Instigator / Pro

Truth is subjective person to person


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 5 votes and 20 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 244 / 5,000

To avoid the overuse and exploitation of semantic critiques, I will define the terms in the description section.
Truth: The quality or the state of being factually accurate
Subjective: Based on the observation and perception of the individual

Round 1
It is a no-brainer that no one thinks the same. Let me start by giving one example. I am not forfeiting nor waiving. 

What is the Truth at 500 AD in Rome Empire? God is God, He the almighty, He created everything, and he is omnipotent. His word is of no flaw and his words will be the law, reliable for an eternity.

What is the Truth at 2020 AD in the USA? Well, regarding the same topic, the existence of God cannot be gnostically proven, and the Christian God most likely didn't exist. the Bible is flawed and is most likely written by men instead of a deity. The bible is not as reliable of a source as what people once thought. [1]

Prove this: You are sure that one of them is the truth, and can prove the other one wrong: Beware that the other one was once Truth too, and that would mean people are SURE about that being the Truth. Now it is disproven.

It is also up to you, to you to prove how the objective Truth EXISTS. Knowing Truth changes and the new contradicts the old, we know that Truth is not an objective thing, because based on the FIRST SENTENCE of the document here if Truth is objective, we would have no way to prove that it is true. People may change what appears to be the "Objective Truth" and dub the new one the "Objective Truth", making the truth not objective at all. Let's say, at 500 BC, the truth is that Earth is Flat, and people think of it as TRUE. Then, here at 2020 AD, the truth is that Earth is a sphere because the rocket images speak that of evidence, that the horizon is curved at a large enough scale and the Earth is being conveyed as a sphere based on photographic and physical evidence from the space.

Here is another evidence[2], Citations will be written on it. 

Because of that, scientists have shown that repetition can cause people believe certain things that aren't true at all.
What people believe that isn't true may not knock your bridge down, but what if the government is not spreading false info, but having a fallacy in their understanding of a vital topic? It happened. Galileo Galilei, the astronomer, was Punished for contradicting the government, which was the pope, who believed the Sun rotated around the Earth[3].

Geocentrism wasn't the truth for this poor astronomer Galileo, but it was generally accepted as the Truth by the Pope who thinks the Sun rotated around the Earth, and to the general public when Galileo was around, These are facts:
  • The Pope is correct
  • The Sun rotated around the Earth
  • Anybody who contradicts the Bible will receive Punishment
The truth is being revised. Now, regarding the same topic, the truth is now:
  • The Pope is not always correct, but he shall guide Christians(Catholics)
  • The Sun rotates around Earth, which is round
  • The bible is flawed and it is not the most reliable evidence.
I lost count about how many examples I have given about updated Truth. If Truth can update, a true claim will overwrite ours, the 2020 standard one. That will mean Truth will update with us, and it will keep on updating. This is how the bible went from Holy to History, factually.

But, if you’ve never touched an open flame (please don’t) couldn’t it be possible that everyone saying 'fire is hot' simply made you believe it?
In short, yes.
Others affect you, and really, the science agency and the advertising agency are using their senses, which aren't completely objective. 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.


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:

the actual fact or facts about a matter

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:

to describe the meaning of something; examine in order to explain

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.
Round 2
That's a tough one, gotta admit. I am definitely trying my best even if I am not winning. I am fairly sure my opponent had thought at least once that I ha forfeited this round, but I am not. Anyways, here are the points of mine, below. 

1. Humans define Truth, and humans discover/make truth.

1a: Truth can be both subjective and objective

My opponent along with many others had made the hasty claim that if the truth remains the same, it cannot be subjective. However, if something is:
  • The actual truth,
  • Everyone believes it;
Then the truth is both objective(because it is true) and subjective(Because it is influenced by people's opinions, which is in unison). 

If the person I and person II both believe in the truth, then the Truth is both subjective from person to person and objective as a large picture. I am convinced that Truth is objective, but that doesn't make it not subjective to people. I don't need to disprove why truth is not objective, but merely it is subjective.

Conclusion 1: Truth can be both objective and subjective if people believe in the truth

1b: Human-constructed Truths and controversial topics cannot be determined an official truth

Well, it is certainly possible that there is the truth between the controversial sides no matter what, but the truth is not mutually exclusive. 

This source Here:
It explains while two subjective sides may exist, they are both speaking of factually accurate items. They are still standing on different sides(which is subjective), but they are also speaking of the accurate truth(Which is objective). 

Conclusion 2: Subjective Truths may exist as a part of the Objective truth

If someone doesn't agree on that and there is no method to justify which one is correct, it is subjective. In the picture, if 2 people are arguing for different things, but they are both correct, then the Truth is subjective even if it is objective. 

Plus, everything is a part true at least. If the earth is really not flat, the truth is: Before Aristotle came, the Earth is flat. That is true, and no one thought the Earth being round until a wise man from Europe came. Earth being flat is definitely true to them before. 

2. Quantum Mechanics and others

What people perceive, is the reality for them. Can you say that their observations aren't true? It stands true until there rises feasible opposition. You can't say the flat earth believers are false until you have disproved them on the pedestal when they made this claim. Until then, you hold the truth of "Earth is round", and they hold the truth of "Earth is flat". 

