Truth is subjective person to person
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
Because of that, scientists have shown that repetition can cause people believe certain things that aren't true at all.
- The Pope is correct
- The Sun rotated around the Earth
- Anybody who contradicts the Bible will receive Punishment
- 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.
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.
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.
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 actual truth,
- Everyone believes it;
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 subjective1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
Concession
Concession
Argument: Con's argument that truth exists outside of perception is sound. Con's argument that perception can be true, using a graphic source that is effectively the equivalent of Plato's cave people seeing shadows is a demonstrated false assumption that does not explain truth, but merely perception of truth.
Sourcing: Con's sources are credible, Pro's sources do a good job of expplaining perceptions, but not necessarily truth.
S&G: tie
Conduct: Point to Con by concession by Pro
Concession. That said, credit to both sides for presenting some good thoughtful material.
When I said "Con's argument that perception can be true, using a graphic source..." I meant to say that was Pro's argument, and it fails.
He has proven himself wrong throughout the debate, he had to take a very cynical and nihilistic outlook that denied anything being true, to win this debate and instead conceded that the truth was objective and that we interpret it wrong often.
I would have proven that he'd proven himself wrong, in the final Round where I'd run through the points and logic.
I am genuinely convinced that only some truths can be changed and remain true. I am convinced that truth stays objective unless it is human construct, which it isn't.
I did a quick read and honestly I don't understand why did you forfeit it. IMO, you're right. I was expecting a proof that truth is objective but I didn't find it.
I will allege that the "truth" that the earth is flat is "not even close to reaching the truth," yet, it was believed as true. Show me. Show us in your arguments that truth is a human construct because I don't believe that, either. Nor that truth exists only by human language. Going to have to demonstrate that, too.
That is why it is worth a debate. If it hints that truth is subjective directly to the debater then this debate will be an unfair one: Truism.
Absolutely nothing in the definition of 'truth' that you have provided (which is actually the definition of the word 'true') hints at it being subjective or bound by human linguistics in and of itself.
However, when the perception is not even close to reaching the truth, not even the most innovative and new, Truth cannot be defined. At then, the most admitted perception will be Truth. Truth is a human construct and humans define it. You won't know what dogs or toads are talking about unless you have a linguist with a voice recorder strapped on his neck. Truth is exclusive to human language and humans define it.
What is true is true past, present, future. What varies is perception of truth. Example: the world was once perceived flat, but the truth was known far in the distant past by merely climbing a mountain high enough to witness for one's self the arc of the horizon. The truth did not change; merely the perception of it.
You're up against a great opponent for this topic, who could easily argue either side of the resolution.
However, you've only truly lost, if you do not learn anything.
I might not win this debate(The likelyhood is small) but I am certainly trying.
Reality is objective, but the words we use to articulate our understanding of reality are social constructs. In other words, it's a tricky thing.
Could be a very interesting debate. IMO the truth is pretty static, but intepretations of what objective facts mean are subjective to the persons.
I'll offer a strange one: In the Harry Potter books, some people read them, and then deny that Harry and Draco were together.