There are many things in life that are subjective and can be influenced by personal opinion and perspective. For example, beauty, taste in music, and fashion are all largely matters of personal preference and can vary widely depending on an individual’s opinions and perspectives.
However, there are also many objective facts and truths in the world that are not merely a matter of opinion or perspective. For example, the laws of physics, the principles of mathematics, and the basic rules of logic are all objective and not subject to personal interpretation.
Moreover, while people’s perspectives and opinions may differ, there are often underlying principles and values that most people would agree on. For example, most people would agree that honesty, respect, and compassion are important values to uphold in our interactions with others, even though the specifics of what those values look like in practice may vary from person to person.
In summary, while opinion and perspective can play a role in many aspects of life, there are also objective facts and truths, as well as shared values and principles, that provide a foundation for understanding the world and our place in it.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
So what is the debate about, dopey? Given that you've answered your own question?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
He doesn't realize people can disagree...The basics of a debate.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
About what exactly? That the laws of physics are objective and not a matter of opinion?
You're such a moron I don't know why I even bother.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yet he keeps waiting for me to talk directly to him. How rug-headed.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, I put everything on hold for you because you're so important.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I wonder which country produced such a pointless, beak-nosed loser who twenty four hours ago was disingenuously crying about "useless insults".
You're laughably pathetic, Jules. Go cry into your brisket.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And then you look at a straw berrie and think well der like its a berrie but it isn't because berries have there seads in side . Then you look at a banana and think well no way is that a berrie but in fact it is because the seads are in side. So there for your got to think a bit harder at what is opinion and perspective and what is fact because your going to get cought out one day.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Everything" as a word is perspective. A person can only hold an opinion on everything as the word everything describes a view from a position or vector.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A united state of mathematics is the connection of objective, subjective, and denial as a human reaction.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@John_C_87
Sure. Pi is the answer to everything.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, Pi is an approximation, it is not the precise answer to everything while all things which use mathematics as a point of navigation may not suffer, there are many kinds of mechanism which still use Pi and natural numbers together in algebra, it is these issues that are not comparable to GPS and triangulation oversite which are highlighted as risk.
Again:
A united state of mathematics is the connection of objective, subjective, and denial as a human reaction.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
However, not all is lost, and, in principle, subjective experience is sufficient to derive all the objective laws of nature with a very high accuracy. Subjectivity is not the same as arbitrariness, and it clashes with reality when treated as such. If I run into a wall while believing that there is no wall, then the collision with the wall will quickly open my eyes to the reality: the experience of hitting the wall is subjective, yet the event itself is objective and inevitable.
I like to think of humans as processing information about the external world through a set of filters. Each filter distorts the "true" information, but the distortion is not random and the laws it obeys can be derived through experimentation. Then this distortion can be corrected for and a good approximation of the "true" information can be reconstructed. And there is no theoretical limit for the goodness of such approximation: it is limited merely by our ability to collect a sample of a large enough size and to process it in a short enough period of time.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ultimately, that is what everything is. Opinions.
Every fact, statement, argument, or data point is ultimately some representation of an observer's arbitrary opinion and interpretation of reality.
Take the statement: "There are two apples on the desk if you place one with another on there." How can we ascertain the validity of such a statement? If you are to argue through empirical observation, then what objective measure is that? After all, can a schizophrenic not go up to the exact situation and state: "There are in fact three apples simultaneously with two, since 1 + 1 = 3 and 2." Or that there are simply two apples on the table?
Let us take this logic a step further... what if I say that an object can exist with two simultaneously self-contradictory values? After all, how can I ascertain that such an object is restricted to only a single value? Under what premise can I state that an object can, for example, be only black, while not having light frequencies that are both black and white simultaneously?
What makes something true? And what makes logic or observation a truth in and of itself, other than our subjective views of reality and probability?
True, this argument runs under the flaw of being self-contradictory... After all, if there is no such thing as objective truth, I cannot say the previous statement is objective truth without contradicting myself, right?
