Most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options

Hello Pro, I have accepted this debate and will argue against you that your claim is nonsensical and is far from the truth. I am looking forward to this debate and am eager to see what you will present since the burden of proof is on you for making this claim. Best of luck!Firstly, I will define the meaning of "truth" as set forth in the Oxford Dictionaries as I will be relying on logic in determining "truth". It would also be helpful for Pro to define the definitions of "two extreme options" and show that this is the case by exhausting all possible options. With Pro's claim, I can visualize that with two extreme options and the middle as the truth, that there is a spectrum of options and the one in the middle is the truth. I would like Pro to define this spectrum and how to determine what is an extreme option and how to arrive to the middle as the truth.truth:1. The quality or state of being true1.1. That which is true or in accordance with fact of reality1.2. A fact or belief that is accepted as trueSecondly, I have a problem with Pro's quantifier of "most" and will not make any efforts to provide examples to counter the conclusion, "Most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options". Even if I were to provide an example, Pro can easily dispute it by saying my example is not in the set of "most". Instead, I will make the argument that the conclusion is nonsensical and is a contradiction on itself.Thirdly, I believe that Pro providing examples of truth between two extremes will not be sufficient to the conclusion. This is the case because it is impossible for a human to determine the set of all truths and showing that the majority of truth is between two extremes. How is a human to determine the reality and facts of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. How is a human to determine that there is more known knowns than unknown unknowns and infer that "most" truth are between two extremes with what is known. This will lead to inductive reasoning, which on itself will only provide the probable truth, but not the real truth. This is a problem since 99% factual is not 100% factual. There is no way to exhaust the set of truths.My next point that I want Pro to address is the following: The radical of 2 is an irrational number. This statement is no doubt a truth in reality since mathematics is a representation of reality, but it is not a truth derived from the middle of two extreme options. A real number is either rational or irrational. Radical 2 is not rational nor irrational and there is some sort of truth in the middle of the extreme of rational and irrational.Lastly, I will rebuttal Pro's premises of morality of good and evil and political parties that support the conclusion. Although Pro makes the claim of actions that are absolutely evil and actions that are absolutely good, which implies the existence of good and evil, and the polar opposite of the non-existence of good and evil, Pro does not provide a clear example of the true reality of this concept and why it would be true. There is also a contradiction in this view since the middle between the extreme of the existence and non-existence of absolute good and absolute evil is that there exists a good and evil that fits into reality. This is the fallacy of circular argument since the middle ground as good and evil existing implies the non-existence of good and evil, which supports some sort of existence of good and evil rather than the non-existence. See how this became a circular argument? This only limits the concept of good and evil into a subjective view rather than an objective view. "The radical of 2 is an irrational number" is objectively true. It is not necessary for Pro to spend time to support this premise before clearing my third point.Pro uses the example of political parties to determine truth in determining policies. This example would need to clear my third point as well, but I will make a comment since I find it nonsensical. Viewpoints are based on the subjective prospective and preferences. Consider this example: I like strawberry favored ice cream over chocolate. First of all, how can one apply two extremes between strawberry and chocolate. This also does not account for vanilla and other options and the extreme is not able to exhaust the other options. My point is that it does not make sense to apply truth to preferences.