Instigator / Pro

RaVi

1500

rating

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

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

vi_777

Parameters

Publication date: 06.17.2025 02:25PM
Last updated date: 07.02.2025 11:08AM
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

vi_777

1508

rating

debates

64.29%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

RaVi

06.19.2025 12:46PM

Pro

Objectivity doesn't exist because of few reasons, which are:

Naive realism
Naive 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 information
Everyone 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 subjective
Even 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.

vi_777

06.21.2025 09:16AM

Con

“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

RaVi

06.23.2025 09:16AM

Pro

Forfeited

vi_777

06.23.2025 10:58AM

Con

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

RaVi

06.25.2025 10:58AM

Pro

Forfeited

vi_777

06.25.2025 11:08AM

Con

“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.”

Lemming

06.26.2025 07:59AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Title, Description
Objectivity, Objective to what?

Pro Round 1
(1) Well, we still see 'something, and realize 'something is visible to perceivers of X quality.
An apple has redness, but, I'd suppose it 'also has other colors, depending on the spectrums one is viewing it in.
An apple has redness, but put in the shade, it also has darkness.
That an item has many qualities, do not prevent those qualities from 'being, when the right variables are at hand?

(2) Hm, but surely media can be more or less subjective?
'Depending on what they are trying to be objective 'to.
Giving both sides equal opportunity to state their case, for instance.
And if Objectivity is something one can be closer or farther from, surely it exists, even if we can not 'reach it?
We can not 'land upon the surface of the sun, and 'touch it's 'surface, but do we 'need to get 'that close, to understand the sun exists?

(3) Hm, but 'still specific neurons and thoughts fired, before and when a person spoke.
Certain sounds are made at certain volume, intonation.
Language like a cypher a code, we don't always get all the information, or are using a different code. But there 'was an objective meaning spoken, even if we can no longer access it.

Hm, still. . . I'd say Pro could have done a better job by defining Objectivity in the description of the debate, or at 'least Round 1.
What am I to take him to 'mean by Objectivity? Or that it does not exist?
By their arguments, are they arguing that we will always view different objects, information, and concepts differently? Never 'truly seeing the same item?
Are they saying items have no one single appearance?
. . . Apples are red, for instance, Pro is arguing that we 'cannot say that apples are red, because they 'are not, they only 'appear that way to 'some. So we cannot say anything is X, because nothing 'is X. Everything is XABCD- ad infinitum?
. . . Course many people find math objective. . .
Well, still thinking, maybe Pro will say more later on.

Con Round 1
(1) Argues the thing and it's properties still exist, and that by for instance technology, more aspects of a thing can be seen.
(2) Argues truth can be more known, depending on what methods one uses.
(3) Argues of 'specific meaning inherent in certain words.
Argues human errors do not mean what they are trying to get at, does not exist.

Pro Round 2
And looks like round 3 is out as well.

Con Round 2
Continues to make decent arguments, building on what they said in round 1.
. . . I'm not too familiar with the concept of Objectivism myself,, I 'think there are various 'forms of Objectivism or the denial of such.
Might be some types are easier or harder to argue for.

Pro Round 3
Forfeit.

Con Round 3
Argues for the 'existence of things, even if we do not always reach them.
. . .
I 'suppose one 'might argue against Con that we can not 'reach certain levels of certainty,
So in such a sense Objectivity might not exist 'for 'us,
Even if we think there are some Objective Ideals.

But Con managed to dismantle Pros '1 round of argument.
And participated in 'each round.
Arguments Con.
Sources didn't really play a part so tie, though I 'know some people argue when X% of round have been forfeited, all points can just go to the non forfeiter.
Legibility Con, as I am unsure of Pros 'meaning of Objectivity.
Conduct Con, for participation in all rounds, and not forfeiting any.