The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

There is absolute truth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,226 times Debate No: 23768
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (4)




I was thinking we could copy and paste the first two rounds and start from the same point.

Debate ethics:

-straw men are to be taken seriously.

-No semantic games. Semantics for clarification only

-a response must assume what most likely was meant by the speaker.

-refutation must quote the claim being refuted.



I thank my opponent for instigating the topic. To avoid having an extra round I'll let him go first. I assume, in taking this debate, that my opponent has the BOP to show that there is absolute truth. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


The Fool:

For the absolute sceptic is often called the global sceptic, this is a position a philosopher makes up as a rival for whom he must test his claims against to see if they pass. But one thing I should make clear is to mention that not all philosophers are philosophers. I don’t mean this in a contradicting manner of course; I mean that since the definition of philosopher ‘lover of wisdom’ coined by the Greeks the range of those that are considered philosophers have come to vary so much that there no one definition that would encompass broad spectrum of what philosophy is considered today, so much that the term philosophy has lost credibility, to the point where a demarcation needs to be made to mark off the difference between what people are doing.

The reason why I mention this is because like philosophy, there are certain terms in language that have high positive connotations that people want to claim, and in doing so the descriptive meanings gets lost and manipulated so much that over time they get manipulated to the point where they mean nothing in particular.

Words like, beauty, intelligence, knowledge, strength, logic, good, evil, and at the top the heap Truth,

That is, if I was to coin a definition today that has a strong conative meaning, the chances are likely that even with a clear descriptive definition it would pass through the society and come back out in a dictionary five years with 3 or 4 different, meaning, and it would be considered subjective.

But the Word of the day here is Truth, even more so absolute truth. I would further argue that this is the only truth, but my burden here is simply to prove that there is at least one such Truth. This debate was sparked in a forum in which the Con, said, “I'd gladly defend the proposition "There is no absolute truth" if somebody challenges me to it.” but after being challenged he has reduced his claim to the assumption that the Burdon of Proof is on me. But hey this is not about absolute integrity it’s about absolute truth, so maybe foolishly or not I will let that slide.

For if we believe something, we should be proud to demonstrate it as clear as a sunny sky.

Part one

The first approach I will take is to try and prove the opposite, simply that there is no absolute truth. But we should recognize quickly the ‘Sceptics paradox’, in that the very proposition that there is no absolute truth must first be absolutely true, which makes the claim of the proposition impossible.

Part two

The Second proof is simply to examine what absolute means, the absolute is simply the Universe, in the original philosophers definition All things that exist.

This is not to be confused with the scientific definition ‘all physical things’ nor with the theologian definition where there exist an outside, But the original meaning referring to absolutely everything, All things that exist Period. In whatever or whichever form they might be. Thus things that are true in the absolute universe are of course absolutely true. Mind you this also refers to all things that are subjective for they exist within the absolute universe; for even an illusion must be a true illusion.

Part two

“The truth is the absolute and the absolute is the truth alone” Hegel.

It has always been talked about as though the truth is so confusing, as though it’s so hard to know what is true, when the truth is one of the easiest concepts to understand. It is only complex and difficult to those who wish to continue to claim something as true when in fact it isn’t. But if you are those who are ready to change you beliefs in accordance with logical proof and upon knew information it is quite simple. Firstly, the truth is not something you could define or dictate, it is only something you can describe. It is not a theory, for a theory would always be less than the truth and it is the truth is absolute, so it could never be something of possibility.

But in all this, whatever the truth may there is one thing about it we can know for sure. And that is the Truth is the Truth, Aka Truth=Truth, for the truth could never be anything else or it wouldn’t be true. Truth=/=False. In fact it would be false. In other words a thing in itself is a thing in itself, for it could not be anything else or it would not be that thing. A=A. 1=1

Therefore anything would violates this Law of truth would be false. And there is only thing which could violate this law. And that my friend is a contradiction. (1-1=0) For the Law of Truth is simply the positive Version of the Law of non-contradiction.

That is if ‘A’ is a particular truth must Its self. Aka Thus A must absolute be A or it is false.

