Objective Truth = Subjective Truth and Vice-Versa

I would like to remind the readers of the burden my opponent carried in this debate. My opponent was not simply required to show that objective and subjective truth are possibly interdependent (or of equal value, whatever the case may be); my opponent was required to show that it IS the case (or at least probably the case). I encourage that one keep this in mind when considering my opponent's rebuttals and my forthcoming responses. (1) Interdependent As The Yinyang "In order for my opponent to prove his theory correct. .. He would have to show that at some point subjects never existed. "Let us reflect first upon the definition of subjective truth as presented in my opponent's opening round: "Subjective Truth - Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. "In order for there to have always been subjective truth there would have to be subjects, which are defined as those entities with properties necessary for possessing thoughts, namely those in possession of a mind. Now, there is certainly extensive evidence that suggests that subjects did not always exist. We can look at modern theories of cosmogony and cosmology that operate under the evidenced inference that subjects came into being at a finite time in the history of our universe. In fact, the assumption (if one can even call it that) that subjects did not always exist would constitute as an inference to the best explanation (1) - insofar as the idea that embodied minds always existed is nonsensical and impossible given all scientifically established theories of origin (2). Furthermore, even if it were true that subjects always existed, it is a non sequitur to suggest that this necessitates the interdependency of subjective and objective truth. There would have to be some sort of hidden and unstated premise that makes this so. Moreover, all things being equal, the claim that subjective truth always existed and the claim that it has not always existed are not relevantly different, yet my opponent wishes us to take it for granted, without evidence (and against significant evidence to the contrary), that subjects have always existed. So far as I can see, so long as it is possible that subjects did not always exist, then it remains that my opponent cannot prove the resolution to be true. (2) Of Equal Value"If a value becomes positive it must also have an equal negative value in order for the positive value to exist as a positive value. A value is positive? Positive in relation to what? What makes it positive? The answer is it's opposite the equal negative value. "Does this seem true? Let's suspend some criticism and grant most all of this. If 1 could only exist if -1 exists, does this mean that they are equal in value? How exactly does one show that contingency or interdependency infers equality in value? I simply do not see how such a connection could be reasonably made. "Lastly, my opponent says that a negative has no value, but this is completely false. It has a negative value. " Negative value is not value. By way of analogy, if a hole exists in a cup, one does not say that the hole has cup because, of course, it has negative cup. The hole is defined by the absence of cup and is thus not equal to the cup in which it resides. Negative value is necessarily defined as NOT having value. So to compare a positive and a negative integer and claim that they are of equal value is necessarily impossible. Of course, it has yet to be proved how any of this can be legitimately applied to subjective and objective truth, and how these concepts can have value (equal value, nonetheless). Conclusion I tried my best to both understand my opponent's resolution and to rebut many of the various ways in which it could have been interpreted. Thanks again to my opponent and I look forward to any future encounters. Sources(1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...InquireTruth