The Instigator
zezima
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

absolute truth exist

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 5 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 30982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

zezima

Pro

Absolute truth exist. Only rule is no trolls.
Zaradi

Con

I accept this debate as follows: Absolute Truth Exists.

For my opponent to prove the resolution true, he must explain not only why truth can be absolute, but by what metric we are judging truth under. If he is not providing some sort of metric to weigh truths under, then we have no reason to believe his truths are absolute truths, thus devolving the truths into relativity, which negates the resolution.

The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove the resolution true. The burden on me is to refute what my opponent says. Since my opponent has made no official arguments, I shall end here and await his case.
Debate Round No. 1
zezima

Pro

Absolute truth exist. Something can be absolutely true. I don't know how to say it any other way then that.
You are arguing that nothing can be absolutely true.
It is absolutely true that we exist.
It is absolutely true that we can't live without water.
It is absolutely true the Red Sox suck.
It is absolutely true that we can't live without oxygen.
Zaradi

Con

My opponent basically just makes a bunch of blanket assertions as to what is absolutely true without ever warranting them. Moreover, he fails to provide a metric for how we determine what is true and what isn't true. Without said metric, refer back to my analysis as to how all the truths devolve into relativity without some normative metric to stand them up against. Since he's failing to provide and justify one, he prima facie loses the debate since he cannot prove what is objectively true. But let's address his "absolute truths".

His first one is that it's absolutely true that we exist. This is false under the doctrine of epistemological solipsism[1]. Epistemological solipsism makes the claim that we cannot warrant the existance of anything outside of our minds. I can be relatively sure that my mind exists, but I cannot be sure that my opponent's mind exists. Therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure that "we" all exist. Thus, his absolute truth isn't an absolute truth.

His second one is that we absolutely cannot live without water. The human body can actually live for about a week on average without water[2]. My opponent would need to prove that the second we stopped drinking water, we all died in order for his truth to be absolute. Since this isn't true, his absolute truth isn't absolute.

The third one is the it's absolutely true that the Red Sox suck. While I'm no Boston fan, the Red Sox are one of the most accomplished teams in baseball history. Netting seven World Series titles and twelve American League pennants[3], they certainly don't "suck".

His last one is that it's absolutely true we cannot live without oxygen. This falls under the same line of reasoning as the water one, being that the second we stopped breathing we would all die. If this were true, holding our breaths would be the most common form of accidental suicide. The human body can survive for periods of time without oxygen at all. While it certainly isn't healthy, it isn't instant death. Since my opponent needs instant death to prove absolute truth, he cannot prove it to be absolutely true.

Moreover, my opponent makes the false claim that I am arguing nothing can be absolutely true. That is false, seeing as that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm simply arguing in negation of the points you bring up, since the Burden of proof rests on you.

In summary, my opponent has provided no warrants at all for any part of his case. He provided no normative metric under which to evaluate truth, meaning instant loss right off the bat. If that isn't good enough for you, I have refuted all of his "absolute truths" as not being absolute. He has literally no ground to stand on. Since he had the burden of proof, and he is failing to uphold it, there is no reason to vote pro.

Thus, the resolution is negated.

Sources:

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://www.thewaterpage.com...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
zezima

Pro

1.) Is it absolutely true that everything you said is correct?
2.) Is it absolutely true that you didn't lie about everything you just said?
3.) Is it absolutely true that everything your going to say in round 3 is not a lie or made up?
4.) Is it absolutely true that you are even going to post in round 3?

I was going to say God created absolute truth but I don't know if you are on of those people who would say I have to prove God exist first.
In that case, absolute truth exist.
I'm going to use a serious topic.
Child molesting-when an older person takes advantage of a child.
Is this wrong? Yes it is. Is it absolutely true? Yes because God says it is.
I made a mistake on not making this debate more rounds i got a lot more to say.
Zaradi

Con

I'll start by responding to his questions.

1. Is it absolutely true that everything I said is correct?

Of course not. That's what I'm advocating for in terms of this debate. It's your job to refute what I'm saying. If you don't then it's true. If you do then it's false. The variation leads to relativity, and thus not absolutism.

2. Is it absolutely true that I didn't lie about everything?

No. My personal feelings about baseball aren't relevant to the debate. Even if I personally don't like the red soxs, I will defend that they're a good team. If you call that a lie then okay. If not then okay.

3. Is it absolutely true that everything I will say in this round is not a lie or made up.

Same answer as above.

4. Is it absolutely true that I will even post in round three.

Okay, this doesn't prove absolute truth at all. That's complete semantics at best, which would be in violation of your no trolling rule. That's an automatic DQ.

With his questions answered, I'll now move onto his new arguments in the last round *facepalm*

My opponent is asserting that God is the absolute standard by which we judge truth. But there's a few problems with that.

