Philosophy is Important

"My opponent might just as well deny the whole of knowledge [...]."What an irrational plea. I am asking you to justify your claims with reason and define your concepts. You refuse to define any of the terms you use."She doesn't seem to understand there are three ways to discover knowledge: [...] 3) (which she rejects, absolutely (while denying absolutes)) - that self-evident truths exist." Haven't rejected anything absolutely, don't strawman. There is no absolute, it's a nonsense term. You haven't justified any of your so-called "Self-evident truths"."My opponent has stated:"Here comes the strawman!"..that my claims of things self evident are mere opinions [Con has no understanding of axioms; offers no rational argument to the contrary]"You have not justified any of your "truths" as self-evident. They are just opinions. Whether something is an axiom or not is subjective. Some people think the earth is flat and leprechauns as an axiom. I'm not going to just accept your claims cause you call them axioms. "..truth is contradictory by definition [this is an example of denial of senses or reason (or both) as contributors to knowledge]"Absolute truth is contradictory by definition. You never even defined what you meant by truth for me to even evaluate it.You avoided it the entire debate."..compares absolute truths with unicorns? [denies senses; believes ideas of the mind are real objects (our ideas are the means by which we understand objects. They are not the object.)]"Ideas of the mind are not objects, they are concepts. [Absolute] Truth is just a [nonsense] concept, it is not an object.".denies examples of absolutes yet states they are "justified by definition" [skeptics must use reason to argue that reason doesn't exist]"The so called examples you gave had everything to with definitions, and nothing to do with your concept of verification truth. A whole is by definition, and by definition alone, the sum of it's parts. They weren't absolute either, a whole is dependent on it's parts, this is not absolute, it is relative.".."reality exists" is mere rhetoric [Con is confused about the limited role of language to understand reality (experience & reason, and axioms, also play an important role)]"Reality is a synonym for existence. You are saying existence exist. It's tautological rhetoric, you aren't saying anything or adding any information. It's like saying waters watery or hair is hairy. It has nothing do with any supposed " limited role of language" and everything to do with you, the person who wrote it."..my use of the word "close" [as "opposed to 'exact,'] to qualify my position [to distinguish from dogma] is rejected by my opponent. [this seems to suggest that Con doesn't really believe what she seems to think is her strength - analyzing arguments based on their grammatical structure." Saying it's close as opposed to exact doesn't make it less dogmatic. Have I told you about lord Burke47 and how you need to be AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to his divinity?You are still preaching this stuff as incontrovertibly "truth" and that it is needed, that's dogma.. "..self evident truths are not so [just because I say so - except it isn't me, it is Aristotle and his proteges]"Maybe they are so, you never justified them, you just claimed them as "true because they are true!". And don't care if your priest tell you it's true either. "..absolute truths also require reason and argument to defend [evident truths do; absolute truths (axioms) do not'"Yes they do."..example of science, and therefore reality in airplanes is sophistry [denies senses and reason and reality in general]"No, your argument was sophistry. Planes being able to fly has nothing to do with your concept of validation, truth. (which you never defined or justified)"..man isn't timeless and universal [not a claim I made; the claim is for truth; for man, it is stated as an approximate goal]"I never said you did. You said, "Practical Truth is a correspondence with man's life". Man and his life isn't even close to timeless, universal, or absolute, so man is not in correspondence with practical truth."..denies claim that man alone uses reason to make judgments [but offers no examples to the contrary]"Dolphins, great apes, mice, birds, dogs. I don't have to offer counter examples, nearly every animal with higher functioning brains exhibit rational behavior. They may be wild and more instinctive, but they aren't pure emotion. People use to think wild humans (or "savages" as they called them) couldn't reason."..denies the claim that mans judgments should be in his own best interest... it is only opinion [& uses the absurd suggestion of man causing 'cute pandas" to be extinct could somehow be in mans best interest]"It is only an opinion, one that the endangered cute pandas and human panda advocates do not hold. It is mans best interest to continue destroying their habitats and polluting the environments so man can have a higher quality of life, more jobs, more infrastructure and energy. It's not like extinct cute pandas would change anything for man. "..believes that mans actions cannot be contradictory [only grammatical statements can be]"Never said that. "Con seems not to see that the 'standard' for the highest good is clearly stated, in that brief sentence, as "perfect being" (man being the best he can be)"This. Exactly what I'm talking about, ambiguous and unclear, you provide no information. WTF is a perfect being? More things that require explaining."In fact, she takes great delight in rejecting knowledge and the idea that man has the capacity to understand." Nope. The only one taking delight in rejecting that idea is the one who never defines any of their terms in an understandable way and keeps everything vague. Pro never defined their concept of verification "truth"Pro never defined "Practical truth"Pro never rationally justifies their "axioms".This debate just shows what a wreck philosophy (or pro's version of it) is.