But what makes something contradictory, and invalid? Can I not hold contradictory opinions and beliefs if there is no such thing as objectivity regarding logic?
In reality, there is no reality... Our measures to ascertain "reality" are ultimately based on nothing more than arbitrarily defined axioms. And for something to be considered true, it must have an infinite amount of reasoning and evidence to support itself, since nothing can have such support, nothing is truth or facts.
Therefore, what we believe the world to be is simply a measure of our own beliefs, and thus our own opinion and perspective.
Everything is perspective, to summarize.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I disagree. Everything we "know" is opinion, whether our own or others, but outside of our minds, there is truth not effected by what we think. Truth or reality effects our opinions, our opinions don't effect reality other than what they make us do to reality. That it why having "true" opinions is important, because our opinions shape our actions which effects reality.
That doesn't mean that reality doesn't exist; it actually means reality must exist because someone is observing it.
Being true makes it true.
If it's true. Our views can either be true or false. If it's true, it's true.
Right
Here we must understand that some objectivity is perspective and some objectivity is created. For example, language is an objective code of communication; it works by giving certain noises a meaning. An apple is an apple merely because society has decided on the objective pronunciation and meaning of the word. Language is a created objective code. Most contradictions arise from the objectivity of language, which is created, not perspective or opinion. Let's see if I can find an example of a contradiction...
Ahh, found it.
The key word you used was "considered". Considered is a word pertaining to our opinions rather than the reality that exists apart from our thoughts. I agree with your first sentence but not the second. I agree that few things will ever be agreed upon as what to "consider" as truth, however, that in no way indicates that truth does not exist.
I agree. That in no way is proof that truth does not exist, nor does it disprove that our opinions and perspective may very well align with truth.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It isn't quite that simple buddy. At the visible level that's true, but when you get down to the subatomic level reality is affected by observation. For example, when observed a waveform will collapse into a point particle.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
True. After all, our brains are a substance part of reality, so even thinking creates a "change in reality". I wasn't really trying to dig that deep, especially when my opposition doesn't even believe reality exists.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Lol. Yes, I had to mute that guy. I was getting bored reading his utterly absurd posts.
I don't know why it's always the least intelligent people who write the longest essays. Minecraft once spent two days arguing that 1+1=3 is a valid statement.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh, haha; maybe I shouldn't waste my time!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Things" of legal grievance are truth, whole truth and nothing but truth......
Let me try to explain. Whereas 1 + 1 = 2 under a axiom we can write in whole truth to direct learning ( letter i) I + I = I, I = the value of any number not any one specific value this does mean 1 + 1 approximates in total 3 values, so the contradiction of fix equeation then plays the same roll in basic addition it plays in algabra 1 + 1 = 3, The assumption of truth describes #2 unwritten and the equal sign ( = ) is acting as a plus sign ( equal = +).
SWHpkins the point Minecarft tried to make though never quite found the right words to describe the grievance is can algebra be applied to basic functions like addition even though there are not letters used in the addition form of writing calculations?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is everything opinion, perspective and time?
I ask the question this way because. Perspective is an association to all flat plains for objects on a curve fall out of the lines of perspective, whereas time is associated to surfaces comprised of arc or curve. An opinion on the other hand can be held against all object on either a flat plain or curved surface.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have seen multiple proofs of 1+1=3 and all of them suffer from mathematical fallacies; so no, 1+1=3 is incorrect no matter if you're using fundamental math or algebra. Try me with any actual proof you can find.
Actually, basic functions serve the root for all forms of real-world numerical mathematics, so if there is a disagreement between the fundamentals and algebra, then either the problem is with algebra and not the fundamentals, or the application of the mathematics is in thought rather than real-world, in which case we're dealing more with logic than numbers, and should avoid trying to apply numbers where it is a fallacy to do so. Every proof of 1+1=3 uses letters and theorems to form an equation and then tries to apply numbers when, if numbers were applied previously in the proof, the proof would become invalid. If you actually study math, you will see that numbers are the root of all math. Every equation must be verified by numbers, so if the numbers don't verify the equation, then the equation is wrong.
