The fact that people conclude different things about the truth and change what they concluded later on, proves Con right and Pro wrong.
The Crux of Pro's case is that, over time, people have altered their scentific and philosophical theories in the search for truth. However, if truth were based on what each individual perceived it to be, why would they keep searching and why does Pro support the alteration of one's conclusions along this search for truth?
Truth is objective, albeit physically intangible, and the way we attain it is indeed by our own subjective lens. That subjective lens is the entire means by which we even begin to approach it, but it is also the cause of the errors along the way as we wrongly conclude what wasn't true after all and need to alter our theories as we go along our quest for obtaining truth.
Definitions support Con but also aren't quite up to scratch.
I would like to begin this by pointing out that the definition of 'truth' agreed upon by both debaters, in the description of this debate, is actually the definition of the word 'true'. The reason that I was happy to accept this with that flawed definition, is that it completely supports Con anyway.
Truth is being defined as 'The quality or the state of being factually accurate' but this clearly is not how 'truth' would function in a sentence and instead is how 'true' would. Regardless, the definition of 'true' is indeed extremely important to the debate, so this being in the agreed description was fine by me. Nowhere in this definition is it hinted at, let alone made possible, that one's perception of the factually accurate state of something is in any shape or form relevant to that quality and state being what it is.
While I readily agree to that definition of 'true' we do have to delve into what truth itself is.
I like these definitions:
Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties.
If you would notice, there is a consistent pattern in these definitions, it's that the truth is what the subjective interpretation of truth tries to attain and progress towards but in no shape or form is one directly the other (or else there'd be nothing to search for in the first place).
Even if the truth is subjective, which would be a massive concession on Con's part and is not at all what Con is saying, the resolution's 'person to person' aspect will still fall short.
Even in a nihilistic version of truth, where interpretation of truth becomes what we call 'true' (this is not what Con supports nor the definition agreed upon), the individual doesn't decide it, rather society does. In a very pragmatic, psychopathic and/or nihilistic warped way of viewing reality, one could construe (erroneously) that truth is whatever most people say it is, since that's the only truth they'll come to know especially regarding history. Even if this were the case, the 'person to person' aspect of the resolution is still wrong, as it's based on what the collective majority of society interpret, not the individual.
Pro cannot say that Con is not representing truth, but Con absolutely has to and can say that Pro is representing falsehood.
Pro says the following:
You can't prove what is the objective truth and what is not, and everything you think is true is subjective, because your senses aren't completely objective. Truth is perceived and the official knowledge is created with no complete objectivity.
- Round 1, Pro
If this is held true, it then means that everything Con is saying is true because according to Con, it is true. Therefore, you as a reader need to appreciate something about the dynamics of this debate itself; Pro cannot call Con incorrect, because Con's side is true to Con and Pro supports that being truth itself. On the other hand, Con is telling you that Pro is speaking lies and is not at all correct, while also asserting that truth isn't based on one's individual interpretation of things.
The thing(s) we interpret are not the truth, they are physical and semantic factors that relate to the intangible, but objective, thing we call 'Truth'.
In my opinion, one of the best definitions of 'interpret' that explains both how we use interpretation as well as what it is in the search for truth, is the following:
We interpret things, to explain them in relation to the overall 'big picture' or at least in relation to other things. We do not actually ever interpret truth itself, we just think we do, at best. We interpret our senses, as Pro rightly states, but what is it we are sensing? Light is not truth, nor is sound, smell, etc. Even words themselves are not truth. Truth is all that lies within the band of ideas that happen to possess the quality or state of being factually correct. This is 0% about what you think it is, and 100% about what it actually is, regardless of your interpretation.
We do not search for truth in order for it to be true, we search for truth in order for us to have any hope at knowing it.
I believe that is enough for this Round, I look forward to this debate and thank Pro for this opportunity.