The Instigator
legoninja456
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Truth Objectively Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
legoninja456
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 66363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

legoninja456

Pro

First off, this debate is about whether truth exists, and whether truth is true, regardless of whether someone believes it.
My argument:
Truth does exist. Without truth, what can we be sure of? Without truth, nothing in school is worth learning. Without truth, Life is not worth living. I, for one, am absolutely sure that (using numbers, not numerals) 2+2=4.

A NUMERAL is a word or symbol that we, as humans, have chosen to represent a certain quantity.
A NUMBER is a quantity, regardless of what it is called.
While the numeral, or name of a number may change, the quantity does not change.

(http://www.differencebetween.com...)

When I use this equation, I talk of numbers, not numerals. when I say the statement above, I mean the quantity that we label "2" plus a quantity that we label "2" equals the quantity that we label "4".
I know that because we came up the words "two" and "four", one could say that the statement "two plus two equals four" could mean anything, and therefore is not necessarily true. that is why I mentioned that this equation was dealing with numbers, and not numerals.
The quantity that we label "Two" plus the quantity that we label "Two" equals the quantity that we label "Four".
The above statement is true, regardless of what we label the quantities.
The above statement is true, regardless of whether someone believes it.
Facts are Facts, and Truth is Truth, regardless of whether it is believed.
vi_spex

Con

truth can only be in the past, and the past is no more, the future and past doesn't matter, is information, and my imagination only happens now, now is matter

true is matter, and truth is memory, know and knowledge, now and past, where as the future is false

belief=false=future
know=true=now
knowledge=truth

know is the balancing point between belief and knowledge, and belief is the opposite of knowledge

equations are true or false, not about truth
Debate Round No. 1
legoninja456

Pro

Is your above statement true?
vi_spex

Con

true=personal physical experience of now
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

I am here now, so I must have gotten here somehow, and the future is unknown
Debate Round No. 2
legoninja456

Pro

By your logic:
Truth: my existence, all that I can experience.
Statement: I exist.
Therefore, truth exists.
Honestly, there's no way for you to win this.
To claim that there is no truth is making a claim that you say is true. If it is true, truth exists. If it is false, then the statement claiming the nonexistance of truth is false, therefore truth exists.
vi_spex

Con

existence=true false and truth
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
craziest strawman ever, and you get the votes xD
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
I am me
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
knowledge=truth=past*
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
L. Ron Hubbard stated in his book on Dianetics, (1950), that Absolutes
have to be considered logically unobtainable.
Proving that absolute Truth exists doesn't make sense.
Not being able to prove the existence of absolute truth
doesn't prove that truth doesn't exist.
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
I would love to accept this, but i'm gonna have to pass :(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
legoninja456vi_spexTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote, Pro made a compelling case for his side and Con didn't have any sort of argument or response.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
legoninja456vi_spexTied
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: Con's arguments are non sensical