Presence of a universal truth

Alright, so your argument is based off of point of view. In that case, my argument STILL stands. A universal truth still functions with these conditions. For example, the following: "Rezzealaux's argument is based off of point of view." The preceding statement is STILL a universal truth. I have proven the existence of numerous universal truths throughout this debate. For example, two raindrops plus two raindrops merge into one raindrop. This statement is either true or false, and its status as true or false will not change due to the perspectives of others. Simply because one may think that two raindrops merged with two raindrops does not equal one raindrop, and another may think that two raindrops merged with two raindrops equals one raindrop, under the same definitions and circumstances, both cannot be factually correct. Just because their perspective differs from the truth, the fact of the matter still remains: The statement "Two raindrops plus two raindrops merge into one raindrop" is either true or false, but not both. Thus, by proving that a universal truth even exists, I have proven that the repetitions are valid. There are indeed universal truths, I am arguing, that are either true or false. As well, everything is subject to individual interpretation. However, these two statements are NOT contradictory. On an individual level, anyone can think however way they so choose, as it is their mind, and no one is controlling their thought processes. Just because something is subject to individual interpretation does not mean that every interpretation may be TRUE, however. MISINTERPRETATION by Rezzealaux: Quite the contrary, I have not altered my position at all. In Round 2, I said "I am not arguing whether or not a particular statement is true or false," but you misconstrued this, claiming I have changed my position from previous rounds. What I meant by this statement was that my objective was not to debate whether a particular statement is indeed either TRUE or FALSE, but merely to prove that a universal truth exists (i.e. that it IS either true or false, not necessarily which one though). My goal in this debate was not to prove that trees exist in Minnesota, for example, but instead to use it as a guideline to prove than a UNIVERSAL TRUTH exists. Secondly, I in no way specified that I wanted to debate that there exists a universal truth for every statement. "Instead, I am arguing that a universal truth does indeed exist." The above statement depicts, explicitly, that I am debating the presence of A universal truth. It is utter nonsense that one would induce that I am debating that all statements have intrinsic universal truth values. Therefore, indeed, not all statements have a universal truth value. Most definitely, however, some do. I clearly stated in my Round 2 that opinions (statements with no universal truth value) can be distinguished by the direct usage of adjectives, such as in: "Kiwis are sour." If one were to make a scale ranging from sweet to sour, the specific spot where something turns from sweet to sour is relative, and thus not universal. Regarding the latter statement: "The Kiwi is on top of the table." Existence is NOT universally arbitrary. Of course, anyone has the right to dispute the truth of the matter. However, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with the statement, it still is universally true, as it either IS on top of the table, or IS NOT on top of the table; it is a black-and-white issue. Existence is not altered by the preference of the individual; though one may choose to think that the Kiwi is not on top of the table (assuming it IS on top), it still IS on top of the table. All statements, except for opinion statements, can be universally measured. "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." Anyone, assuming their brain and cognitive abilities permit it, can choose to have their own interpretation of anything presented before them. Given: Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was originally scored for two oboes (for the section), by the composer himself. Person A may think that this piece of music was originally scored for two oboes, while person B may think it was originally scored for fifteen oboes. Is either person more right than the other? Of course, person A is right. Even though person B is wrong, he can still think what he so chooses, he is merely factually incorrect. "Truth is a matter of perspective no matter what definitions are used." Complete definitions utilized in a statement will leave no room for interpretation error. The definitions, being thorough, should include whether raindrops are referring to an entity/volume standpoint. A matter of perspective may exist when something is not concise. "Even if truth is a matter of perspective until definitions are used, definitions usually aren't written or said within a statement . . . .so that would make it nontopical." Nonsense. One may say that the kiwi is on top of the table, but what good does it do if someone does not understand what a table is? For example, a table could be considered a flat platform supported by vertical legs. If person A thought the table in context was being defined as such, but person B thought a table was a set of data arranged in rows and columns, a universal truth would not be able to be determined due to interpretation error. The kiwi may be on top of the flat platform supported by vertical legs, but it may not be on top of the set of data arranged in rows and columns. Thus, in order to establish a universal truth, definitions must be utilized. It must be assumed that words used in a universal truth statement are mutually defined. Obviously, as mentioned above, not everyone might use the same definition initially (e.g. definitions of table). However, if one claims that the kiwi is on top of the table, it is up to him to define potential definition disagreements to avoid misinterpretation. "Silence is consent, so he agreed with…. "2-2=0". I proved that 2-2=0 was also a matter of perspective." The primary reason I did not specifically argue the "2-2=2" example was because I could get my point across just as readily by only using the example of "2+2=1." My point dealt with the definitions being used, and my response to the latter example would be quite similar to the former, of which I did rebuttal. "There was no ‘taking advantage'." I was merely using my own perspective of what I thought you might have been doing. Apparently, I may have been wrong. Indeed, my own perspective may have been wrong. This only proves my point further, that personal perspectives do not change inherent truths. "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." Though examining different societies, universal truths can still be drawn. Such a universal truth would include the one I issued previously: "In a given culture, it can be either right or wrong to make eye contact." This statement fits accordingly to our definition of universal truth. Reasons to vote PRO: I have successfully proven the existence of a universal truth (according to our definition), as well as having established the truth surrounding it. I have successfully argued my points, proving them to be correct, as well as rebutted against my opponent's arguments. I hope that this debate and enthralling discussion brought about an amelioration of the reality of this long-debated philosophical concept. It would be highly advisable to vote PRO: A universal truth does exist. I thank my opponent, and I look forward to reading his Round 4 rebuttal. The debate was fun, Oboeman.