More on topic, that has nothing to do with anything that Minecarft said in the debate that I was responding to and nothing to do with whether reality or truth exists.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What is the truth then? How can we determine the truth can exist if everything that we know is simply subjective opinions?
But that is an opinion in and of itself that reality affects our opinions... And that our opinions cannot affect reality...
You cannot make an opinion of reality that opinions have no affect on reality and its laws. That is a contradiction. Unless of course, you are ignoring the rules of what we define as logic.
And what makes something true?
Here's a question:
Why is it that a value that can have a true value, can also not have a false value?
Why are values either true or false, why can't a statement be true and false simultaneously? Where is the truth in that axiom other than it being simply an opinion?
If objectivity is created, rather than always being so, then objectivity is not truth.
If you are to define objectivity as partially based on perspective, then what if one's perspective differs from another? If a person states that there are two apples on a table, and another person approaches it and says there are three apples on the table, then whose perspective is truly objective? Are they both objective?
Irrelevant. We are not discussing the existence of definitions pertaining to certain objects or values. Rather, we are discussing the existence of true objectivity itself. And whether or not our current system of logic and empirical observation to determine "truth" is adequate.
I meant "consider" as being true. However, it is ultimately subjective as well as what makes a truth require an even infinite amount of reasoning to support itself. That is, in and of itself a belief as well.
You previously stated objectivity is partially based on perspective, and thus truth is based on perspective... Therefore, don't our opinions shape reality by your claims? This contradicts your statement above that opinions do not affect reality when you previously stated that objectivity partially depends on one's own perspective, and therefore opinion.
My argument does not rely on a common consensus of opinion to form what is considered to be the truth...
How can you say that truth can exist? My argument relies on the fact that there is no real way to prove the existence of "truth."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You don't seem to get it. The truth is the truth. I'm not saying that I know the truth, I'm just saying that there is one. The question is, does my opinion align with the truth and reality.
How is that a contradiction? It is a greater contradiction to accuse me of a contradiction when you supposedly believe that "Can I not hold contradictory opinions and beliefs if there is no such thing as objectivity regarding logic?" is a valid statement.
Being true.
Because that contradicts the meaning of true and false.
First, I didn't say that all objectivity is created, only certain objective codes. As I said, perspective has nothing to do with created objective codes, such as language; that's because it was created and therefore does not exist outside of itself. For example, the word "apple" was created; if it wasn't, then the word wouldn't exist and there could be no perspective on it. No one could have any perspective or opinion on the word "apple" before someone created it. The fact that two people are debating about apples clearly indicates that they've already accepted the objective existence of the word and are merely debating on their perspective of the objects to which they believe the word relates. Once again, perspective is not objective; I never said it was.
But we should be if you are asking questions regarding definitions. For example, you asked what a contradiction is; you also asked why something can't be true or false, to which I replied that it's because it contradicts the meaning of the words. Your asking questions pertaining to language, which as I already said, is a created objective code. Also, I'm not debating that mine or anyone else's opinions are true, I'm merely saying that they can be.
As I already explained, no, objectivity is not based on perspective. Also, reality is not affected by created objectivity. For example, the created word "apple" does not, affect reality. Don't mix up the words "objective", "truth", and "reality". Just because it's objective doesn't mean that it's a part of reality. However, if something is part of reality, then it is objective.
Neither does mine.
Because by definition, truth does exist.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Great, and what makes something true, how do we know if something "true" can even exist? And how are true and false defined? Objectivity is usually defined as the state of being true, thus it is a measure of truth, and therefore reality, correct? If your definition of objectivity differs, state it.
You're playing with semantics here. True is defined as the state of being factual, while false is defined as the state of being unactual. What makes these two terms contradictory?
Your argument essentially relies on that: "Truth exists because it is defined as such." I could define Leprechauns or Unicorns as existing but that doesn't make it representative of reality.
Giving an arbitrary definition towards a term doesn't mean it can actually exist or be representative of truth, even truth itself.