I will leave this for now but note that any attempt to proof them wrong presumes an Absolute truth, and that is what makes it futile.


1. Sceptics paradox

2. Absolute universe

3. Law of truth

As always fresh philosophy from a Fresh Fool, we are talking Kool and The Gang Fresh.

Vote Fool!



I thank my opponent for opening the substantive part of the debate.

My assumption about burden of proof was backed only by the fact that the affirmative typically has the burden of proof in debating. If you read over the thread you'll see that my main purpose was to show that the sceptic's paradox isn't particularly strong (which it isn't). In this kind of philosophical motion it isn't really so important anyway, so I'd like to begin by making a few refutations, and then explaining my own case.

Sceptic's paradox

The problem with this is that it attempts to assign a classical binary truth value to the statement "all truth is subjective." The philosopher Saul Kripke has been thinking about this for ages, and has written several very influential papers dealing with a related paradox called the liar paradox, which also asserts a supposedly self-refuting sentence. He argues that there is a distinction between grounded and ungrounded statements. A grounded statement is ultimately based on a fact about the world. In our case, the statement "all truth is subjective" is not premised on any worldly facts and is thus considered ungrounded. Kripke reasons that ungrounded statements do not have a truth value - they are not true, nor are they false. The basis for this observation is some fairly complex philosophy, but it's also quite intuitive - an idea does not become true or untrue until it finds some basis in the real world (and if my opponent disagrees, then this is only further proof that the whole concept of "truth" is subjective). But of course you can't test whether all truth is subjective or absolute, because if all truth WAS subjective then our tests would be subjective too, and thus generally meaningless. (See for more detail about Kripke's theory).


If everything about an object is dog-like, we say it is a dog. Similarly, if everything about the universe is subjective, we say it is subjective. The fact that it "is" does not make it absolute. It is possible for something to be 100% subjective (a favorite color, for instance, depends entirely on the context of the observer) and thus it is possible for something to "be", and yet not "be absolute". The universe, therefore, can exist subjectively without the universe being absolute. Since our very notion of existence is derived from our subjective universe, it follows that the existence of the universe is subjective also.

This is very important - while it is tempting to think of grounded statements as being absolutely true, that would imply that the basis for our grounding is absolute, when in fact it might not be because existence itself could be subjective. Since we do not know this and cannot test it, that idea is neither true nor false.

Law of non-contradiction

The law of non-contradiction is an ungrounded statement. It does not have a truth value. It is neither true nor false. So if we assume that there is such a magical thing as "the truth" floating out there somewhere, yes, the law of non-contradiction would be an absolute. However, the law of non-contradiction does not imply the existence of truth. My opponent is presupposing absolute truth, and using it to "prove" absolutes exist. That's circular logic.

A similar approach needs to be taken with regard to Kripke's theory. I call it a theory because it is itself an ungrounded series of statements, and thus not true or false. I do not presume that the theory is true - I presume that it might be true. To summarise this concept: It might be true that my opponent's arguments might not be true or false, and since we cannot prove or disprove this hypothesis (that is, they are "ungrounded"), my opponent's arguments are neither true nor false.

My argument

Let us begin by imagining how one might know something to be absolutely true. The obvious answer is by knowing that every other hypothesis is absolutely not true. That a ball is green, for instance, might be absolutely tested by checking whether the ball is any other color. Of course, to know that the test is absolutely true, you'll have to test the test. So in this example, if we presume you are testing the color of the ball by looking at it carefully, you might test your eyes to see that they are working properly. Then you test the eye-test. You'll find that after many iterations of this, you'll come to something you just assume to be true. Usually this will be a "logical truth", such as the law of non-contradiction pro mentioned earlier, or perhaps a mathematical truth, such as 2+2=4, or more often than not, a moral or aesthetical truth. Of course, moral truths etc cannot be shown to be true, because you cannot check that the alternative hypothesis is absolutely not true (Rene Descartes proved this, somewhere around the fifth meditation if I remember correctly). Take the moral truth "It is undesirable to spit at your friends" as an example. To prove this is absolutely true, you'd first need to disprove the notion that it is not undesirable to spit at your friends. Since you do not know the future, you cannot know with a certainty whether this is desirable or not. Therefore you cannot accept it as an absolute truth.

