There is absolute truth

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 ParadoxMy 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.