Absolute Truth

I believe my opponent is basically arguing this: Let's say you have a red apple that you place on a table in front off a blind guy, a colorless guy, and a guy with perfect vision. All people see the apple differently, but the apple is still going to be red. This is what I essentially understand to be my opponents arguing. So what I did my last round is that I've obviously shown certain truths that are actually false statements. This leads me to the conclusion that their is no such thing as a truth which this will be my first contention. Their is no such thing as a truth, because each truth can be proved wrong by another truth. Ex: All people breath, Dead People don't breathe, Dead People can be brought back to life (biblical reference). Any truth can be canceled out by another truth and thus their is no such thing as a "complete" truth or an absolute truth. My opponents has agreed to all my definitions as he has not refuted them. The definition of "absolute" is perfect, complete, or pure. At the instance that not a single truth exists that isn't relative or that can't be proved wrong by another truth their is no such thing as a truth and thus no such thing as an absolute truth. No matter what example my opponents argues it will be proved wrong by another true statement. For example let us use my opponents "pink" example. What is pink? Can we not say it's a color on the color spectrum; what's that? Can we not say that is visible light? Visible light can't exists in darkness that is void of light thus that truth is nullified by another truth. However, you can insert light into darkness so that truth is proved wrong because it can't be a timeless thing unless you consider it untouched which it may or may not be. However, that doesn't ignore the idea that unexplained phenomena could happen that alters this untouchability. As you can see your in a constant loop with truths canceling out other truths so there fore their is no such thing as a definitive truth or an absolute truth. The definition of truth is an accuracy; by utilizing this definition we see that since all truths can be proved wrong with other truths their is no such thing as 100% accuracy because conditions will always alter and their is no such thing as a perfect eternal truth that stands alone. I understand this may lead one to ask; wait isn't he just making a bunch of contradictions? That's exactly it really; their is no such thing as an absolute truth because their is no "theoretical" truth that currently exists that can not be nullified by another "theoretical" truth. I argue that all truths are "theoretical', because they can all be proved wrong. Thus their is no such thing as a definitive truth, because simple put it is impossible as it can always be altered by certain contexts and be nullified by other truths. If my opponent wants to win this debate he must prove their is such an entity that can be considered a definitive truth. (I will devote the following space to help to provide further understanding to my argument for those who may be confused; also serves as a quick summary) All truths are "theoretical", this is proved because no truth can exist stand alone without being proved false by another "theoretical" truth. Thus all truths exists to prove other truths wrong. Thus all truths are "theoretical" because we accept them to be true even though in reality they are not without flaws. My opponent's wording implies we are not arguing for these "theoretical" truths; we are arguing for a stand-alone definitive truth that is not based on opinion, relativity, or any other "x" factor. This would be an absolute truth, a complete truth if you would. Thus my argument is that it's impossible to have one of these truths because their is no "theoretical" truth that can be made definitive without it being countered by some "x" factor