Maths and logic, which is really the foundation of maths, is still more interesting. One might be tempted, as pro did with his law of non-contradiction analysis, to attempt to logically prove that a logical law is true. The problem with arguing for logic logically is that it is arguing in a circle - you assume the very thing you are trying to prove in the process you use to reach your conclusion. That isn't logically valid, and thus cannot be accepted as a justification for absolute truth. The same applies to mathematics. You cannot prove maths mathematically, and if you try to prove it with logic, you must first prove that logic is absolutely true. So why can't you prove logic is absolutely true, aside from the consideration that any such proof is illogical by necessity. Well, because any illogical attempt does not refute the alternative, which is the logical thing to do. And since it does not refute the alternative, it does not show that logic is absolutely true.

It follows from this that one cannot know whether something is absolutely true. Therefore, it is impossible for my opponent to meet their burden of proof.

One final note about this argument. It can also be run in reverse - just replace absolute with subjective to prove that nothing can be known to be subjectively true. The whole point of that is to show that the counter-argument to the skeptic's paradox can literally be applied to anything. Granted, some stuff is grounded - like the color of the beach ball is grounded in the perception of our eyes. However ultimately, since these ideas are based on assumptions we cannot prove or disprove, we have to admit there is ALWAYS a possibility that we might be wrong, and therefore there is no absolute truth.

I look forward to my opponent's responses next round!
Debate Round No. 2


The Sceptic's pair of Dock’s

What is important to note about the sceptics paradox is that it is a self-sufficient argument, it asserts no claim other than that a proposition must be true in order to make the claim. It’s as simple as a proposition is a proposition, and to even make a claim against it, well a claim must be made against it. In that I mean proposition to be a claim. Thus any claim is absolutely a claim.

Nothing is being “attempted” or has been related to ‘Subjectivism’, ‘objectivism ‘or ‘Grounding”, “binary” or “a liar paradox”. These relations speak beyond the claim I made in this argument and thus constitute a Strawman Fallacy.

A final thing to note about something having to have a ground or binary truth of course depends on that notion being True First. So the saga continues…..

The Foolish Law of Tooth

As for the law of truth, I simply said the truth equals the truth, or it wouldn’t be true. In the very sense that A, whatever it may represent, that thing which it does represent is equivalent to itself. And I mean anything: An experience is an experience, a perception is a perception, the sensation of red is a sensation of red. A dog is a dog, etc.

I use the symbol A to represent specifically, nothing in particular. It is important to note that the symbol 1 is the same type of expression. It is by not referring to anything particular which gives it the ability to represent anything. For anything is nothing in particular.

And in similar fashion thus 1=1, Thus to prove The Law of Truth wrong Con must show that A is in fact not A at the same time. He must show how a thing in its self can contradict itself. That 1 is not 1. Remember the Law of Truth is not the Law of non-contradiction; it is the Positive grounding that Justifies the law of none contradiction. And that is straight from the Hill!

Hint from the Hill!: ( (Nothing in particular)=1) =/= ( (nothing at all)=0)

What I refer to as the Law of Truth as itself is an atomic truth. It is the truth that all others Forms of truth must cohere too. Aka all other formulas of truth stand under The Law of Truth. Another expression of this is that The Law of Truth supersedes all that is true.

I verify with my little ‘eye’ something that corresponds to Cool

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe my opponent is assuming or confusing the Correspondence Theory of truth as the only or only given form of “Truth”, in that the truth of something depends on its correspondence to something else. In this way a binary condition could now be placed, because of the possibility of something not corresponding. This correspondence Theory of truth is a form of verificationism. I am assuming he understands it in its most popular form which implies that something is true only if it can be physically verified physical Sense Data. And that which can’t be verified is neither true nor false. This was a popular proposition brought forward by the logical positivist philosophical movement of the late 19th and early 20th. But this physicalist verification theory has long since fallen out of favour for a few reasons. Firstly by calling only that which exists as physical information they lost their ability to justify their claims that verification is the only form of truth. As soon as the question was raised on what justifies the notion of physical verification, as the only truth, a grave silence had befallen the positivists which ended up being the desolation of the entire view point in philosophy. Despite its debunking just as long ago as the debunking of Freudian psychology it remains a popular understanding within Pop science, and Pop philosophy.

