All truth exists

I'd like to preface this by saying that this is my first time debating on this platform (and debating in general), and I'm not entirely sure of the “culture” or manner of debate conduction here but I'm gonna shoot my best shot to disprove my opponents claims, sooo here ya go:

I. The opponents first argument hinges on the idea that because “now” constantly changes, we can’t say “all truth exists.” But this is a fundamental misinterpretation of what the resolution means. “All truth exists” does not mean that all truths must exist simultaneously in every single moment of time. It means that if something is true at any point in time, it is true that it existed or occurred. Temporal truths are still truths.

For example, “Julius Caesar was assassinated” is a past truth. It’s no longer happening now, but it is true that it happened. The truth value of the statement remains. To deny this is to say history contains no truths, an absurd stance. If "truth" changes just because time passes, then all knowledge becomes meaningless.

II. My opponent argues that using the law of identity (A = A) to defend truth is circular. But ironically, their argument collapses under its own weight. They say we can’t use “truth” to prove truth, but they themselves rely on logical rules like the law of non-contradiction and identity to even argue that circular reasoning is fallacious. If they reject tautologies, they lose the foundation of their own reasoning.

Also, premise 4 of their argument, the idea that something can’t prove itself, isn’t a solid or universally accepted rule. In fact, certain basic statements are accepted as true precisely because they prove themselves. Take “A = A,” for example. It doesn’t need outside evidence to be accepted; its truth is built into the meaning of the statement. This kind of self-evident reasoning is how logic works at its core: all logical systems begin with some basic starting points that are simply accepted as true without needing further proof. These foundational truths make it possible for the rest of the system to function. Without them, we’d be stuck in an endless loop of trying to prove every single thing using something else, which would make reasoning impossible. So when my opponent says that something proving itself is always invalid, they’re applying that standard unfairly and ignoring how logic is actually structured.

III. Opponent claims that observation can’t be trusted because of hallucinations and dreams. But we don’t claim that every observation is true—only that observation, when refined through the scientific method or repeatable verification, produces reliable truths. For instance, the boiling point of water is not “subjective” just because someone once hallucinated lava in a sink. We verify observations through repeatability and consensus, not one-off perception.

Moreover, if observation is wholly invalid, then their own observations, of language, of reasoning, of any knowledge, must also be invalid. They undermine their own framework again.

IV. My opponent claims that truth cannot be proven because every proof leads to another, creating an infinite regress. However, this view overlooks how epistemic justification actually works. In logic and philosophy, we don’t rely on an endless chain of reasoning to establish truth. Instead, we work with foundational beliefs; basic, self-evident truths like “I exist” or “A equals A”; that are accepted without needing further proof. These fundamental truths serve as the starting points upon which all other knowledge is built.

This is not an arbitrary or unproven assumption; it’s supported by both coherence theory (beliefs are justified by how well they fit into a consistent system) and foundationalism (certain self-evident truths ground all further reasoning). Without these starting points, we would be stuck in an infinite loop, unable to prove anything, including my opponent’s own claims.

If we accept my opponent’s premise that truth requires an infinite chain of justification, we arrive at self-defeating skepticism. Their position would imply that no claim can ever be justified without an endless regress. But by that same logic, their claim that “truth cannot be proven” itself becomes unjustified, because it, too, would require an infinite chain of reasoning to be considered true. This weakens their argument by revealing a contradiction: their claim that truth can never be proven is itself impossible to prove based on the standards they set.

V. Let’s be clear: the resolution is “All truth exists.” That’s a metaphysical claim about truth’s existence, not about our ability to prove every single truth. My opponent is playing a rhetorical trick—confusing ontology with epistemology. Just because something can’t be perfectly proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

For instance, we may not be able to prove the exact number of stars in the universe, but that doesn’t mean the number doesn’t exist. To argue otherwise is like saying “We can’t see air, so it doesn’t exist.” It’s not persuasive; it’s deliberately evasive.

Conclusion: Every one of my opponent’s arguments undercuts itself. They deny tautology but rely on it. They dismiss observation but use it. They demand infinite proof but give none. Their reasoning is internally incoherent, externally unworkable, and strategically evasive.

In contrast, my position affirms that truth, whether mathematical, historical, logical, or empirical, does exist. It may not always be known, but its existence is the necessary foundation for all thought, debate, and logic; including this one.