Absolutism vs relativism

"I agree that relativism..." -Excellent. "However, the question I posed was if absolutes exist anywhere in the known universe. I believe they do, and I will illustrate why I maintain this belief. The simplest way to prove that absolutes exist is to have someone answering a question about it. For instance, I asked my detractor if absolutes exist in the known universe, or if everything is relative." -I am not your "detractor," only your opponent. My tone can come across as smug and sardonic, cruelly pessimistic, or even outlandishly emotional if trapped, I know, but I don't think I am anyone's "detractor," even at my worst. Please refrain from this usage. Thank you. "Supposing his answer *would* have been, something to the affect of, "No, there are no absolutes because everything is relative," then not only would they undermine their own mines once, but twice!" -Fortunately for me I did not argue this point. We seem to be in agreement that some absolutes do exist. I freely admit the existence of absolutes that are abstract and a priori: number, time, space, essence if you are old-school, and possibly others. "Answer the following questions: 1. Can you be completely wet and completely dry simultaneously? 2. Can you be on Mars and on Earth simultaneously? 3. Can you be Spain and Sri Lanka simultaneously? 4. Is anyone getting younger with the passing of time, as opposed to aging?" -I will humour you. 1.As I am roughly 75% water, it would be impossible to be completely dry at all. 2.With a time machine, I could go back in time a few minutes, grab myself, have a neat chat and then send myself to Mars. So, theoretically, yes. 3.Ignoring your (possible?) grammatical error, this is the same question as above. If it was not an error, the answer is no, as I am a person and cannot "be" a country anymore than I can "be" a car. 4.The Christian God would qualify, I think. He is "timeless," or outside of time completely, according to orthodoxy. "The answer to all these questions is no. People will sometimes attempt to get around these questions by introducing silly contingents and conditions, none of which have any demonstrable value to them." -"Value" in itself is a subjective judgement or projection. Also, I need not introduce any "silly contingents or conditions" as all of the questions you asked were already contingent on the existence of the subject, myself, as well as preconceived concepts and definitions, which are all understood relative to the reader's comprehension of our conversation. Nevertheless, tear apart my indulgent answers to your questions. "For instance, if you were to ask a 6'0 foot tall person if they were tall, their answer in an absolute sense would not make sense since it is an objective question. To a pygmy, 6 feet might be considered quite tall, but to an Scandinavian, 6 feet of height might be quite average." -A fine example of relativism at work. "It stands to reason that both exist." -Agreed. "I therefore challenge my detractor to prove otherwise." I do not accept your challenge as it is not my position to try and disprove absolutes, but rather to prove the supremacy of a relativistic weltunschaung over that of an absolutist one. With that in mind, my arguments from Round 1 still stand: you agreed with and added to my claims while refuting nothing but the straw man you created. Britt