Not exactly, my argument is that there is in fact no relative truth at all. There is truth and only truth and relative truth is not possible.

The point of proving a truth is what people get caught on. Since they can not prove a certain truth people then assume that it is relative. This is an incorrect assumption. The absence of proof does not change the fact of the truth. It just allows there to be confusion about the truth. The truth is still there.

If a man says there is no such thing as death. How do you prove that death does exist. Do you take him to a funeral? His follow up may be that, though the body is no longer breathing and decays there may be some part of the person that lives. This could be a soul or reincarnation or an after-life.

How do you prove that death exists? You really can not. Therefore people say that the truth about death is relative. No it is not. We just do not know the truth yet.

Good points...all of them.

I guess when I think about this, I think of how the "truth debate" is used in an "application of truth". For example making laws, building social policy, etc...

Soo...while I agree that there may be truths that exist that we cannot prove, when we try to apply them practically, it is my opinion, we should only use what we can prove.

We may not be able to prove that death exists, but we should make taking away someone's human-based life for no reason illegal (for example).

Otherwise it is all just an exercise in philosophy, which is good to get the mind working, but has no real practical application outside of education and mental stimulus...again my opinion