Absolute truth exists.

>>>Let me point out a contradiction in your arguement. I see you said that, "If there is no absolute truth then that is an absolute truth." I also have come to see, however, that you have said this as well. "If you turn around to argue that an absolute truth does in fact exist then you are debating yourself." Thus, in turn, not only have you contradicted yourself by saying these, you have also said that you have lost within saying the following... "Either way you argue sir you have lost." For you have contradicted yourself. =]<<< Your first part of your second round argument is attempting to day that I contradicted myself. I; however, see no contradiction. All you have merely done is quote me and say that it is a contradiction yet you fail to explain why I have contradicted myself at any point in the argument. As a result of you failing to point out why I have contradicted myself then I feel that this entire section should not even be considered for this debate. What you have done would be similar to me saying that my math teacher contradicted himself by saying that 1+1=2 and then I fail to explain why. What I simply did was prove that absolute truth existed. Now let us take a look at the next part of your argument. >>>What if I was to say that neither Absolute Truth and No Absolute Truth exist. For, if absolute truth existed, then empires would have not fell ,like Rome. Also, if no absolute truth existed, we can say that because everytime you sit down, you explode. Is this a contradiction? Nope. Why? For if we take into account that everyone is different, then that in turn means that also means that everyone can be the same as well. How? Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration.<<< Let me peel this apart for the readers. "What if I was to say that neither Absolute Truth and No Absolute Truth exist." Then it is an absolute truth that it neither does or does not exist. Thus for two of the main theories present absolute truth does in fact exist. The two theories that have thus far come forth are the on presented by myself, that if absolute truth does not exist then that is an absolute truth. The second one was presented by my opponent. That neither absolute truth and no absolute truth exist. If that is the case then it is an absolute truth. No matter what stance you take on absolute truth, or way you argue, then if it is the nature of absolute truth. Then that nature of absolute truth is an absolute truth. "For, if absolute truth existed, then empires would have not fell ,like Rome." How is this relevant or logical in any way? You have failed to present even a reasonable semblance of logic as to why this would be, where as I, on the other hand, have given logical reasons and trains of thought. On top of simply giving them I have taken the time to explain why it is so. "Also, if no absolute truth existed, we can say that because everytime you sit down, you explode. Is this a contradiction? Nope. Why? For if we take into account that everyone is different, then that in turn means that also means that everyone can be the same as well. How? Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration." Ok, I am not sure I am following what you are discussing. It almost seems as though you have changed the topic. Perhaps that is me or perhaps it is not, I guess it is how I perceive things isn't it? "Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration." I am highlighting this because this is where your argument begins to take form. From this sentence you actually have presented something and are going to explain it. The problem is that you are talking about what people perceive. What people perceive may in effect not be the truth, but I will get to that later as we go through the rest of your argument. So now rather than talking about absolute truth we are talking about peoples perceptions. I would like to note that thus far you have failed to support anything you have said with logic in relation to absolute truth were as I have, and only just now are we getting to your support and it is not about the question of if absolute truth exists (because that is what I am trying to prove) but now we are talking about how people perceive things. I will explain later why this fracture in my opponents argument does not relate to absolute truth. Note to everyone reading in the following what is in parenthesis is what I am adding in this round. >>> "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two "If this wall is blue, it is not black." - Person Three "If this wall is black, it is not blue." - Person Four "If this wall is black and blue, it is neither." - Person Five "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six So assuming we see that person one and six have the same views... "It is absolute truth that it is blue!" (False. While it may be true that that is what they perceive that may not be the case and on top of that you have failed to refute my example. If we were arguing where my absolute truth was that the wall was blue then you may have a point, but sadly my absolute truth is not that the wall is blue and so you fail to provide any manner of even a semblance of an effective counter argument to what I have stated. Do note that my argument is based in the fact that the nature of absolute truth is an absolute truth thus proving the existence of absolute truth) But then here comes the irony. Lets say some of them changed in fifteen years. "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One. "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three "If this wall is black, it is blue as well." - Person Four "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six Person Two, Four, and Five have overrided One and Six. "Thus, the wall is black and blue!" Now lets look at something beyond absolute truth and non-absolute truth. "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Four "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six So, now what? Now it is neither, thus, you have lost.<<< "So, now what? Now it is neither, thus, you have lost." Unfortunately, while that may be the case for the example you provided, it in no way relates to what I have provided. To finish this debate I would like to state the following. My opponent failed to refute any of my points. He merely stated that I contradicted myself and went on from there to discuss things that did not even relate to what I had proposed. This is a huge flaw as this debate is centered on him disproving my absolute truth. He failed to do so. Whereas I have not only solidified my argument but gone even further to dismantle my opponents argument even though it did not relate to the main issue. My final line will be an urge to vote for whomever you think it is that debated better. Whether or not you agree with my opponent I feel it important to vote for the better debater. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I would also like to thank anyone who reads and or votes on this debate. Thank you.