Absolute Truth Exists

Subjectivity:Pro has attempted to win the subjectivity fallibilism argument by using a single tactic: redefinition. The redefinition argument is the only argument used on this subject in R3, with the arguments about the subjective nature of all statements going unchallenged. If you reject his attempts at redefinition, extend my arguments and let them stand uncontested. The last round of the debate is not the time to start attacking definitions. In R1, Pro did not give an explicit definition of objective/absolute truth, but constructed his argument there around statements, saying:"There are subjective truths, and objective truths. A subjective statement. .. .An objective statement. .. . "After clarifying that he was using "absolute" and "objective" synonymously, I defined "absolute truth" in my R1 saying "Pro is using absolute truth synonymously with objective statements" making explicit what Pro constructed argumentatively. If Pro objected to this or wanted to challenge it, the proper time was during his R2 argument. After he declined to do so, the definition used by Pro and clarified by Con in R1 of absolute truth as "objective statement" should stand. Allowing Con to spend the entire R2 argument arguing against the definitions used in R1 and unchallenged in Pro's R2, then shifting the goalpost to a new definition in R3 is an unfair tactic by Pro as it moves the target and thus illegitimately undercuts all of Con's existing argumentation by attempting to effectively change the resolution in the last round. Please reject the new dictionary definition used by Pro in R3 in favor of the definitions established in R1 and not challenged in R2. Language is always subjective, all statements are couched in language, thus objective statements/absolute truths cannot exist. The resolution is negated. Fallibilism:Even if you accept Pro's redefinition, there is still a lack of a significant response to the fallibilism argument. Here, Pro says that if we allow him the constraints of a serious scientific process, he can be 100% sure that the conventions used will mean that 2+2=4. It's simple to argue that the serious scientific process could be using base 3, in which 2+2=11 (1). More importantly, I would like to note that his argument here is entirely to my example and ignores the thrust of the fallibilism argument. He makes no argument that humans can ever know the actual state of reality, and makes no argument as to how he knows that an absolute true state of reality exists if he can never access it to verify. It is intuitively comfortable to assume that there exists some absolute state of reality in existence, but in this debate Pro has a burden of proof to show that it is so, and has not answered my claim that he cannot, meaning that he has not met his burden of proof and thus the vote goes to Con. Conclusion:This debate was about whether an objective statement was possible. This definition was used in R1, not challenged in R2, and then Pro attempted to shift it in R3 without arguing against the positions taken in the previous rounds. Please reject this attempt at redefinition and vote Con on the inherent subjectivity of language making objective statements impossible. Otherwise vote BoP for Con as Pro hasn't shown how he can know an absolute reality can exist given human limitations. Again, I thank Pro for creating this challenge. (1). http://www.cut-the-knot.org...