Presence of a universal truth

I'm going to go about this in order of what I believe is clearest. Oboeman says that in my proving that there is no universal truth, it essentially proves that there is a universal truth, since I claim that his case is absolutely false – in short, he puts a full case turn on me. However, this will not work as the nature of my claim, along with the definition of Universal Truth (UT); necessarily make it impossible for him to turn my position. Let's start at the beginning. Since R1 we have both agreed that UT is defined as "A universal truth is a statement/claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false. Such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual." My position as the CON says that nothing can be absolutely true or false, because everything is based off of interpretation, and that there is no way that one person can say that their opinion is better than another's. PRO then comes up in his R3 and says "Aha! Since my definition says "either true OR false" and you have shown that it is false, then that means there IS a universal truth – that there is no universal truth!" There are three reasons for why this statement is fallacious. 1) That position relies on the assumption that my case is absolutely true. His definition says "such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of personal opinions or beliefs of an individual,", and that such a statement "can be ascertained to be true or false". However, since I have told you that my case is based off of my point of view – which necessarily breaks the definition of UT – and since he has not shown how my case is absolutely true, it is impossible to use my position as a warrant for his. Right now, if you look at his case there actually are no warrants that his side is true other than my case. Since he CAN NOT make new points in the last round, it's already game over and you sign the ballot CON. And just because my case isn't absolutely true doesn't mean I lose the debate. I'm just proving he has no offense. And since he has nothing for his burden of proof, I'm winning. 2) He's attempting to cycle "universal truth", but no matter how long he chains it, from {[there is no universal truth] is a universal truth} to {[[there is no universal truth] is not a universal truth] is a universal truth} and beyond, I still win because all of those chains will be in the format of "X is a universal truth" (where X is the previous cycle), and they will all still fall under the definition of UT, which, when combined with my case, destroys all possible repetitions because none of them can be ascertained to be true or false in a way that does not involve personal beliefs or opinions. And he's already agreed that "[e]verything may be subject to individual interpretation". 3) Speaking of which, that's another reason why his case falls. Since he used my case as an anchor, he is also bound to what my case claims. That means right now he is arguing two things: 1) That there are truths that are "true" and "false", and that 2) everything is subject to individual perspectives. Those two statements, as we know, are contradictory. This means that we must drop his entire case, as we do not know exactly what he is saying. Now that we've gotten that out of the way… "Also, I did not say that ALL statements must have a universal truth value as either true or false." >ABUSE: He's changed his position several times now. First of all, his definition of universal truth reads "a statement" and his R1 says particular statement, which is fine with me. But in the second round, he then says "I am not arguing whether or not a particular statement is true or false". Since there was a lot of confusion between R1 and R2, I assumed that what he said last was the best thing to go upon. From that I made my case in R2, which said that there was no universal truth for every statement: He specified EXACTLY that he wished to debate EVERYTHING: "Instead, I am arguing that a universal truth does indeed exist". But NOW in R3 HE SAYS ‘not ALL'? This is clearly shifting advocacy, and therefore is a voter against him. On this issue alone I win the debate. And NOW we go to the line-by-line. "Such statements that do not have a particular universal truth value include opinions. One may ask how to identify and distinguish an opinion from other statements […] words that can not easily be defined, and are subject to the arbitrary preferences of an individual" >Everything is an opinion. I'll use the same format from something on his side: "the kiwi is on top of the kitchen table". Refutation: Existence is pretty arbitrary. My girlfriend used to be on top of my world. She doesn't exist anymore. Everything is arbitrary; even my and my opponent's cases. "However, simply because something is subjected to individual interpretation does not mean it is not universally true/false." >This is false. If something is subject to individual interpretation it necessarily means that it cannot be objectively true or false, as no person can claim that they are more right than another person. Oboeman has not responded to this tail component of the whole issue, and here his position again falls entirely. "[…] it should be naturally assumed that the definition for a given word choice by the word user is mutually agreed upon." >1) He uses the assumption that there is a universal truth to claim that there is a universal truth. This makes as much sense as assuming that majority opinion is correct to prove that majority opinion is correct. (Which it isn't; logical fallacy ‘argumentum ad populum'.) 2) If we all used words that were mutually agreed upon, we wouldn't need to define things. Like in his R1 and my R2. "[L]et us briefly assume that PSC was referring to raindrops [...]" >Starting from the top. 1) It is not a universal truth that two raindrops plus two raindrops equals one raindrop. It is a perspective. I stated this in the conversation. 2) Truth is a matter of perspective no matter what definitions are used. You can define all you like; people will still be able to choose to look at the raindrops/waterdrops/etc. from entities and volume standpoints. My opponent's refutation to this is that one of them would be "simply incorrect", but that again uses the assumption that there is a universal truth to claim that there is a universal truth. I explained how this doesn't prove anything earlier. His usage of "simply" is pretty much the same thing as "logically", which, as I said last round, is also up to interpretation. 3) Even if truth is a matter of perspective until definitions are used, definitions usually aren't written or said within a statement (as in people usually don't say "Abortion is wrong, whereas abort is defined as….."), so that would make it nontopical. To assume that everyone uses the same definition is not only abusive, but also ridiculous. But that's my point of view. [This also responds to "All definitions must be identified in a universal truth to determine the true intent of particular words."] "[…] you seemed to be cleverly taking advantage […]" >Silence is consent, so he agreed with the water droplets definitions on the second statement; "2-2=0". I proved that 2-2=0 was also a matter of perspective. There was no "taking advantage". "In a given culture, it can be either right or wrong to make eye contact." >Since my opponent has agreed that different cultures have different PERSPECTIVES on things, and since these "universal truths" are subject to interpretation, the "universal truths" are no longer universal and therefore he loses the debate. Not enough space to do a wrap-up. But I still have R4. I await Oboeman's last offense.