Presence of a universal truth

I, too, apologize for the confusion. I now understand my opponent's position. Simply put, oboeman's position is that each statement is either objectively true or false. I accept his definition of universal truth for this debate. Again, it 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." Based off of those lines, I negate, that there is a universal truth. Everything is based off of interpretation; nothing is objectively true or false. To begin with, not everyone has the same definitions for things. A kiwi that may be sweet to me may be very sour to someone else, whereas a car that seems to be traveling very fast to one person may look as slow as a snail to some others. Whereas there is a general consensus on many things, that general consensus changes when you move from place to place. But even if we disregard the amount of people that believe certain things (to do so would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy), who's to say that they are objectively right? My opponent provided an example statement in his R2, the statement that "2+2=4". From what we know so far, if I prove the statement either right or wrong then he wins, but right here, I'm going to show that the statement is neither right nor wrong – it is all based on what point of view you have. This is an AIM conversation a friend and I had a while ago. The screennames are overwritten to protect privacy; I am RZA and he is PSC. RZA:truth is a matter of perspective. PSC:no it is not. true is true. 2+2=4 RZA:always? PSC:yes RZA:alright. RZA:i challenge that statement. RZA:advocacy: 2+2=1 RZA:warrant: 2 water droplets + 2 water droplets = 1 water droplet. RZA:impact: it is a matter of perspective who wins the argument and who loses the argument, as you can take it from the perspective of volume or entities that appear. RZA:from a volume standpoint RZA:it would be 4. RZA:from an entities standpoint RZA:2 water droplets merged with 2 water droplets makes 1. PSC:2-2=0 RZA:what about it PSC:try that one RZA:sure RZA:i win this one too RZA:2-2=2 RZA:2 water droplets RZA:split one into three RZA:take two of those three away RZA:you have an original and a third RZA:from an entities standpoint RZA:it is still 2. PSC:but that would make it 4-2=2 RZA:that's a step in the process, yes. PSC:so 2-2=4-2=2? RZA:yup. My opponent attempted to place a pre-empt to this last round, in which he said "one of those groups of people is wrong, and one is right, logically". When I look to dictionary.com, however, logic means "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" . However, reliable and correct are also subjective; there is no way to objectively say if something is right or wrong. Many people in the Middle East think it's a just punishment to cut someone's hands off in public if they were caught stealing. In the United States we don't have much of a problem with people looking at each other, but in Japan, it is common for a person to have Jikoshisen-kyofu, which is a phobia of eye contact. Different cultures and different beliefs have different definitions for what's right and what's wrong, and most of them claim that their definitions are the ones that are objectively true. Who's to say which one is correct and which one is not? Who's to say that two plus two HAS TO equal four? And on that note, who says two plus two HAS TO NOT equal four? My friend has this saying that he made up some time ago, and it goes like this: "Our beliefs define our realities, our perceptions of those realities define our dreams, and our dreams in turn are the reason for which we choose our beliefs." I think it pretty much hits this issue on the dot. It's all based on point of view. There is no objective truth. Not statement is absolutely "wrong" or absolutely "right", although some belief systems perpetuate that as the truth. Hell, what I'm saying in this debate might not be fully true either… but at the same time, it can't be fully false. But my opponents position has to be evaluated differently, as it claims that [there is an absolute truth] and that the statement that [there is an absolute truth] is an absolute truth. This is definitely false, as nothing can be absolutely true or false. I urge a negative ballot.