absolute truth exist

I'll start by responding to his questions.1. Is it absolutely true that everything I said is correct?Of course not. That's what I'm advocating for in terms of this debate. It's your job to refute what I'm saying. If you don't then it's true. If you do then it's false. The variation leads to relativity, and thus not absolutism.2. Is it absolutely true that I didn't lie about everything? No. My personal feelings about baseball aren't relevant to the debate. Even if I personally don't like the red soxs, I will defend that they're a good team. If you call that a lie then okay. If not then okay.3. Is it absolutely true that everything I will say in this round is not a lie or made up.Same answer as above.4. Is it absolutely true that I will even post in round three.Okay, this doesn't prove absolute truth at all. That's complete semantics at best, which would be in violation of your no trolling rule. That's an automatic DQ. With his questions answered, I'll now move onto his new arguments in the last round *facepalm*My opponent is asserting that God is the absolute standard by which we judge truth. But there's a few problems with that.First, my opponent doesn't warrant which God we're talking about here. Different religions hold different laws to be of absolute truth. Second, my opponent doesn't warrant the existence of whatever God he's specifying to follow. The existence of that God would be necessary since if he didn't exist there wouldn't be any reason to follow his laws, making the truth relative.Third, even if my opponent were proving that God did exist, there still wouldn't be a reason why his laws were absolute. To say that would be to say that God prescribes morality, which is a claim all of it's own to warrant, especially since that would take us down a completely different debate route.Again, no normative standard to use. He has nothing to weigh what truth really is, meaning that there can't be any absolute truth. Resolution negated right here. But let's move on.He completely drops all of the examples he gave last round. This completely crushes his case since if truth were absolute, then he would have to be right on all of those. If the truth was as relative as I was suggesting, then absolute truth is disproven. So each of those dropped reasons can be extended out as a reason to negate the resolution, as I'm proving there how truth is relative.Instead, my opponent comes up with a new example: child molestation. Not only is his warranting of why it is bad extremely lacking ('cuz God said so!), but it isn't absolutely wrong at all. If a man is holding a gun to my head while also threatening the lives of a stadium-full of people if I don't molest that child, it would be wrong under a utilitarian calculus for me not to molest that child. Thus, the "absolute truth" you claim to be true isn't absolute at all, but rather relative.I also find it funny how he is complaining about wanting more space to talk more, yet his last round used a total of 700+ characters. Out of the 8k we've been given. He didn't even use a 1/10th of his available characters.So, as a summary of the debate:1. He isn't providing and adequetly defending a metric under which to judge what is absolutely true. This is necessary because without some calculus to decide what is absolutely true or not, there is no way to decide what is absolutely true, which causes everything to descend into relativity. This is the first place to negate.2. The four dropped reasons in the second round function as ways I'm proving truth to be relative. He dropped them. I'm winning them. Four more fairly simple reasons to negate.3. The last example he brought up that I disproved is another place I'm proving that truth is relative.So six different places to negate the resolution. No place to affirm it. Easy decision.The resolution is negated. Thanks for reading y'all!