Absolute Truth exists.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Eugenious
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 1/30/2019 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 553 times | Debate No: | 120090 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)
 Pro 1. If there was no absolute truth, We wouldn't be debating the TRUTH in each of these issues. 2. The opposite, The statement: "there is no absolute truth, " is contradictory. If there is no absolute truth, Then the statement previously mentioned cannot be absolutely true. Based on these two simple facts, Absolute truth exists.  Con 2) The statement "there is no absolute truth" by itself does prove to be problematic, But by adding a few words we can change what that implies. For example: "There is no absolute truth because our understanding of the "truth" is subjective". I don't want to play semantics and I want to avoid circular logic, So I ask you to present an absolute truth without thinking about it. Should be easy to do with an absolute, Right? A) It would also help if you defined what "absolute", "truth" and any other key words you plan to use. My definition of subjective is simply "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind ". |
 |
|
Pro In response to his second argument: If he wants to change the words of the resolution around, Then he can maybe get around the idea that it is contradictory. But here is a simple fact: he accepted the challenge. In other words, He decided that he could NEGATE the resolution. If he cannot truly negate the affirmative side of the resolution, Then this round immediately flows to the pro side! He accepted the resolution by accepting the challenge. If he cannot do his job in this debate round, Then he automatically has lost the round. You cannot accept the title and then try to change it to fit your argument. So what we have seen here is first, That his first argument falls apart because it doesn't fit simple logic. Second, We see that he tried to get around the resolution in a vain attempt to argue his side more adequately. All in all, What we have seen so far is that the only side with truth backing it up is the pro side. Con kwbc forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro -Eugenious Con kwbc forfeited this round. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by timmyjames 3 years ago
| Eugenious | kwbc | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: When pro proved his point, Con tried to change the resolution after he accepted the debate and forfeited two rounds
-Eugenious
I would like to debate you on this topic since Con did not finish the debate.
-Eugenious
"The fact that we are trying to discover the truth means that the truth must be there, Or else it is pointless. "
So now it goes from
1. If we're discussing it it exists.
to
2. If we're discussing it it either exists or the discussion is pointless.
So we can just say the discussion is pointless.
Hand-waving a clear analogy where your logic is applied 100% consistently is OK because you have no counter to it.
No part of your "logic" is logical. Otherwise, No one who studies logic would think that absolute truth doesn't exist.
Way to also hand-wave the moral side of it.
Please tell us, Does absolute truth exist for everything or just some things. If only some things, How is that any different from my position? Some things are facts. That doesn't mean they can't be changed. Is absolute truth a constantly shifting thing? If so, What does it matter that absolute truth exists if no one knows what it is?
But by all means, Find me a few ph. Ds with some sort of logic degree to agree with you. I'll wait.
-Eugenious
People arguing about whether or not 'absolute truth' exists doesn't make it true. That is like me saying people arguing about whether or not unicorns exist makes them exist. It is among the most illogical statements I've ever read on this site.
When someone says "there is no absolute truth" isn't contradictory. Some things may absolutely be true without literally everything having absolute truth. Saying "absolute truth exists" suggests it exists for everything.
If someone puts a gun to my head and points to a woman and says "rape that woman and I'll let you both live. If you don't, I'll kill you both. " There is no 'absolute truth' in this scenario. Morality isn't always so black and white as to have a 'true' answer. There are many rules and laws that can be bent or broken in the right circumstances.
While there may be absolute truth, I don't know it and I don't believe you know it, And neither of us can point to anyone else who knows it. So it's a maybe. It isn't a yes or a no.
The methods Pro has used to defend his position are illogical. Absolutely.
"unless you accept that there is objective truth, There is no way for this to be true. There can be truth and people that misunderstand it, But not the other way around. "
Maybe it is an assumption so that there is a ground for such a discussion.
What is your proof of objective truth?
Well said. It is quite sad to see the way society is moving.
@Con
I like that you are taking on Pro's argument, Good clash, But I would like to ask a few questions:
1. Can certain truths exist and not be known or well understood yet? Why does truth have to be self evident?
2. Would it be reasonable to say that through reason, Certain things can be found to be factually true. For example: Gravity is in every case is found to exist and is always measurable.
"There is no absolute truth because our understanding of the "truth" is subjective"
3. I see what you tried to do here, But the contradiction still remains. You make a truth claim that "our understanding of the "truth" is subjective", Unless you accept that there is objective truth, There is no way for this to be true. There can be truth and people that misunderstand it, But not the other way around.
To Truth! -logicae