seen as not 100% true... (as it is actually more of a dark maroon and not red)... This could also be seen as not completely red... (as there are black tires and black outlines all around it)... Finally, this could be seen as not everyone knowing that it is red... (as not everyone knows what my car's color is or even a colorblind person not being able to distinguish the color or even a dog not being able to identify any color whatsoever... all of these facts are true, but not absolutely true. And as I offer the only examples throughout this debate, you must flow these to the Con side.

Now onto refutation of a few of my opponents points (straight down his last speech)

"Firstly, you don't have to prove that opinions are variant and changing. The very definition of opinion implies that it is going to change from person to person."---------->

This argument simply says that opinion and truth has nothing in common. This is not true. To prove this, let's first analyze where opinions come from. This is obviously from the brain of each individual in existence. Now the question remains of where do facts come from? Once again, from enough opinions to make it a fact. I do not deny in this debate that there is truth in the world (or at least versions of it), but I simply can not call these truths absolute. Absolute is defined (by dictionary.com; Unabridged Dictionary) as free from imperfection; complete; perfect." What I have to say along with this is that if you say that someone is a murderer, that is true (but not absolutely true) as they could easily become a mass murderer a few years down the road (therefore not being complete) Or possibly the murders were actually accidents (meaning the truth isn't perfect and is not free from imperfection) Or maybe even the "murders" were all in a dream. In other words, to be absolute, is impossible (meaning that the interpretation that made this "truthful" may have in fact been false.

"I would first like to say that truth is not an opinion. Truth is what is true. I know you can't define a word by itself, but that's the best way. If something is true, than it cannot be changed by someone's opinion."--------->

He says that truth is what is true. Although this IS a vague definition I must ask you, what (or who) determines what is true? The fact is, that what it true is only determined by interpretation. For example, I interpret abortion as wrong and I think that is "true." But obviously other people consider abortion perfectly acceptable. Which is another example of truth by perception and more importantly truth that isn't absolute.

"Take the example of a murderer, which you bring up. When he goes to court whether people think that it was an accident or he murdered him doesn't matter. If in fact someone was murdered, than the truth is absolute. That person is a murderer. Even if the jury finds that person to be innocent. ."-->

What you determine as a murder, I might determine as self-defence. What you determine as a moral act (such as abortion (I don't actually know your opinions (but they are not absolute :))) I might determine it as immoral. What you determine as a blue chair, I might determine as a light blue chair. What I determine as a light blue chair, might later be painted dark green. What is absolute? What is only in your mind. People's mind and truths are different, making absolute truth, non-existent.

"Someone's opinion will never change what is true. Even with your first argument, just because there are different opinions on truth doesn't mean that truth isn't absolute. To say that all the opinions are correct is absolutely absurd. "-->

This statement is simply a logical fallacy by NOT proving the resolution (or debate topic) true. All that he MAY prove with this argument is that truth is truth... but truth is not ABSOLUTE truth. He argues that what happened... happened and no ones opinion will change that. What you have to see is that what happened may not be "finished." And to meet up with the definition of "absolute", it must be finished. For example, O.J. Simpson has been considered of being a murderer. (let's just assume he is for argumentative sake) You now have the truth that he killed someone. (he murdered if you will)... HOWEVER, this truth is not absolute... This is because 1) An investigation did not find this truth... 2) He may kill two more people and then be defined as a serial killer... 3) The murders may have been in self-defense... 4) Not everyone accepts this truth (therefore not perfect) 5) O.J. Simpson can also be called a football player (and the "murder" part of him be completely ignored) 6) O.J. is now on trial for another crime that has nothing to do with murder making him MORE than a murderer. Truth is NOT absolute.

"There is one correct answer. They both can't be correct. If one person says that abortion is always wrong, and another says that it is right; they can't both be right. One is wrong and one is right. Different opinions do not mean that truth is not absolute. It just means there are different opinions."------>

Here is my question then... How do you expect people to vote for you when you don't even know which person is correct? There are at least two answers to everything... which one is "absolute." You have shaded this topic to make it so difficult to distinguish between what is "true", and if there is any sort of "absolute"... I, at least, have not seen enough to consider this make shift truth absolute...

"Your second argument is correct, but it holds no merit if you fail to prove that truth is in fact just opinion. Which you have not done so far." ----->

Again, the abortion argument... I hold the truth that abortion is wrong... That's my opinion that I consider to be truth.

"Your third argument is very similar to your first. You make one flaw. Fact is true. Fact has been proven true. There is a force that holds everything down to earth. We define that force as gravity. So that force is fact. If I were to say there was no such thing as gravity, that doesn't make gravity unreal. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not mean that facts do not exist."

So far in this round, my opponent has proven that there are facts in the world. But NO WHERE has he proven that these facts will not change, therefore not proving that absolute truth exists (as it does not).

And now onto my opponents argument.

"Now for my argument. I said in my first speech that the very statement there are no absolute truths disproves itself. By saying that, you are establishing an absolute truth. When I as the pro prove at the very minimum one absolute truth, then I must receive your vote. The con says there is no absolute truth, and therefore establishes an absolute truth. therefore I must win."------>

I'm sorry, but you do not win here... You say that I try to establish an absolute truth on Con. Right, I ATTEMPT to establish an absolute truth, but that is impossible as it is only 1 opinion and is not absolute.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
Cooperman88

Pro

Cooperman88 forfeited this round.
Johnicle

Con

The last round being forfeited is quite disappointing. My opponent has only truly had one speech. Nevertheless, I will show how I win... First off, flow through ALL of my last speech as this stands in the end of this round. Secondly, you will see that there is NO absolute truth. Look back in this round and you will see that my opponent has offered no absolute truth that has not gone argued. If absolute truth exists, then where is it. The fact that there is a website where you can debate ANYTHING shows that nothing is absolute. My opponent has not showed that anything is true AND absolute. Flow through my definition of absolute as "free from imperfection; complete; perfect"... my opponent has not proved any of these. ANYTHING is not perfect and EVERYTHING could change (which proves everything as not "complete") Therefore, I can only see the voters as voting Con in this round.

Thanks for this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by iadebater 8 years ago
iadebater
EXTENTIONS.... :) LOL. HONESTLY, THERE IS A MAJOR CONTRADICTION. I KNOW IT'S TRUE THAT THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH - - DOESN'T NEED TO BE TAKEN MUCH FURTHER.
Posted by smiletrishalovesyou 8 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
murder's okay, i get what he was getting at, he just needed to say so & so killed so & so. death.
Posted by karlynjane 8 years ago
karlynjane
HAHAHAHHA, "flow through all of my last speech"
it's sooo clear who on this site is an actual debater
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Pro picked a bad example (murder). I would have said the sun exists right now, today. That is an absolute truth and not an opinioin. But then again someone can argue that you only perceive it to be there, when in fact it really isn't by saying you cant see it at night. And someone will most assuredly make a statement in a similar concept, although it is quite lame. Con used a similar concept with the red car being blue in the future. There is one absolute truth, no two people are exactly a like and you can carry that as far into the future as you want, even a clone wont be exactly the same as it's original there will be detectable differences.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 meganlg43 8 years ago
meganlg43
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 shaqdaddy34 8 years ago
shaqdaddy34
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 Teddy_Bear 8 years ago
Teddy_Bear
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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 iadebater 8 years ago
iadebater
Cooperman88JohnicleTied
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