The first definition of the word "Truth" in the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary says the following: "Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies."

Obviously modern times have dismissed the scriptural part, but the one consistancy through the times is this: "Conformity to fact or reality;" I believe that refutes your claim that the truth does not denote fact.

I have looked up truth in the dictionary many times and and list most words it has multiple meanings. In basically every case the primary definition will be something like 'Conformity to fact or actuality.' The fact is that most of the meanings make no sense unless the basic meaning is absolute. For example 'A statement proven to be or accepted as true' is meaning less unless the last word 'true' is taken to be absolute.

what do you mean by out of hand?

I mean that it can lead to childish epistemological debates that take away from practical use of discussion.

And of course all things we understand are concepts, because they rely on us perceiving.

Our understanding of the thing is the concept, but the thing in itself is not. “Truth is a concept,” yes, in a way it is. But if there is a truth to something (based on the very concept of what a ‘truth’ is), it is the truth regardless of our perception.

It's childish because you feel like you're above it?

I said ‘childishly fun.’ Most first year philosophy students get into the extreme epistemological debates, it’s fun for a time, but then they grow up and debate on more practical matters. I don’t feel above it, it’s just an observation.

Personally, I prefer to speak in terms that are practical and useful.

Ahahaaaa, yes, which is why you joined a debate website.

Yes. Debating has a practical use or purpose.

and partook in a debate about truth's relativity

It’s a debate about whether or not truth is relative. Which it isn't.

truth is, as far as communicating it goes; explaining the contents of an event or object, or what have you, thorough enough to not exclude needed information, and define something as it was perceived genuinely.

I hope this doesn’t turn into a semantics debate.

Based on your definition, I can see how you might think truth is relative, but I think it is closer to the definition of a theory. You appear to apply the human factor to a truth as if it needs to be perceived in order to be a truth.

Mathematics is an easy way to observe how truth is absolute. 1+1=2. Simple and true, right? I see it as something that is true, and something that humans discovered, not invented through perception of it.

Theory is like algebra, it can change depending on what truths are applied to it. 1+x=y. you could say x=3 which would make y=4. Or you could say x=5 and get a different result for y. The perception of “x” changes the result of the equation, it makes the equation relative.

What I feel may be necessary to make a note of, you may find excessive or useless. And that goes both ways.

“The apple is red.”

What is necessary to make that a true statement? Color, Ability to see color, ability to see the apple, etc. Feelings are not necessary, so whether or not you feel it is necessary to include “ability to see color,” as part of the criterion of truth is irrelevant. Furthermore, observation of the apple is irrelevant to the fact that it is red, but observation helps in discovering the truth of the matter. The apple will remain red whether or not it is perceived as such.

Variables are of course considered, but not all are apparent from one vantage point, and perhaps other vantage points find other variables unimportant.

Whether or not a variable is considered is not a factor in the truth of a thing, only our ability to perceive the truth of a thing. If we perceive something as true, and later find out that what we perceived is untrue, then it doesn’t change the nature of the thing, only our perception changes. Consider Plato’s cave scenario. If a person only sees the shadow of a thing, that is the truth (as that person sees it), but in actuality, the thing is not a shadow in itself, it is an object casting a shadow, and an object in form it remains regardless of a person’s perception of it.

When two people perceive the same thing with changes as minimal as nuance, there is an ambiguity in truth. To assume that there must be a true object is just as bold as claiming that one's perception is more valid than another.

The existence of truth precedes the perception of it. If what we label as true turns out to be untrue then what we labeled wasn’t really true in the first place.

When one describes something with an intended reaction or action, they are either intentionally or unintentionally skewing their own observation.

The requirement you gave is “intended reaction or action.” Not everyone has an intended reaction. Besides, the truth of a thing is absolute regardless of someone’s poor or misleading description of it. Truth is not incumbent upon belief so just because someone describes something as true (and it is untrue in actuality) anyone believing it as true is wrong whether they know it or not.

"The only truth that remains is relative."

And that wasn't an absolute statement how?

It seems to me that while there certainly are relative truths, there are also absolute truths. Like in mathematics and the sciences, where observed phenomena are explained mathematically in a way independent of human thought.

"I am a firm believer that for every rule, there is an exception. So there must be an exception for absolute truths as well which would not make them absolute."

So you believe absolutely that for every rule there is an exception....I'll let you ponder that for a bit....

The interesting thing is that so called 'subjective truths' make no sense but in light of absolute truth. For example the phrase 'A statement proven to be or accepted as true' is meaningless unless the last word true is taken to be absolute.