Which side makes a better case?
avatar
9 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    I don't even know what this debate topic means. Obviously @debateme13 came up with this one.

    • 2 years ago

      @crudmuffin can you explain it to me??

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ According to my opponent (though he wasn't really an opponent haha... more like a dialogue partner), absolute truth is an entity encompassing everything there is to know. Knowledge is complete certainty. In his definition, the resolution means that "Finite beings cannot know an infinite amount of information" or "One cannot have complete certainty about many things."

        According to my definition, truth is a relationship\correspondence between a proposition and reality, and absolute means "universal." My argument was that staking the claim "absolute truth is knowable" is self-contradictory (or, if you want to be technical, self-referrentially absurd), because it makes a universal statement about reality.

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ My summary is this.

        People who claim to know the "TRUTH" are probably wrong

        or

        The more likely you think you have all the answers, the more likely you just haven't thought hard enough about it.


        Note that the heart of most philosophical traditions is "what can we know, and how can we know it"

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried Yep. I do find that in most of these 45 minute discussion style debates, I just wind up abandoning debate early on because my opponent and I wind up agreeing. In this case we both agree that humans can't know the "TRUTH" but that we can and should attempt to pursue the "truth" as much as we can.

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried I wish he would’ve explained it like this.

    • 2 years ago

      I much enjoyed watching @crudmuffin take a lot of effort to help @debateme13 explore his ideas. It is a very selfless way to engage in a debate/discussion.

      • 2 years ago

        On the resolution... since this is not exactly a debate. I agree with the first clause, Absolute Truth is Unknowable (to humans, most likely).

        But an appeal to it may or may not be accurate.... we can't really KNOW! So to reject it out of hand is in a way contradictory to the first claim.

        I'd say we have to test such claims just like any other. Perhaps we can be a littel more suspect of them, but we have to deal wtih them like any other claim.

        • 2 years ago

          @sigfried lol well same thing though. It's not that it's "TRUE" that we can't know absolute truth. It's that as far as the human mind can reason, it doesn't appear that we can know absolute truth.