Absolute Truth

_To refute my opponents case_ Absolutely, their is no such thing as definitive truth; you could prove my case wrong else this wouldn't be a debate. I am not talking in circles I am merely proving that everything can be false, and thus I negate the resolution which implies that their is no such a thing as an "absolute truth". Obviously, since we don't have a "complete" truth we don't have a universal truth. What my opponent has not understood is I am basically arguing that all truths are "theoretical" because all truths can be proven wrong with other truths. This doesn't mean their is no such thing as a theoretical truth. It means that all truths are not "complete, or pure", thus their is no such thing as an "absolute truth" because they are all flawed. Further more I am not adding more words to my first topic; in fact I've made a different argument all together. I am no longer arguing relativity, but I am arguing that yes nothing in the world is for certain. As my opponent gave an example I may or may not be a monkey. My opponent merely states that "otherwise nothing in this world is for certain", I absolutely agree with him on that. My opponent does not ever say why that is a bad thing he just assumes that it is. Thus my opponent has no argument their. Further more to respond to my opponents last sentence: I'm not saying a theoretical truth has to change "all statements", in fact their are some truths that probably will only change one statement. Further more the only reason we have debates is because their is a "theoretical" truth, a resolution, and both sides try to provide other "theoretical" truths to prove that resolution right or wrong. If anything my opponents example of debates only supports my side. As of right now me and my opponent are both arguing "theoretical truths", however my opponent has not provided any argument of any sorts to specifically prove his side right. He only tells us that we need a "standard", however he doesn't provide any justification for why it is needed. I argue that at the instant that our society can exist with millions of "theoretical truths" then their is no need to concern ourselves with the fact that no truth in the world is certain. All statements are "theoretical" truths because they can be proven wrong. My case can be proven wrong as can my opponent's case be proven right. Yet my opponent's rebuttal to my case can also be proven wrong as my rebuttal to his. Thus we are in a constant circle of yes and no. So in reality what we have come down to is a never-ending cycle and yet we still see that my opponent has not offered up any actual argument or justification to the idea that their is such a thing as an "absolute truth". My opponent understands my case fully, because as he stated "otherwise nothing in this world is for certain", this is absolutely true. Thus the existence of a "complete truth" or an "Absolute truth" can not be manifested in anyway. Further more in terms of actual voting points my opponent hasn't proven that "theoretical" truths don't exist nor has he provided any reason to counter the idea that nothing in the world is for certain. Thus this debate is not going on in circles as I have negated the resolution. Further more because my opponents next rebuttal will probably just lead us to more circles it's safe to assume that in this debate we may just be going on in circles. However, for this instance for this debate, I have negated the resolution. Thus even if one could argue that my negation is false; which one could easily do, I have still negated the resolution because their is no such thing as an absolute truth. Basically as a voter you will be voting on soon which side presented the best "theoretical" truth. My "theoretical' truth has proven that my opponents "theoretical" truth is false and thus we can accept the idea that their is no such thing as the existence of an absolute truth for the context and "theoretical" truth of this debate.