It’s all chill at the Hill

Now, I agree that there is a valid correspondence formula of truth. Remember a truth cannot be a theory for a theory is a lesser claim then a truth where a theory may turn out to be false. But of course of all things, the Truth can’t be False.(for that is absolutely true) But its justification cannot come from physical observation alone because there must exist something else for it to correspond too. That is it must be true that there is an “idea” which exist which can verified. And of course the entity which is we check for verification of correspondence truth of an idea.

So here is a modernized version Straight from the Hill. An idea is considered physical knowledge if it in fact corresponds to Physical Sense information(aka The Cons worldly Facts). But what is the grounding for this truth? hmmmmm.

The Law OF Truth. That is, the Law of truth is needed to ground that a correspondence formula of truth is true when things in fact corresponding, and false, when don’t correspond. AKA a thing in itself is a think in itself. (Law of truth) I repeat that all other truths depend on the Law of truth for its ground.

This Debate and Beyond:

One thing I should mention is that I have no idea where my partner has derived the statement ‘all things are subjective or all knowledge is subjective’. For I asserted or meant to assert that All things even those that are subjective exist in the absolute universe. Correct me is I am wrong but I take it as a misinterpretation until shown otherwise.

Fun with Larze

Larze: Let us begin by imagining how one might know something to be absolutely true. Granted, some stuff is grounded - like the color of the beach ball is grounded in the perception of our eyes. However ultimately, since these ideas are based on assumptions we cannot prove or disprove Them.

The Fool: So we need to prove it true that we are imagining for it to be true that we are imagining? Hmm something is just not fitting right. Actually I must confess in all my Foolishness I would claim that an imagination as an experience is self-evident as experience is absolutely true by the fact that all I consciousness consist in of it. For any experience it is absolutely true that there is conscious. Consciousness is self-evidently the necessary condition to have any conscious knowledge at all and that is absolutely true. It’s not a matter of language because you must be conscious to even learn the language. That is cogito Indubitable and absolutely true. For you would have to be unconscious to claim otherwise, which of course doesn’t make any sense.

It’s pre- linguistical and doesn’t depend on what you mean in linguistical terms. Just as babies experiences before they know any language. In fact you need to already have awareness to learn language. And that absolutely true. Furthermore we could never be wrong if we are experiencing pain, we may label it wrong but it is absolutely true by the feeling itself that we feel it. We may mislabel it but we could never mis-feel it. If you are feeling pain and someone says you’re not, and you belief them, then you my friend are not a Fool but a clown.


The Fool carries the torch into the next generation of philosophy. For we don’t want something old, that been locked in a kripke. <(Xp) We want something new, progressive and absolutely true. That Fresh and frosty cool. That Sh!t that makes you say Dang!

Vote Fool!!!



I thank my opponent for posting his third round. Hopefully he can complete the next round in a little less than nine days.

The Sceptic's Paradox

I told you last round that "all truth is subjective" is niether true nor false. Attempting to call it false is "attempting", saying it is false makes a statement on "subjectivism", that in turn has consequences for "objectivism", but it isn't right for reasons relating to "grounding", all this is happening because my opponent questioned wether the sentance is true (called assigning a "binary"), and the paradox is a rephrasing of the "liar paradox". Therefore, none of my argument is a strawman. He has failed to address it in any way.

My opponent argues that any claim is absolutely a claim. That's a non-sequiter. X may equal X, but it doesn't necessarily equal absolutely X. Of course the whole law of X=X is ungrounded anyway and thus fairly irrelevant. My opponent actually needs to address my counter-argument.

Law of Truth

The so-called "law of truth" depends on the whole notion of "truth" existing. Again, my opponent is using an absolute (truth), presupposing that it exists, and then using that to claim absolutes exist! That's remarkably flawed logic, as I've already stated. You'd think that after nine days my opponent could do a little better than repeat himself. Since he admits the law of truth supercedes all other forms of truth, he must prove the truth exists before the issue of whether "A=A" even becomes a relevant question.

