Presence of a universal truth

I will respond to the thesis of his case first, then the other two main issues, the line-by-line, and finish with a summary. For convenience, the three arguments presented before "ABUSE" in R3 shall be called O1, O2 and O3, respectively. I will not be using O3 due to character limits. _________ Every time oboeman attempts to show that there is a universal truth, he uses this format: "X is either true or false" (X being an example). Usually the follow up is either an attachment of the definition – "X is either true or false, regardless of personal opinion" – or a repeat of something he's said since R2 – "X is logically true or false, but not both." He has used this several times in R4. I will not quote them all, but here are two examples; one for each of the two formats. < "This statement is either true or false, and its status as true or false will not change due to the perspectives of others." > and < "The statement "Two raindrops plus two raindrops merge into one raindrop" is either true or false, but not both." > Now, why is the statement "X is either true or false" true? The reason why you can't find a justification in his R4, ladies and gentlemen, is because I have already killed his warrant for that statement. In R2 he indeed does give a reason for "X is either true or false". Quote: "one of those groups of people is wrong, and one is right, logically." In my round directly after, I took out that reason by saying that "[w]hen I look to dictionary.com, however, logic means "the principles governing correct or reliable inference" . However, reliable and correct are also subjective; there is no way to objectively say if something is right or wrong." If you look through his R3 and R4, you will not see any counters to the refutation I just made. Since he has not proved that statements MUST be EITHER true or false, his case already falls. _________ ""Rezzealaux's argument is based off of point of view." The preceding statement is STILL a universal truth." >By this my opponent means "Rezzealaux's argument is based off of point of view" must logically be true or false. As I said earlier, he dropped his warrant for that. Since O1, O2 and O3 were originally made to prevent a turn of my case, apply those again here. O1 says that PRO must first prove how my case is a UT to use it as a warrant for his side – PRO simply does not. O2 also pre-empted this argument and prevents him from cycling anything to have a UT on top of it. "I have proven the existence of numerous universal truths throughout this debate." >He has proved nothing. He has just claimed that "X is a universal truth", and X has been quite a number of things. However, since I have defeated that statement in principle, any example he gives in that format has already also been taken out. That principle, as I have stated since R2, is that everything is subject to personal opinion and no one person can say that their opinion is better than another – and if the definition of UT is "a statement or claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false[…]", then there is necessarily no UT because we can't EVER tell who is actually right. The keyword is "Ascertain". Even if you want buy my opponent's argument that everything MUST be EITHER true or false, his case still falls entirely at this point as well because he has never told us how to tell which point of view is true or false. Because we cannot ascertain, we cannot fulfill the definition of UT, and because we cannot fulfill the definition of UT we cannot vote PRO. _________ "MISINTERPRETATION/ABUSE" >PRO changes his position within the same chunk in R4. "What I meant by this statement was […] to prove that a universal truth exists." As I said before, I'm fine with the lets-not-talk-specifically-about-trees sort of thing. Based on that assumption – that has now been confirmed – grammar dictates that it would mean that oboeman is talking about everything. Let's take an example. "A cup is plastic". oboeman says, "No specific cup". "Cups are plastic" would be the altered statement, due to grammar. If we are not talking about a specific statement, then we are specifying every statement. My opponent's deviation of "most of the time" in R3 can be likened to "Cups are sometimes plastic". That's fine too, but his case no longer links to what he had stated his burden of proof was. We agreed that we would not be using specific statements, so that would mean all statements. His case, now talking about "most" things, doesn't meet the requirements that he himself set up. However, he's now claiming that he didn't make that statement, and that all the time he's said "A universal truth". That's okay with me, but "A" is singular, and we've already agreed that we aren't talking about specific statements. So what exactly are we talking about? If he didn't specify before and is specifying now, that's abuse, and if he did specify [everything] as I said then he's still a shifting advocacy. _________ "Existence is NOT universally arbitrary." > No warrant for this. "Either does or does not exist" has already been responded to. "Is either person more right than the other?" >Is it? This was the question I posed since R2. It has never been answered. All I've gotten is "THIS perspective" or "THAT perspective", but no reasons why they are true. WHY can one person say he's more right than the other? WHY can one person say that he has the universal truth? Simply put, one person cannot. This links back to the whole "ascertain" issue, in which I have already won. "Complete definitions utilized in a statement will leave no room for interpretation error." >{Alright, let's take it from an entities standpoint then. I think 2+2=4. Why am I wrong? Because other people think so – oh wait, that's a logical fallacy. Why am I right? I don't know. Because I said so.} Interpretation is not an "error". It is a choice. A choice that none of us as humans have the right to judge. Or perhaps we do? In any case, this issue that I have posed since R2 was never responded to by the PRO. "Nonsense[…]" > His winning of that point gets him nowhere, though. Interpretations precede all. "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." > Does not break "Ascertain". _________ Since he is abusive, And since he has failed to show why everything MUST be EITHER true or false, And because even if we assume that there is T/F status to everything, there is no way to ascertain it, And due to the fact that the "True or False" and "Ascertain" are part of the definition of "Universal Truth", He fails to prove the Presence of a Universal Truth and therefore, You vote CON. _________ Thank you, as well, for the intriguing debate Oboeman. Regards, Rezzealaux