The Instigator
hauki20
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
1337Hal
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

There is truth, all truth is absolute, and truth is knowable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/24/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 7545
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

hauki20

Pro

Announcement: In the first round no evidence nor arguments shall be presented by either side. In the first round you can greet your opponent (me, or in my case you), your audience etc.

The rules:

1) No spamming, trolling nor flaming.
2) No evidence nor arguments shall be presented in round 1.

Definitions:

Truth: Conformity with fact or reality, the true or actual state of a matter
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

So, how are you, my dear spectators and my honored opponent? The best of luck to anyone who chooses to accept the debate.
1337Hal

Con

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. As per his request, I will not be posting any arguments or evidence in this first round.

Although there is nothing stopping you from doing so, Haiku, can I please ask in the interest of fairness that you don't vote for yourself in this debate, as I am unable to vote at all. I don't really mind if you do end up voting for yourself, but I'd like to keep it as fair as possible. Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
hauki20

Pro

I will not vote if you won't either ;)

And here is my case in a nutshell.

[summary]Claim: There is no truth.
Counter: Is THAT a truth?

Claim: You can't know the truth.
Counter: Then how do you know THAT?

Claim: All truth is relative.
Counter: Is THAT a relative truth?

Version 2: There is no absolute truth.
Counter: Is THAT an absolute truth?[/summary]

Although I think this is fairly enough for me to win, I will still provide a little more detailed explanation.
(The longer version)

Assume that the claim "Everything is true" would be, indeed, true. It does not work, because then also the opposite of it, "Nothing is true" would also be true.

How do we know whether the truth exists or not? Let us assume that the claim "There is no truth" is true. The problem with this thesis is that it can be countered with one question, "Then is THAT a truth?" And if nothing is true, how can the claim itself to be true? If the claim is true, then we must accept that there are truths.

There are many truths about truths.

-Truth is found, not invented. It is there, independent from whether people believe in it or not (Gravity existed before Newton).
- The truth is true for all. (Regardless of the person, 2 +2 = 4)
- All the truth is absolute. Even the truths that affect to be relative are really absolute. "I was warm 10th of June in 2008" may affect the relative, but it is true for everyone, everywhere that I got the feeling of warmth in 10th of June, 2008.
- The truth does not change with it what we believe. If the whole world believes that cows can fly, it is still not the truth.
- Beliefs can not alter facts, regardless of how sincerely one believes in something.

A few phrases that you hear too often (and a brief counter question, which explains why they are just rhetorical nonsense).

C: "There is no truth."
A: "Is that a truth?"

C: "All truth is relative."
A: "Is that a relative truth?"

C: "You can't know the truth!"
A: "Then how do you know that?"

Conclusions:

1. Although relativists say that truth is relative, truth is absolute, can be known, and is unique (eg, if 2 +2 = 4, 2 +2 can not be equal to 36)
2. Sentences such as "Truth is not!" etc. "You can know the truth!" are pieces of rhetorical nonsense, which can be proven wrong with a few words.
3. The truth does not care about our beliefs and feelings. Something is true, whether you believe in it or not.
1337Hal

Con

"I will not vote if you won't either ;)"

Excellent, thankyou very much.

I have found the hole in PRO's argument, and it's quite simple, voters. I will start by answering the questions my opponent has posed:

"Claim: There is no truth.
Counter: Is THAT a truth?"
MY ANSWER: Probably not.

"Claim: You can't know the truth.
Counter: Then how do you know THAT?"
MY ANSWER: You don't, so don't make such a ridiculous claim.

"Claim: All truth is relative.
Counter: Is THAT a relative truth?"
MY ANSWER: It hasn't even been shown to be a truth, much less a relative truth. It may or may not be, though.

"Version 2: There is no absolute truth.
Counter: Is THAT an absolute truth?"
MY ANSWER: Perhaps. It appears to be a paradox, but the paradox disappears when we realize the statement that "there is no absolute truth" is not necessarily to be taken as true.

Now that I've answered these questions, I will go on to my opponent's longer points:

PRO:
"Assume that the claim "Everything is true" would be, indeed, true. It does not work, because then also the opposite of it, "Nothing is true" would also be true."

REBUTTAL:
Then don't assume the claim "everything is true" is true. The problem with all of your examples is in the hypothetical questions you are posing. There are varying degrees of truth.

PRO:
"How do we know whether the truth exists or not? Let us assume that the claim "There is no truth" is true. The problem with this thesis is that it can be countered with one question, "Then is THAT a truth?" And if nothing is true, how can the claim itself to be true? If the claim is true, then we must accept that there are truths."

