All Truth is Subjective

It seems to me everything is simpler when formatted as a premise and conclusion. So I will begin with my argument in that form, defend each contention and the conclusion separately, before advancing to rebuttals. P1. Whatever people may believe, there are truths to matters. (Eg. "Is there a God? " has an answer, which is by definition an absolute one) P2. Truth cannot alter for different people. C. Therefore, people's views may differ, but the truth itself cannot change, and thus cannot be subjective. 1. Certainly not all questions possess "real" responses; many call solely for opinion. However, simply through basic logic, there are postulations which must indeed have a unquestionable answer. For example, my opponent believes in absolute morals, and if he thinks this to be true, must concede this first contention. In his second round, Pro says "Opinion is truth. Everything we think is true, factual, or absolute in being correct is only that way because it believe it is so. " This sentence astounds me. Not only does my opponent say that opinion is subjective, which is missing the point of the debate but at least true, but here appears to be saying whatever one thinks to be true, must be. Now, a more subtle element of this over-the-top phrase is that since we cannot truly know anything, we must assume there are no answers. Not so. No one can ever be sure of anything, especially if the existence of reality is in question, but that does not change the one simple fact: there are truths, even if we cannot find them. 2. Here, a distinction must be established (once again) between views and truth itself. While obviously I fully concede people see the world differently, and have greatly varying replies to the same query, the truth of matters do not in themselves morph to suit the needs of opinionated people. I speak here of the truth itself, which is definite. 3. As you might imagine, in my mind the two premises are an excellent sequitur to this conclusion. However, a brief defense is necessary. Simply put: truth is objective, what us ignorant humans think is entirely subjective. And recalling the proposition upon which this debate is grounded, it is the truth in question, which is, regardless of whose right or wrong, absolute and objective. The incoherency of the phrases "My Truth" and "Your Truth" My opponent uses this head-scratching statement multiple times in discussing how one's opinion is equivalent to "truth". Indeed, he suggests that absolute morals, a truth in its own right, exist in the form of divine commands. Using that example, if absolute morals are real, then me saying my "truth" is different would simply be puerile. In matters for which there is a truth, there is not "my truth" and "your truth". There is only right and wrong. Remember, truth is the impeccable reality of what really is, so by definition it is impossible for there to be opposing truths, if, of course, the topic possesses an absolute truth. My opponent's problem, I suspect, is the word "truth" itself. How people view the world and reality is one thing; how the world actually is is quite another, and the people's opinions who happen to be wrong cannot ever be described as truth. Only opinion. Like I said in my previous argument, "how people see the world is subjective" would be a slam dunk, but to argue that the truth itself is subjective, and hence doesn't exist, is nigh impossible. My Previous-Round Challenge and Self-Defeat While I have great respect for my opponent and his debating prowess, the non-answer I received to my absolute moral challenge (which I will not restate here) unintentionally supports my case as organized above. My opponent, by confirming my assumption that he subscribes to divine morality, accepts my first premise by conceding that certain things do have total, and in this case Godly truth. The second contention follows: that while many oppose the theory of these omni-morals, it nevertheless does not mean that they don't exist, as my opponent states they do. So unless my adversary finds the conclusion a non-sequitur of its supporting points, I see no way for him to deny it without hypocrisy. By claiming truth is entirely opinion, while also holding belief in certain truth as an extension of his faith, Pro has backed himself into a metaphorical corner, from which there is little escape. Truth and Reality Few characters are offered in response to my argument that truth can exist without reality, but since it is so integral to my case, I should solidify the stance anyway. Let's say reality is entirely imaginative, and everything is a cerebral or possibly external illusion. To counter, all that would be require is to begin any statement with "within this illusion", or at the very least "within this existence, an illusion or otherwise". The fact or opinion serving as the eventual conclusion of the sentence could then precede normally. Indeed, the state of reality has little to no bearing on truth. In fact, that very question of whether we inhabit a reality has an answer, yet another unalterable truth. Response to Challenge and Conclusion "The idea that somewhere along the line there has to be something that is true, despite what others may believe, is completely subjective. " Not a bad point, but ultimately frivolous. I think it to be quite likely that there are absolute truths, or at the very least real explanations. But it really matters not if there are, as the answer to this question being "no" is in itself a truth. One way or another, something is true. I will conclude here, as I think I understand my opponent and I's real disagreement. Is humanity's inability to know something positively, to have an absolute grasp of something, mean that that thing cannot exist, in this case truth. I say no, mankind may well never get a single solid, impeccable answer, but that does not effect the question at hand, "is all truth subjective? ", which it isn't. With that said, good luck to my opponent, and I anticipate another fine round of arguments.