The number 4 is Even

I just finished reading my opponent's argument and am ready to respond. My opponent first attacks my second premise that if we are making a straightforward claim about an object, for that claim to be true, the object in question must actually exist. My opponent writes in response:"So the sentence blue is pretty is not truewhile some might think it is and others might think blue is not pretty because of the nature of the sentence and what it claims that blue a frequency of light is pretty according to my opponent the subjective thoughts of everybody is wrong thoughts that blue is pretty are incorrect however I say that blue is pretty is correct that I do BELIEVE that blue is pretty according to me therefore his conclusions fail."This entire line of reasoning I believe stems from a lack of knowledge as to what constitutes a true sentence. To see what makes a sentence true though we should clear up what 'truth' is. I think it can best be defined as: Consistent with fact or reality[1], being in accordance with the actual state or conditions;conforming to reality or fact; not false[2], or being in accordance with the actual state of affairs[3]. All of these definitions take the existence of the truth claim in question as needing to exist in reality or actuality in order to even be considered as being truth. Moving on to my opponent's analogy about the color blue and his argument that for me to claim that the sentence "4 is even." is not true is the same as me arguing that the sentence "Blue is pretty." is not true. However, my opponent's example of whether blue can be pretty is radically different from whether the number 4 is even. The color blue does actually exist. It exists as "the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 440–490 nm."[4] The existence of the colour blue is not being called into question. It exists objectively. My opponent then writes:"My opponent then makes a claim that average objects do not exist without any logic or evidence or reasoning as to why abstract objects are non existent like blue its absract we see it everyday am I to believe that blue is not blue simply because we cannot hold it or taste it or smell it am I to believe that people do not have a brain simply because I cannot see it."Never did I claim that "average" objects do not exist, nor did I claim that the color blue does not exist. The color blue is not an abstract concept, but a specific perception evoked by a specific wavelength of light. So my opponent's analogy does not apply to the case of abstract objects not existing. And as to logic or reasoning as to why abstract objects do not exist in reality or actuality, we must simply look to the definition of an 'abstract' object. It is defined as: "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, oractual instances"[5]. As in, an abstract idea or thing does not exist in reality or actuality. So, it follows from the fact that a sentence regarding a truth claim regarding a non-existant concept cannot be true or false in that truth is intrinsically connected to reality. Since abstract objects do not exist in reality, any sentence making a definitive statement about them would be false.My opponent has not brought sound enough arguments against my premises and conclusions to warrant a Pro vote. As such I urge a Con vote.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...