Truth is an objective feature of reality

I trust that this will be intellectual and that it will be seen through to the end. Any doubt I had about this debate failing to attract any serious attention is gone entirely given the quick response I received from vocalmajority. However, in examining the position that my opponent has taken, it seems to be an impossible debate for him to win. Allow me to explain. (also, for the purpose of convenience, I will be using the personal pro-nouns "he" and "him" to refer to vocalmajority. I am not sure whether to use "him" or "her" and so he/she can correct me if this is not the case) The proposition is that objective truth exists. That is, there is at least one objective feature of reality. My opponent claims that this is not the case. It seems that vocalmajority is saying that my position is WRONG. But that, in itself, is a truth claim. He is saying that his view is TRUE and my view is FALSE. In effect, when my opponent accepted this debate, he all but lost. I have then, one question at this point: if vocalmajority can make a more convincing case than I can, will his view be >objectively< true, or >subjectively< true? Either way, I will win the debate. If it is objectively true that I am wrong, then I am right. Because that would demonstrate at least one objective truth. Namely, that my position is wrong. However, this is the very idea that my opponent is trying to refute. Therefore, if I"m wrong, then I"m right. Conversely, if I am right, then I am right. Either way, objective truth will be demonstrated to be part of reality. But what if my opponent says that his view is NOT objectively true, but only subjectively true? Well then, one would have to ask the question: why is he even debating the point? For if his view is only "true for him," then why would he try and impose his personal view of truth on me? It would make about as much sense as him trying to convince me that his favorite flavor of ice-cream was better than my favorite flavor. Therefore, even by accepting the debate, my opponent has admitted defeat. To illustrate this point, imagine I was arguing that the laws of logic did not exist. Suppose further that I made a logically air-tight case for that point. Would I have succeeded in showing that logic did not exist? No! I used in my argument the very thing I was trying to disprove! Take another example: suppose I wrote a brilliant essay arguing that the written word cannot convey meaning. Could I ever prove my case? Hardly! I would be defeating myself in using the very thing I am trying to deny. My case against logic then, would defeated itself just like my case against the meaning of the written word defeats itself. It would be like me saying that my biological brother is an only child. It simply cannot be done. In the same way, you cannot argue that a view is false and simultaneously deny the existence of truth. You would be using the very thing you are trying to deny. To conclude then, if vocalmajority proves me wrong, then I have won the debate. If he does not prove me wrong, then I have one the debate. I look forward to my opponents case against the idea that objective truth does not exist.