Truth is relative

::response to paragraph 3:: There are laws in this world that are indisputable. For the sake of simplicity, I will mention only one of them, The Law of Gravity. Gravity exists, you can empirically experience it. It is indisputable that it exists. You can make the claim that it is some magical glue that is making us stick to earth, but the truth is absolute, gravity exists. We are all bound by it, it is not a matter of opinion. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ::response to paragraph 4:: The wavelength of blue is not subjective to MY interpretation of wavelength. It is what is universally agreed upon to label the characteristics and wavelength of blue. The color blue is blue. I can claim that blue is red, but that does not change the fact that blue is, in fact, blue. The lower case of A is a. You can claim that the lower case of A is b, but in fact, the lower case of A is a. That is objective truth. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ::response to paragraph 5:: Fair enough, 1+1=3, if you like. If Josh has 1 apple, and I give him another one, he has two apples. Again, you can claim that Josh has 8 apples, but the fact of the matter is Josh has 2 apples. The number of apples Josh has is not relative. He has 2 apples. Not 3 or 4, but 2. P1: Josh has 1 apple P2: I give Josh another apple P3: Josh has 2 apples. :: Therefore josh has 2 apples. Not 3 or 4. The number of apples Josh has is not relative, it is a fact. ::response to paragraph 6:: So you are claiming that existence of something physical is relative too? I know my keyboard exists because I am empirically experiencing it, and using it to type. People can see my keyboard, people can touch my keyboard, and therefore it exists physically, as it appeals to the five senses. ::response to paragraph 8:: ::Objective Accuracy:: P1: On 9/11, two planes hit the twin towers. P2: There is an article on 9/11 that claims two planes crashed the twin towers. P3: The article was accurate. :: Therefore, the claim two planes hit the twin towers, is both accurate and true. ::Relative Accuracy:: P1: On 9/11, two planes hit the twin towers. P2: There is an article on 9/11 that claims Godzilla destroyed the twin towers. P3: The article was inaccurate. :: Therefore, the claim that Godzilla destroyed the twin towers is both inaccurate and false. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... ::response to conclusion:: "An example to help make my point: it is an objective truth that light is a wave, but it is also an objective truth that light is a particle. Whether it operates as a wave or a particle is relative to an observer's frame of reference [4]." Hint: Light is both a wave and a particle. It is an objective and absolute truth. The observer's frame of reference does not negate the fact that light is indeed a wave and a particle. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... "A final example: it is an objective truth that you are involved in this debate with me. But a hundred years ago, this would not have been objectively true because, in all probability, you and I would not have been born yet. As such, this truth is relative to the particular place in time that an observer occupies." This argument is utter nonsense. What does it matter if this debate was not an objective truth 100 years ago? Just because 1,000 years ago people thought the earth was flat, does not mean that the truth that the earth is spherical is not an absolute truth. In conclusion, my opponent is arguing that because people can be ignorant of the truth, it must be relative. This is nonsense. You can say gravity is nonexistent and that the law of gravitation is an opinion, but the fact and truth is that gravity exists and is absolute. Opinions are relative. Truth, laws, and facts are not. As my opponent is instigator claiming that the truth is relative, the burden of proof lies with him to prove that Gravity