I was talking faster than usual since I wanted to make sure to include all of the important points, and the last bit of my sentence that was cut off at the end I will post here:I felt that PRO successfully refuted CONS main arguments concerning the difference between truth and subjectivity by stating that this truth relies on human perceptions, understanding, and knowledge, and thus relies on subjectivity so it is not 100% true but subjective. Thanks for listening to my assessment and congratulations on your placements in this tournament!!
Thanks @lewisoflime for a lively debate :)
You two are both very educated on philosophical ideas, but I found this a rather pointless debate. The resolution is way too short with no descriptors to suggest what you were each supposed to be debating. Since the subject is so unspecific, it felt like each of you missed the point.So first, Orion has some points I agree with about how humanity can't know things with absolute certainty, but Joseph is right that this doesn't mean the concept of truth suddenly no longer exists. For instance, let's assume there's an infinite deity. This infinite being by nature of it's infinity would know all within the universe, including the proper true or false answers to all moral questions and all absolutes on what does or does not exist. We finite beings may not be able to know this, but that doesn't mean truth can't exist. Orion also agrees that there are objective truths which can be known to the greatest capacity of the human mind. Obviously, it's possible that the titanic didn't sink. Perhaps we are potatoes and our demon overlords make us think we're humans, and so the titanic never actually existed. Since we're finite beings whose only point of reference is our finite senses, we can't know the answer for sure. But we can know things to our greatest capacity as humans, and in this sense, Orion agrees that there are "objective" truths. So it seems like the only thing he's really questioning is "absolute truth". (The idea of a premise being 100.0% certainly accurate) But for one thing, the resolution doesn't mention absolute truth. For another, even if it did talk about absolute truth, this argument doesn't disprove absolute truth. It just disproves that humans can know absolute truth. Orion tries to say this means that truth is subjective, but it doesn't mean that. It just means human perception of truth is subjective.It seems to me like Orion wanted to debate "Humans cannot know absolute truth." or maybe that "Human perception of truth is necessarily subjective." With either of those resolutions, he might have a point. For this debate, he doesn't.Meanwhile, Joseph wants to say that if there are more "objective" truths than "subjective" truths, then he wins. But that's a silly misinterpretation of the rez. For one thing I don't think he gives enough analysis of this 3 word rez to suggest that the way to answer the rez is by asking if there are more objective or subjective truths. For another thing, the fact that the rez is talking about "truth" as opposed to "truths" (plural) means it's probably supposed to be talking about a more general concept of truth. Lastly, what the rez doesn't say is pretty telling. If the total objective truths vs. subjective truths was what you wanted to debate, then make a rez of "There are more objective truths than subjective truths." Easy. Basically I think this is an annoyingly unspecific rez which doesn't lend itself to either of your positions, so I'm voting draw. I would be interested to see you two debate a real philosophical topic some time in the future though, since you both clearly have a good grasp on the concepts you wanted to talk about. I just wish those topics were actually applicable to the round haha.
@sharkb8 unsure how u conclude draw + unsure which interp you wanted to see instead. see vid
@lewisoflime So I'm not a judge, which is why I was comfortable voting draw. If was judging, I'd probably have voted for you, albeit with the caveat that I didn't buy your case. I'd have voted for you because you beat your opponent's case, not because I agreed with yours. But since I'm not burdened by having to reach a decision, I can vote draw. Also the comm vote doesn't count right? So my vote shouldn't matter much.You asked what I thought needed to be debated. Well first I would have modified this resolution to whatever you guys actually wanted to debate first rather than this general concept that neither of you actually wanted to defend. But if you are going to go with this resolution, the assumption of the rez is that it pairs a Pro saying truth is subjective vs. a Con saying truth is objective. But neither of you actually defended those positions. Pro defended absolute truth being unobtainable to a finite mind, and Con defended a totality of objective truths outweighing the totality of subjective truths. You correctly criticized Orion for not defending what truth is, but merely defending how humans perceive it. The irony is, you were doing basically the same thing. You weren't defending what truth IS, you were merely defending what it often can be. Saying: "More often than not, the truths that humans can perceive can be called objective as far as the human experience can verify" does not mean that truth is objective. Your last sentence of your video actually sums it up pretty well. "There's no other way to prove that generally speaking, truth is objective."Yeah exactly, which is why this is a bad rez. You don't think truth by it's nature is objective, and you don't know if absolute truth is necessarily true, because you are finite. You picked a side of a rez you knew wasn't exactly true, and then semi-defended it as best you could.To be honest, I think there's an inescapable conclusion about this resolution. It doesn't matter if absolute, objective truth exists, because the human mind will always be finite. Unless we were to become infinite, we won't be able to say to any degree of certainty if there is an absolute, objective, metaphysical nature to truth. We can posit that it is a valid possibility, but we finite beings will never have a frame of reference to be able to independently verify it, so a debate over it will likely be irrelevant.
@sharkb8 Once again - I understand you don't like the topic. What I don't understand is how it should be proven.You seem to have a position on this: you're saying my case "semi-defended", saying "it proves most true things are obj true but not that truth itself is obj", etc. So what is the proper way to prove truth is objective if not through the generality of truth values?(Btw, yes, I picked a res i didn't think was true. I was con for a reason.)