There is absolute truth

Hopefully he can complete the next round in a little less than nine days. The Sceptic's ParadoxI told you last round that "all truth is subjective" is niether true nor false. Attempting to call it false is "attempting", saying it is false makes a statement on "subjectivism", that in turn has consequences for "objectivism", but it isn't right for reasons relating to "grounding", all this is happening because my opponent questioned wether the sentance is true (called assigning a "binary"), and the paradox is a rephrasing of the "liar paradox". Therefore, none of my argument is a strawman. He has failed to address it in any way. My opponent argues that any claim is absolutely a claim. That's a non-sequiter. X may equal X, but it doesn't necessarily equal absolutely X. Of course the whole law of X=X is ungrounded anyway and thus fairly irrelevant. My opponent actually needs to address my counter-argument. Law of TruthThe so-called "law of truth" depends on the whole notion of "truth" existing. Again, my opponent is using an absolute (truth), presupposing that it exists, and then using that to claim absolutes exist! That's remarkably flawed logic, as I've already stated. You'd think that after nine days my opponent could do a little better than repeat himself. Since he admits the law of truth supercedes all other forms of truth, he must prove the truth exists before the issue of whether "A=A" even becomes a relevant question. Since the law of truth is not proven, all of pro's later claims that depend on it are unproven also. VerificationismIf the truth of something cannot be verified, then we cannot know that it is true. My opponent is the one with the BOP in this debate. He's the one that needs to verify something is absolutely true. Therefore, by debunking verificationism, he's really debunking the only way in which he could possibly have proven something to be absolutely true. To be clear - I did not argue for the correspondance theory of truth. In fact, my whole argument shows that nothing is grounded even by correspondances. Ultimately all of reality hinges on belief, and that means that we have no reason to believe any given thing is absolutely true. Furthermore, I do not accept that physical sense information is necessarily valid for data discovery. Perhaps Berkeley was right and everything is just one big illusion made up by God. Truth cannot be a theory because theory is a "lesser claim"This is a ridiclious absurdity. Imagine there are two claims: that I am king of the world, and that I might be the king of the world. As it turns out, given that I am not king of the world, only the second option is true, even though it is a lesser claim than the first. In the same way, if the two claims were that truth is a theory and truth is not a theory, that does not inherantly show the veracity of either claim. Where I got the statement "all things are subjective" fromStart with the resolution "there is absolute truth". Now take the negative position "truth is not absolute". Now provide the positive form of that statement "truth is subjective". Since my opponent argues that truth is the basis for all things, it follows that "all things are subjective". I hope that makes stuff clearer. My opponent did assert that even subjective things have absolute existance - but then I rebutted this and heard no response. Read the section on "Existence" from round 2. Cogito ergo there is truthMy opponent brings up conciousness as another candidate for something to be absolutely true. On what basis do we conclude that conciousness is absolute. Well, that we think so. But our thoughts are clearly not absolute - my thoughts and your thoughts differ. Thus there is no reason to conclude that conciousness is absolute. SummaryMy opponent's case isn't really fresh at all - it's as stale as it was last round, because (excepting only a few very minor variations) it's exactly the same. He has failed his burden of proof. I look forward to the final round.