Since the law of truth is not proven, all of pro's later claims that depend on it are unproven also.


If the truth of something cannot be verified, then we cannot know that it is true. My opponent is the one with the BOP in this debate. He's the one that needs to verify something is absolutely true. Therefore, by debunking verificationism, he's really debunking the only way in which he could possibly have proven something to be absolutely true.

To be clear - I did not argue for the correspondance theory of truth. In fact, my whole argument shows that nothing is grounded even by correspondances. Ultimately all of reality hinges on belief, and that means that we have no reason to believe any given thing is absolutely true. Furthermore, I do not accept that physical sense information is necessarily valid for data discovery. Perhaps Berkeley was right and everything is just one big illusion made up by God.

Truth cannot be a theory because theory is a "lesser claim"

This is a ridiclious absurdity. Imagine there are two claims: that I am king of the world, and that I might be the king of the world. As it turns out, given that I am not king of the world, only the second option is true, even though it is a lesser claim than the first. In the same way, if the two claims were that truth is a theory and truth is not a theory, that does not inherantly show the veracity of either claim.

Where I got the statement "all things are subjective" from

Start with the resolution "there is absolute truth". Now take the negative position "truth is not absolute". Now provide the positive form of that statement "truth is subjective". Since my opponent argues that truth is the basis for all things, it follows that "all things are subjective". I hope that makes stuff clearer. My opponent did assert that even subjective things have absolute existance - but then I rebutted this and heard no response. Read the section on "Existence" from round 2.

Cogito ergo there is truth

My opponent brings up conciousness as another candidate for something to be absolutely true. On what basis do we conclude that conciousness is absolute. Well, that we think so. But our thoughts are clearly not absolute - my thoughts and your thoughts differ. Thus there is no reason to conclude that conciousness is absolute.


My opponent's case isn't really fresh at all - it's as stale as it was last round, because (excepting only a few very minor variations) it's exactly the same. He has failed his burden of proof.

I look forward to the final round.
Debate Round No. 3


Don’t sweat the technique

In this in this debate I am using what the Fool calls the Bar-B-Q method, where the Debate is the meat to be cooked. And so we just throw that Sh!t up on the grill, at the hill. And a lot of that Fat just melts of the coal. Whatever didn’t’ melt off will be nice and soft, to slice the off with the Fool’s Blade. That is since the BOP is on me I am just doing my own cooking. Can you smell what The Fool is cooking! <(8P)

Okay cut the Music!!! Its going to get complicated!

No Way Out.

My partner needs to demonstrate with reasonable argumentation that our experience is not our absolute experience. Maybe it’s someone else’s? lol Or its not absolutely itself. In fact you may agree with him that you are not absolutely what you are, for that according to Larze that is non sequitur. That is to say you have no relation to yourself. <(XD) Or God if he exist is not absolutely God, that he is rather something else then his self. Any claim he makes even to say that there is no absolute truth or that there must be grounding, or that there is distinction, or that there truth is binary depends ON AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There really is NO WAY OUT. (And that has nothing to with wresting. Unless we are talking, sexy women.)

Parmenides is the man!

Parmenides: What is is, and that what is not is not learnable.

The Fool: Of course it doesn’t’ exist to even speak about. For I may use the symbol such as A=A to symbolize a thing in itself, is a thing in itself. What I am really getting at is simply A Do you get the hint, for any language I use I will need a symbol to show A “is” A. in this form it’s the Copula, “is”. (Copula is a philosophic jargon for the idea of “is”) It’s an atomic truth pre-verification/correspondence.

Parmenides: How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown' (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE)

The Fool: Exactly because existence, exist! And that’s absolute.

Parmenides: and that straight from 500 Elea!

The Fool: <(8D) (gives Parmenides a high five)

Verification is a correspondence theory of truth.