REBUTTAL:
Once again, you are assuming something ridiculous. How can you assume "there is no truth" is true? This is like writing the words "there is no red" in a red pen, and believing it! The problem is again with your assumptions.

PRO:
"-Truth is found, not invented. It is there, independent from whether people believe in it or not (Gravity existed before Newton).
- The truth is true for all. (Regardless of the person, 2 +2 = 4)
- All the truth is absolute. Even the truths that affect to be relative are really absolute. "I was warm 10th of June in 2008" may affect the relative, but it is true for everyone, everywhere that I got the feeling of warmth in 10th of June, 2008.
- The truth does not change with it what we believe. If the whole world believes that cows can fly, it is still not the truth.
- Beliefs can not alter facts, regardless of how sincerely one believes in something."

REBUTTAL:
I will agree with all of these statements, bar one, because they in no way prove that all truth is absolute, which is my opponent's burden in this debate. My opponent is mistaken in his understanding of a relative or subjective belief. If you and I were standing in the same room which was uniform in temperature throughout, and you feel warm while I feel cold, you'd be correct in saying it is an absolute truth that I'm cold and you're warm. But there is a relative 'truth' here, because I will go on to say that the room is cold, while you believe it is warm. Both are relatively correct in their beliefs, but neither are absolute in their beliefs, because the room can't be warm and cold simultaneously.

PRO:
"C: "There is no truth."
A: "Is that a truth?"

C: "All truth is relative."
A: "Is that a relative truth?"

C: "You can't know the truth!"
A: "Then how do you know that?""

REBUTTAL:
Once again, these are ridiculous claims to begin with. How about this for a claim: "There are some truths in the world, but not every statement is a truism. Some of them can be known, while some can't. Some are relative, some absolute, some in a little grey-area mid-way."

PRO:
"Conclusions:

1. Although relativists say that truth is relative, truth is absolute, can be known, and is unique (eg, if 2 +2 = 4, 2 +2 can not be equal to 36)
2. Sentences such as "Truth is not!" etc. "You can know the truth!" are pieces of rhetorical nonsense, which can be proven wrong with a few words.
3. The truth does not care about our beliefs and feelings. Something is true, whether you believe in it or not."

REBUTTAL:
1. I agree with this, but it does nothing to show that all truth is absolute, which is PRO's burden.
2. I agree, so I wonder why my opponent filled his entire argument with such silly rhetoric.
3. I agree again, but this does nothing to show that ALL truth is absolute, which is PRO's burden.

Voters, it was my opponent's task in this debate to show that a) there is truth, b) all truth is absolute and c) truth is knowable. Points a) and c) are obvious enough, and my opponent has certainly shown this in his rounds. But he has done nothing to show that all truth is absolute. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Interesting debate. I'd side with Con but I don't have a cell and can't confirm my identity either haha.
Posted by Brewmaster 7 years ago
Brewmaster
I'm new on debate.org so maybe I missed something, but is this debate really over already? It's a very interesting topic, I had hoped for more than two rounds.

Anyways, PRO, your rationality was almost perfect. However, the potential problem with a purely rational approach is that if you set up your conditions precisely then you can always rationally argue your way to any conclusion. This is a tricky thing to pull off, as the real world tends to be a bit more fluid.

Additionally, I was struck by an interesting example of relativism from, I believe, David Hume, although I may be wrong on the source. Imagine that on the table in front of you is a bowl of water at room temperature. Place your hand in the bowl, and you could describe it as tepid, or lukewarm. Now go stick your hand in the freezer for 10 minutes, and come back to that bowl of water. When you put your hand it in, that bowl of water is going to feel very warm, even hot. Now, we know the temperature of the water hasn't changed, but your relative perception of its temperature has. Since our only ability to gain knowledge of the bowl of water comes from our senses, which seem to me to be relative, how can we say that the Truth, or the true state, of that bowl is objective and ultimately knowable?
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
actually, even if he just says that all truth is absolute, it is now your burden to prove that not all truth is absolute.

your hot/cold example is fallacious because subjectivity is not truth. it is true that one may think it is hot, but that does not necessarily mean that it is hot.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
hauki201337HalTied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
hauki201337HalTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
hauki201337HalTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by SuperPerfundo 7 years ago
SuperPerfundo
hauki201337HalTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by CP 7 years ago
CP
hauki201337HalTied
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 KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
hauki201337HalTied
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 
Vote Placed by sabrafink 7 years ago
sabrafink
hauki201337HalTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
hauki201337HalTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
hauki201337HalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00