First, my opponent doesn't warrant which God we're talking about here. Different religions hold different laws to be of absolute truth.

Second, my opponent doesn't warrant the existence of whatever God he's specifying to follow. The existence of that God would be necessary since if he didn't exist there wouldn't be any reason to follow his laws, making the truth relative.

Third, even if my opponent were proving that God did exist, there still wouldn't be a reason why his laws were absolute. To say that would be to say that God prescribes morality, which is a claim all of it's own to warrant, especially since that would take us down a completely different debate route.

Again, no normative standard to use. He has nothing to weigh what truth really is, meaning that there can't be any absolute truth. Resolution negated right here. But let's move on.

He completely drops all of the examples he gave last round. This completely crushes his case since if truth were absolute, then he would have to be right on all of those. If the truth was as relative as I was suggesting, then absolute truth is disproven. So each of those dropped reasons can be extended out as a reason to negate the resolution, as I'm proving there how truth is relative.

Instead, my opponent comes up with a new example: child molestation. Not only is his warranting of why it is bad extremely lacking ('cuz God said so!), but it isn't absolutely wrong at all. If a man is holding a gun to my head while also threatening the lives of a stadium-full of people if I don't molest that child, it would be wrong under a utilitarian calculus for me not to molest that child. Thus, the "absolute truth" you claim to be true isn't absolute at all, but rather relative.

I also find it funny how he is complaining about wanting more space to talk more, yet his last round used a total of 700+ characters. Out of the 8k we've been given. He didn't even use a 1/10th of his available characters.

So, as a summary of the debate:

1. He isn't providing and adequetly defending a metric under which to judge what is absolutely true. This is necessary because without some calculus to decide what is absolutely true or not, there is no way to decide what is absolutely true, which causes everything to descend into relativity. This is the first place to negate.
2. The four dropped reasons in the second round function as ways I'm proving truth to be relative. He dropped them. I'm winning them. Four more fairly simple reasons to negate.
3. The last example he brought up that I disproved is another place I'm proving that truth is relative.

So six different places to negate the resolution. No place to affirm it. Easy decision.

The resolution is negated. Thanks for reading y'all!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
God forbid! As always I violently disagree. But it is well argued regardless xD
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
Awh aren't you sweet. <3 you made my---

HEYWAIT A SECOND!!!!! We're agreeing on something? o.o
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
I think I see what you mean. Although i think what you are saying is what makes practical sense. Something can be true or false objectively whether or not we could measure or come to know it, but for this to have any practical bearing on our lives (or be worth talking about in the first place) there would have to be some way of coming to know it.

If that is what you were arguing (that whether or not truth is absolute we cannot know it in any real sense) you did a marvelous job defending the position. Kudos.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
@Trasgu:

Oh okay, I think I see the confusion.

It doesn't make a lot of sense from a practical view (like you said, the length of a piee of wood doesn't change just because I decide what truth is differently). It is more from a philosophical standpoint where if I were to say something along the lines of "x is bad" and x would be, for example, murder. We could say all day long that it was bad and it was objective, but without some sort of decision calculus to decide on want is actually bad and what is actually good, we're just begging the question.

Does that make more sense?
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
You say that without some metric to judge truths by we have no reason to believe a truth is absolute, I don't understand your logic. It seems like you're saying that we have no reason to believe a plank of wood does not vary in length unless we have measuring tape. How do you suppose having some metric to measure truth affects the reality of it any more than having a measuring tape affects a table's length?
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
@Trasgu:

Rephrase your question.
Posted by zezima 3 years ago
zezima
@magic8000 da hell are you talkin bout lol
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Hey! You're not the real zezima! The real zezima is muslim
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
How does our being able to measure something affect its reality?
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
Some metric or decision calculus to determine what is true or what isn't true. Without a metric of some sort we can still claim that something is true, but it only begs the question of why its true.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
zezimaZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter samurai
Vote Placed by samurai 3 years ago
samurai
zezimaZaradiTied
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: More convincing arguments and made more specific points.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
zezimaZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Sp/gr - Zaradi used a much more appropriate register for a debate. Arguments - While not enough to sway me, Zaradi's arguments were patently superior in this debate
Vote Placed by Billdekel 3 years ago
Billdekel
zezimaZaradiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons responses were in depth and more thought out. Zezima just had old philosophical responses, never gave a metric.
Vote Placed by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
zezimaZaradiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never came to close to proving absolute truths. Pro dropped all his initial arguments then brought up more in the last round (conduct for last round arguments). Con kept asking for a metric and pro finally said God. He however never proved that his God existed or why this God's commands are absolute. I also saw his last round as attempt to put con in a paradox but that didn't succeed.