I started off this debate by stating all philosophy is not philosophy. And what I meant is that the world philosophy has become a “whore”. In that the term is used for so many disciplines which are not the same at all, to the point where the term philosophy has not more credibility, because to many disciplines what are difference bear and sometimes hide under the title.

You see the Positivists are what I consider the last true philosophers, in the sense that they were trying to keep in line with the original purpose of philosophy which was the quest for wisdom. (Wisdom as accumulated knowledge)

The positivist noticed thatthere is large difference between critical philosophies that were based on rational/logical arguments. And many of those disciplines called philosophy were rather that of opinion. Despite that the original purpose of philosophy was to demarcate the difference of opinion and knowledge in the first place.

In attempt to demarcate the correct way to knowledge, the positivists, made there criteria for knowledge way to high. They came to the conclusion that only physical verification aka physical correspondence is true. They LABELLED the mind as idea as non-existent. So they it isn't true or false either. They can’t MAKE the mind non-existence. I repeat They LABELLED THE MIND NON-EXISTENT. (Did I say labelled?)

But by Labelling the mind, non-existent, they had not justification for their correspondence theory of verification. Why because KNOWLEDGE is in the Form of IDEAS, as for a proof method/logic. But the mind absolutely exists, for all experiences are in a frame work of mind.

Because their criteria for knowledge why so high that it was self-defeating. And this is when the strongly opinionated and subjectivist philosophies took over. And YOU my Audience are the generation which is made up of the mix between these strong positivist notion of verificaitonism and the ungrounded non-absolutist ideas of subjectivist/ opinionated style philosophies. For many of our ideas have transcended from these very influential but yet apposing types of philosophy. That is why we are confused about grounding, Knowledge and Truth and the Absolute. Its because of these sh!tty ideas. That is part of the quest for knowledge is via studying the trancedence of ideas.

When the going gets tough, the gruff gets going

For it is most virtuous in philosophy to change your views upon reasonable refutation and or upon new information. That is the way of the original philosophic dialectic. The highest honour, is to concede if you really understand the knew knowledge. It would be your start nne a fresh path. Of course I am talking Kool and the gang Fresh.

I think the Food I cooked is ready to eat. It looks to good it will make you drool.




It is unfortunate, but I'm afraid all good things must come to an end. Thanks to pro for an exciting and philosophically stimulating discussion. Now it's time for the short and sweet dessert ... err, I mean, summary! Yes, summary is right. Here are the four main points in this debate:

Sceptic's Paradox
My opponent has fully dropped this argument, despite once seeing it as the most important in the debate. My refutation stands.

Is there really "no way out"?
It follows that if there's no way out, there's also no way in - and given that my opponent has clearly failed to meet his burden of proof, I'd say there's nothing for me to get out of. Indeed, the concession that there's no way in agrees completely with the point labelled "my argument" from round two. My opponent tries to shift the burden of proof, claiming it is I that must show our experience is not our absolute experience. Wrong. It is not my job to prove a negative when my opponent has burden of proof. He is the one who needed to show that our experience is our absolute experience. Trying to make that into my responsibility is a subtle way of agreeing that he cannot prove this, further supporting my position that we don't know whether there is anything absolute or not (which in turn makes the existance of everything subjective by default).

Being requires absolute existance (Parmenides)
I hate to break it to my opponent, but there's nothing less cool than hanging out with a philosopher whose ideas went out of fashion almost 2500 years ago. The poem my opponent cites is supposed to be a paradoxical poem (Elea was famous for its paradoxes, and Parmenides tutored the famous Zeno of Elea himself). Indeed, just a few lines earlier Parmenides asserted that change in reality is impossible. Few would agree this is true - reality changes, for example, at the atomic level, where different forces act, or at speeds close to the speed of light. So why is this particular point also not meant to be taken seriously, but rather a puzzle to be solved? Well, it's a lot easier when you realise that the argument is essentially the same as the law of truth posited by my opponent last round. I rebutted that argument to shreds in round three. Now my opponent thinks that if he asks a Greek philosopher to do the talking for him, that makes him win the point. Actually, it does not.

