It seems to be intended for that Pro's "statement", that could be translated to "Binary is an existing and working method of organizing quantitative data".
If we take the pragmatic sense of this 'statement'
First off, Pro did not even give a statement at all representing truth. It is only given that it is somehow to be affirmed that "Binary" is objectively true. Therefore, we could construct statements from the field of Binary, each representing one respective objectively true thing, suppose Binary is an objectively working method(which I agree):
- Binary is an existing method of organizing data
- It is possible that there is/will be useful applications for Binary(For example, Computers)
- Any natural number could be represented by Binary
- Binary(base two) is not the same as hexadecimal(base sixteen)
- Binary is the same as Binary
- A digit containing the quantity of one more than the quantity of one(aka, two) is not used to represent data in the Binary system
See? Now, 6 distinctive objectively true statements are made! There are 6 or more objectively true statements, not one, even if Pro gave his example of the "only one true statement".
The BoP for Pro is incredibly narrow as that zero objectively true statements would be undesirable for Pro, as well as Two(10) objectively true statements. Based on the observations that more objectively true statements can be build upon objectively true statements by logical reasoning and deduction, it would be near impossible for Pro to find an objectively true statement, albeit true, cannot have anything deducted or derived from it, therefore winning the debate by doing so.
Pro's example of a single objective truth turns out to be not a single one, but six or more.
Descartes, Euclid, and More
Philosophically, logical structures are objectively true. Statements such as "If All A's are B's, and All B's are A's, then something that is an A would also be a B" is objectively true because only logic is required, and no empirical proof or observation would be needed.
Math is also objective since neither does it require any proof regarding empirical proof, which cannot be proven to be objectively true. The statements "A number is equal to itself" or "A number times its reciprocal is equal to one" are objectively true.
The statement "If I question my existence, I must exist in order to question my existence", among the lines of what Descartes have written, would also be true regardless of what "I" am.
In the end, these are all objectively-true statement types that Pro did not mention at all.
If we take the semantic sense of this "statement"
Let's use the statement of interpretation written in the first lines of this piece of text.
"Binary is an existing and working method of organizing quantitative data".
In a pragmatic sense, we are obviously referring to the definition of "binary" as a system of storing quantitative data using only two types of digits, most known as "0" and "1". However, reputable sources have also defined the term as:
4B: utilizing two harmless ingredients that upon combining form a lethal substance (such as a gas)
In which, a Binary gaseous bioweapon cannot calculate nor be used in quantum computers. Shifting existing definitions(which we cannot be sure in the first place) would render this statement(or the barebone skeleton of a statement, as Pro proposed) non-objectively true, or maybe even false.
Since letters are just squiggly lines on a computer screen, paper, etc, and words are just combinations of letters, it makes that there is no objectively true definitions or meanings of words in the first place, making it so we can define anything as anything. If we define "binary" as "something that is false no matter what", then it would be of zero doubt that Binary is not objectively something true. Since we cannot even be sure what each word means, it means that Pro has no sufficient proof of anything being objectively true.
- Since objectively-correct statements can be derived from other objectively-true statements, and specifically the one regarding Binary can be derived of 6 or more objective statements, it means that there is not "only one" objectively correct statement, but 6 or more.
- Mathematical and logical structures that requires no empirical proof are objective, and statements such as "a number is equal to itself" is also objectively true.
- Semantically, All words can defined arbitrarily to whatever we want, making so that Pro has no sufficient proof of anything being objectively true.
I rest my case.