Truth is defined as the quality of actuality... That does not define itself as existing...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The irrational bozo doesn't seem to understand that his "argument" is a contradiction of itself, since if it is true then it is not true.
I wouldn't waste your time on this halfwit. He just craves attention.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Nomenclature
I've decided to take your advice!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is no way to prove that objective reality exists with absolute certainty. However, there are a few things that we can do to support the idea. First, we can look at the evidence of our senses. Our senses tell us that there is a world outside of our minds, and they tell us that this world is consistent and orderly. This is evidence that there is a world that exists independently of our thoughts and beliefs.
Second, we can look at the evidence of science. Science has shown us that there are laws of nature that govern the universe. These laws are consistent and orderly, and they seem to exist independently of our thoughts and beliefs. This is evidence that there is a world that exists independently of our thoughts and beliefs.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not an objective reality exists is a matter of faith. We cannot prove it with absolute certainty, but we can support the idea with evidence from our senses and from science.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A good decision my friend. Debate is predicated on the idea that both sides must be reasonable people who will accept when an idea or argument discredits their own. Without this caveat, debate is very literally a pointless endeavour. It becomes a childish game where the only goal is to give yourself an emotional boost by feeling like you have outwitted the person you are debating.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have seen multiple proofs of 1+1=3 and all of them suffer from mathematical fallacies; so no, 1+1=3 is incorrect no matter if you're using fundamental math or algebra. Try me with any actual proof you can find.
A fixed equation is a mathematical fallacy, can't argue that and I have used that very point myself. It is a rule used under a limited condition to produce a true math statement in what otherwise would have multiple possibility of true outcomes. There is no need to test you with a proof you said it already you do not believe as my question asked the rules of algebra DO NOT apply to numerical values like they do to letter values.
The question however is not if but where is the error? 3 = 1 + 1 The principles of algebra bring into play where the error is located in the mathematic formula itself, is the 3 wrong, or is it one, or both of the other values in the equation that is wrong? As fact which side of the equation is wrong if this is a linear equation is it the 3 or is it a 1?
"Every equation must be verified by numbers, so if the numbers don't verify the equation, then the equation is wrong."
But then to be precise we would need to know and understand where and how many times the error occurs, right?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Because by definition, truth does exist.
By definition truth is not whole truth, nor nothing but truth.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Great, and what makes something true, how do we know if something "true" can even exist?
Your imbecility is staggering , you've spent 6 months arguing that 1+1 = 2 or maybe 3 and I gave you a simple test ( keeping in line with your simplicity) that would decide the matter for you ........count you first 3 fingers and if you've decided 3 fingers are in fact 2 chop off the " extra " imaginary one , that's called tasting reality. Do give it a go and get back to me when the bleeding stops .
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In America we are allowed to seek common defenses towards a general welfare by seeking whole truth and nothing but truth as an introduction of cost in relationship to "freedom of speech" as a united states constitutional right. Even if it is the by an Armed Service court as there is no other jurisdictional court for such a trial where a crime is to be held ongoing by writing of law.
Well Unless Congress or President is declaring officially in writing the "new " created Armed Service and not Military is no longer serving and protection the United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic? Enemies of United States Constitution are still an enemies of America, and the Armed Service does not need only act as a combat enforces on behalf of "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union."
The writing of laws to be used to block criminal charges from due process and actions of prosecution of / by trial, or tribunal for a limited group of lawyers on specific matters is malpractice of law. A lawyer as officer in an "Armed Service" can be brought before tribunal to then be relieved of his or her command and discharged.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What do you mean by that exactly? (Apologies for my lack of understanding.)
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thank you for an apology though it was not necessary it is a fair question to seek an understanding on a state of the union made on established justice. It is a state of the union that describes a truth may contain a lie, so truth is examined in three steps. 1. Truth. 2. Whole truth. 3. Nothing but truth.
I would go into a little more detail but at this point I am trying to stay on room topic as much as possible.  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Seriously, the best connection to established justice is to use a test which describes the chopping off human fingers and time how long a person might bleed afterwards?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra