Instigator / Pro
2
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#6308
Objectivity does not exist.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
vi_777
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
7
1508
rating
14
debates
64.29%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Objectivity doesn't exist because of few reasons, which are:
- Naive realismNaive realism is a philosophical statement that says we naively tend to believe that what we perceive is objective reflection of an outside world, and represents it as it is. In reality things are quite different. We can't say that our (for example) seeing is objective. Fact that we see apple as red, doesn't mean that apple have actually a red property. For example a person with color blindness (precisely protanopia) can see red apple as grey or brown, even blue. We can find a lot of examples for other sensations.
- Subjective selection of informationEveryone selects information subjectively. Even media, (assuming they don't have a political interest and want to be as objective as possible) can't be totally objective, they can only try to be as objective as possible. They never will be 100% objective because it is impossible to present every opinion and point of view on a given topic. There needs to be selection of most relevant information, and selection of those is purely subjective for a given individual.
- Language is also subjectiveEven our form of communication is subjective. Meaning of words can change depending on a context (fly a plane or fly as a bug?). We also perceive language differently. For example politician gives a speech and says something perceived by most as "bad" but there always be someone who will state that he meant something totally different, despite he heard the same speech. Language also evolves, and meanings of words can change. Here i can give a kind of funny example from my native language. In "Sir Thaddeus" there is a verse "By which dense plumes shine like tufts." In Polish it is written as "Przy którym świecą gęste kutasy jak kity." Problem is that when author wrote that, "kutasy" meant "plumes". But what it means now? U can translate it ;).
Given above arguments, objectivity is impossible and cannot exist, because it cannot be perceived, presented, nor spoken about.
“Objectivity Exists — Even If Imperfectly”
The claim that “objectivity doesn’t exist” is provocative, but ultimately flawed. While it’s true that human perception and communication come with bias and imperfection, that doesn't mean objectivity itself is nonexistent. Pro confuses the limits of human perception with the nonexistence of objective reality — a classic fallacy.
1. Naive Realism ≠ Absence of Objectivity
Pro begins by criticizing naive realism, which is the assumption that we see the world exactly as it is. And it’s true — we often misinterpret or color reality with bias. A red apple may look different to someone with protanopia (color blindness). But this doesn’t mean the apple’s properties don’t exist — it just means perception can distort.
Rebuttal:The fact that different people perceive colors differently proves that perception is subjective — not that the apple itself lacks properties. Color may be how our brains interpret wavelengths, but wavelengths themselves are measurable and objective. The apple reflects ~700nm light — that’s an objective fact, no matter how we perceive it.
So the world as it is exists — the issue is with how it’s filtered by our senses. That’s not an argument against objectivity, but an argument for refining our tools of measurement. Science exists to correct for human error — thermometers, cameras, spectrometers — and these show that even if we see something incorrectly, the thing remains.
2. Subjective Selection ≠ Subjective Truth
Pro argues that because people (and even media) select what to present, total objectivity is impossible. Yes — selection involves subjectivity. But this doesn’t mean the truth being selected is subjective.
Rebuttal:Suppose ten witnesses describe a crime scene, and each gives a different angle. Are all of them lying? Not necessarily — they’re offering different slices of the truth. But the event still happened. The objective fact is real — our limitations in describing it don’t make it unreal.
Journalists may filter what they say, but that doesn’t mean truth is unknowable. If five sources verify a fact independently — that is objectivity. Consensus and evidence-based methods exist to separate facts from opinions. You don’t need perfection — you need convergence.
3. Language Is Subjective — But Not Arbitrary
Pro points out that language changes, that meanings shift, and that people interpret words differently. True. But again — subjectivity in language use doesn’t erase objectivity in the world.
Rebuttal:Language is a symbolic system. The symbols evolve, but what they point to often doesn’t. "Kutasy" may have changed meanings over time, but if we know the historical context, we can decode the intended meaning. Linguistics accounts for this. The evolution of meaning doesn’t mean everything is meaningless — just that we need better interpretation.
Besides, technical language — like in science or logic — does strive for precision. In a physics lab, “mass,” “velocity,” and “force” don’t change meaning based on vibe. They are defined, testable, and reproducible.
Objectivity Is Not Perfection — It’s a Target
Objectivity doesn’t mean perfect neutrality. It means the pursuit of truth that exists outside individual opinion. Yes, we struggle to reach it. Yes, we’re flawed. But like a compass pointing north, we can still aim toward it.
If Pro claims objectivity doesn’t exist because humans are flawed, that’s like saying math doesn’t exist because we make calculation errors. It’s backwards. The existence of error implies a correct answer.
Round 2
Forfeited
Pro made one thing obvious: humans are flawed. But that was never the question.
They argued that because people see, select, and speak imperfectly, objectivity itself doesn’t exist. But that’s a category error. Just because we’re bad at perceiving something doesn’t mean the thing isn’t there.
Think of it like this:
If a funhouse mirror shows a bent reflection, does that mean your body is bent? No. It means the mirror is flawed — not the object.
We’ve built entire systems — science, law, logic — to move beyond bias and get closer to objective truth. We calibrate tools, verify sources, and test hypotheses to strip out the noise of human error. And guess what? It works.
Colorblindness doesn’t mean color doesn’t exist.
Biased media doesn’t mean events didn’t happen.
Changing language doesn’t mean meaning is dead.
These are all arguments for better methodology, not arguments against reality.
Objectivity isn’t omniscience. It’s consistency.
It’s not about knowing everything. It’s about grounding truth in something that exists beyond you. That’s what gives truth its power — it’s not yours to control.
And if Pro can’t even objectively prove their claim that “nothing is objective”…
Well, their whole argument collapses under its own weight.
Objectivity may be tough to reach. But it’s real — and reachable. Our flaws make it harder, not impossible.
Round 3
Forfeited
“Objectivity May Be Imperfect — But It’s Real.”
Pro forfeited again — and that’s fitting. Because just like their argument, it crumbles under scrutiny.
Let’s be clear: pointing out that humans are biased doesn’t prove that objectivity is fake. It proves we’re flawed observers — not that truth doesn’t exist.
We mishear, misremember, and miscommunicate. But we still believe in medicine, physics, astronomy, and math. Why?
Because despite perception gaps, the world still works independent of how we feel about it. If I drop a glass — it shatters. Not because I perceive it that way, but because gravity operates regardless of perception.
Pro’s view is seductive because it sounds deep:
“Language shifts. Meaning is slippery. No one can be truly neutral.”Sure. But none of that destroys truth itself. It just means we work harder to reach it — through evidence, verification, and shared reality.
And guess what?
Even debating this topic assumes objectivity exists — or we wouldn’t bother. If truth were purely subjective, why argue at all?
So no — objectivity isn’t a myth. It’s a moving target.
But one we can see, reach, and aim for — even if imperfectly.
“Without objectivity, truth becomes opinion — and opinion becomes chaos.”