But isn't all this supposing things are not existant? (Positivism)
Wrong. It isn't "supposing" either way - and that's why the determination of whether things are existant or not is subjective on the basis of being ungrounded. If things did not exist then the fact they did not exist would be an absolute. However, since we do not know and cannot determine what is and is not, we have to make our own reasonable-yet-subjective guesses. To say that I am labelling truth is being this or that is wrong - my opponent has been the one labelling truth throughout, I've only been pointing out he can't prove it. Under this point he also reiterates his whole "Cogito ergo there is truth" case that I answered for in round three, but since he's only repeating himself I guess I'll just ask voters to re-read what I've written already.

Pro has clearly failed their burden of proof in this debate. One of the three most important points my opponent dropped, the other three he failed to meet his burden of proof. He couldn't even show whether "truth" exists or not - even after spending over a week mulling over one of the rounds. Thank you, and please vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
Just to respond to a comment from ages ago...

"Your views transcend philosophy? ... Spiritualism then?"
The views I describe in any given debate are philosophical, but do not conform to any given philosophical framework, such as "nominalism". They transcend these categories because the categories attempt to solve a different problem. I would call my argument "philosophical". My own views are different again and were not the subject of that part of my post - rather, I was describing the views that I am advocating in this debate, which may or may not be my own.

"It seems at least that philosophical investigation of beliefs, & thus the lables appended, help to keep both internal & external coherence"
Coherance to what - some arbitrary set of principles that has nothing to do with the resolution? What's the point in that?

"lending an avenue for a person to increase their rational beliefs, while decreasing their irrational ones."
There's nothing inherently rational about simply following a set of philosophical beliefs. Beliefs can be used rationally or irrationally.

"correct me if I'm wrong but do you hold debate value over truth value?"
In debating, yes. Debating is not about finding out the truth, it's about constructing arguments.

"If this is so, & if ever you switch your priorities to the former than I'd be glad to engage a topic with you friend."
Don't hold your breath, but thanks!
Posted by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
Posted by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
Your right sir, I'm not as sincere about how a belief originates as I am about the propositional truth value of such a belief. Or in this case, more of a methodology.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
Pre 1800, there was no body arguing about definitions, and non-existence of mind. Its part of the language games philosophy of language games.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
Reason_Alliance: Indeed.

The Fool: that hardly sounds sincere,
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
innomen: They must just spell differently in Canada.

The Fool: I am French, and we do spell something differently for stubborn spitfull non-confomist reasons. I hope this doesn't count as misbehaving. I know your game...
Posted by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
hat's cool- I think it seems we're living in a "post-critical philosophy" era though, where justificationism over falsification is preferrable.

Since the bulk of philosophy of science now is generally real- with some antirealists- the most recent philosophers of physics are always asking the question, "what makes you think that might be the case?"

This then is the difference between us I guess, that you're a falsifier & I'm a justifier. We would make a good team. Now about that conceptualist argument...

The Fool: its the after effect from positivism and subjectivist philosophy like I said. Its a based on so must mistrust that people will say they are uncertain that they even exist,
Posted by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
"They must just spell differently in Canada."

Posted by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
That's cool- I think it seems we're living in a "post-critical philosophy" era though, where justificationism over falsification is preferrable.

Since the bulk of philosophy of science now is generally real- with some antirealists- the most recent philosophers of physics are always asking the question, "what makes you think that might be the case?"

This then is the difference between us I guess, that you're a falsifier & I'm a justifier. We would make a good team. Now about that conceptualist argument...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really addressed Pro's points; instead he simply dismissed them. Con never presented a logically coherent case.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: [comments section]
Vote Placed by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments quite obviously undercut themselves. I would've went about this debate a totally different way but I appreciate the Fool's creativity. I was entertained
Vote Placed by 000ike 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Alone, pro's argument for A=A seemed completely solid, but as Con pointed out, it is grounded in logic, and logic itself must be tested to be true (which is impossible to do). However, what Con's case amounts to is the conclusion that we cannot "know" whether there is absolute truth. However, it does not disprove the existence of absolute truth. Also, making such an argument was contradictory since his case was a statement of truth itself. Con didn't meet his BoP, and refuted himself.