Since I am really running short on time, I will make the conclusion:

Conclusion: What people observe is really the truth for them, and you can't say they are false unless you think from their perspective and prove it false there. You can't say their truths aren't truths because they are literally called the TRUTH, and you can't completely disprove them because come on, How do you know they are inputted different knowledge from you? If their eyes really perceive the Earth is flat, then Earth being flat is a truth for at least him. Unless you know your senses so well that you know it never makes mistakes, you can't prove anything.

Conclusion: Because our perception is subjective fundamentally as a no-brainer(What a colorblind sees as Gray, I may see as Red), things that are false may be true to them, because truth cannot be objectively defined, there are NO objective truths at all. We have to prove why our senses are 100% correct because we might be fooled and the Aliens are tricking us into believing our planet is round instead of flat with a giant slideshow and interactive environment, and the flat-earthers are actually correct. We can't prove them right or wrong. We can't. Because so, every "objective" truth is basically what all the people subjectively believe in, and we can't really even prove that objective truth exists. 

I am done. Hand the microphone back to RM. 
R = Round

Other than admitting that what I have presented is collectively a 'tough one', Pro has failed to address the entirety of my R1. In fact, Pro has raised entirely new points in R2, demanding me to come up with brand new rebuttals.

What if everyone believes the actual truth?

Pro brings up a scenario, in R2, of everyone happening to believe that actual truth. While that's almost always unrealistic as rarely does everyone agree, let's say we had 4 people in a room together and all four of them believed in something that happened to be actually true, would this prove that the 'truth' is just as subjective' as it is objective?

No, it would not. Even though I can and will prove that if truth is equally subjective to objective in this scenario, that Pro actually conceded the debate, I will not allow it to be concluded as that alone. If four people all happened to believe in something that was actually true, all four would have their subjective interpretation of reality be equal to the objective truth. This actually supports Con 100%, because the only reason that they are equal is that there exists an objective truth to compare their belief to.

If what you believe is the actual truth, that is an intelligent parallel to aim for, since you have obtained actual truth, but by no means can you actually yourself say that the truth you've obtained is subjective. The only reason your subjective interpretation happens to be true is that it happens to be the objective truth, not because you interpreted it to be so.

In this debate's description, 'subjective' is defined as 'Based on the observation and perception of the individual'. The perception of the individual and the observations that they have ascertained are 0% to be taken to be actual truth in any objective sense. Perhaps if we defined 'objective' and compared it to our definition of 'subjective', we'd better understand how to differentiate between the two.

based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Contrasted with subjective

1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

Thus, it is actually impossible for truth to be subjective, since if we look at the agreed definition of 'true' (which we called 'truth' in the description and Pro hasn't countered me on saying is 'true' and not 'truth') we see that 'actual facts' of a matter are also mentioned in 'objective' but not at all in the opposite, 'subjective'.

'Humans define truth' says Pro

While the word 'truth' is defined by humans, truth itself is not determined as opposed to defined, by humans. Instead, our interpretations and attempts at hopefully getting nearer to objective truth is what we get to define and control.

Just because in language we do 'define' a term like 'truth' doesn't mean we determine things that are true. Even the definition of truth has many different subjective ways of determining it, which is clear if you read different dictionaries (including the description, this debate has come up with four definitions of it as I provided 2 more and Pro has invented his own definition where 'actual facts' can somehow be based on subjective feelings and interpretation).

We do not truly even 'define' what truth is, what we define is our interpretations of it.

I thank Pro for bringing up this image. This image proves that both people are enslaved to their positions and perspective. Neither the one calling it a red/orange/magenta rectangle nor the one calling it a bright blue circle are correct about the overall shape and colour-combination being that. Though both have interpreted what it is correctly, from their limited perspective, neither has achieved actual truth about the object's shape or colouring.

This doesn't prove that truth is subjective at all, this 100% proves that it is naive to go by subjective interpretation when trying to gain truth and that sometimes we should try to determine how biased and skewed our own perspective is when getting towards truth.

On top of this, the image only shows the object from a certain angle, for all we know on the 'other side' of what we see the colours change. Even the shape may change if the 'lights on the wall' are not the actual truth. We also lack any way of knowing if there's an opening at the bottom and things like that. Therefore, even we as onlookers to the image are enslaved to our own subjectivity on the matter and may ironically be the third perspective in the image that is enslaved to its own interpretation.

The Earth can completely be flat if NASA is lying.

Flat Earthers are not 100% known to be wrong. If Antarctica is the outer ring of the flat Earth, it's completely viable and fits in with flight paths too. Absolutely nothing about flat Earth is truly dismissable, rather it is also true that Round Earth is viable by the many possibly fictitious things that NASA tell us. Even now with SpaceX, it's curious why on Earth the US budget and astronaut's work time was going towards that during this coronavirus era, it could completely be linked in the eyes of a conspiracy theorist saying that the Earth is flat.

I don't see how you can say that anything, even that, is true or false. We are all slaves to our interpretations, the slaves who begin to break free are those who admit they are enslaved to it and try to question their own perspective.
Round 3
I concede. I thank my opponent for debating. Fellow debaters can feel free to vote for my opponent. 
That's my swag.