Objective Truth = Subjective Truth and Vice-Versa

(1) Interdependent As The Yinyang "Objective truth is only "objective" as a category or by definition because of it's opposite "subjective" truth. If either would cease to exist then so would the categories."Is what my opponent stated true? I suggest we attempt to fully understand his meaning before jumping to any rash conclusions. What does it mean for truth to have categories? Perhaps objective and subjective as definitions are only meaningful in light of one another -- meaning that if subjective truth were eliminated than objective truth must trod in its direction. But does that even SEEM true? Consider the definition of objective as listed in my opponent's opening round:Objective Truth - Existing independently of perception or individual conceptions. What would happen to objective truth if subjects ceased to exist? It certainly does not seem like anything at all would change ontologically with objective truth - insofar as its very definition already requires that it exist independent of human apprehension. So removing subjects from the equation is irrelevant because it is not contingently involved with either the meaning or ontology of objective truth.For example, the rate of gravity is 9.81 mps^2. Does the rate of gravity depend upon subjective truth? That is to say, do subjects need to apprehend the rate of gravity in order for it to ACTUALLY be 9.81 mps^2? Does the ontology of gravity change to subjects that have no understanding of either gravity or its rate? Given that we know that this rate is constant even among those ignorant of it, we have very good reasons for believing that the rate of gravity was not different when all were ignorant of it and even when all were yet to be. This of course means that things can be true even without subjects to perceive or conceive of them - the very definition of objective truth.Opposites cannot exist without one another. This is the yin and the yang.Let us grant for the purpose of this section that subjective truth and objective truth are opposites - no matter what the case may really be. Does it seem true that opposites cannot exist without one another? Let us consider the traditional concepts used in this sort of dualism: Light and Darkness, Heat and Cold.It is true that darkness cannot exist without light and cold without heat. Does this affirm my opponent's point that opposites cannot exist independently? Well, it would ONLY be true if the same were true when the positions were switched. For instance, can light exist without darkness? Can heat exist without cold? The answer is yes! Why? Because darkness and cold are parasitic by nature, their existence is NOT substantively defined, they are defined by the absence of something else. For instance, imagine a cup that has a hole in it. No one could rightly say that there could be a hole without something for it to exist in because a hole is necessarily a 100% nonexistent. A hole in a cup is defined solely by the amount of cup that is absent. Does this mean that the cup cannot exist without the hole? I certainly do not think so. Similarly, darkness and cold require light and heat because they are defined by its absence. Since light and heat are not similarly defined, they are not dependent upon the existence of their said opposites.(As a side note, it should be noted that in science both darkness and light can exist independently as well as heat and cold - only relevant difference is that both darkness and cold are not ontologically different than nothingness).(2) Of Equal ValueYin does equal Yang. They equal each other in value. You cannot have one without the other, so their value is equal. You cannot not have light without darkness. You cannot have up without down. You cannot have big without small. All of these value are equal in relation towards each other, because one cannot exist without the other.Let me clear something up. There are semantic relationships between words that require the opposite to be meaningful. This is not true of all opposites however. It is my opponent's burden to show that the relationship between objective and subjective truth are necessarily interdependent. Nevertheless, I am finding it difficult to see how interdependent existence, if it true, means that the interdependent concepts are of equal value. A positive ten has just as much value in Yang as the negative ten does in Yin. This makes their value equal in relation to one another. A positive ten cannot exist unless their is a negative ten. This goes for any value. This is precisely where my problem stems. How does one prove this to be true as my opponent must? Why is it that 1 must have -1 in order to exist? Moreover, even if this were true, how does this relationship make them equal in VALUE? In fact, the difference in value is necessarily 2. That is because -1 does not have any value, it has negative value.ConclusionI am hoping that my opponent will go a little more in depth has to how we are to understand the relationship between subjective and objective truth and why we are to see them as opposites and necessarily interdependent. Moreover, it must be resolved that negative (-) values are not equal to (+) values necessarily, or his position of value equality is insubstantial.