I am convinced that we could save billions of wasted hours arguing if we simply used absolute terms only to define absolute concepts. Concepts like “Fact” and “Truth”.
An "established fact" should be no different from any other "fact", in fact there is only one kind of fact. And the truth is that facts are rare, and we should not use fact in place of either consensus or theory. There have been a great many ideas throughout our history that have been held by the majority but have been far from true.

In 1901, after his mental collapse and death, Frederich Nietzsche’s sister laid the last brick in the road to moral relativism when she published a collection of his thoughts, The Will To Power. One contextless thought has carried enormous social consequences: “There are many kinds of eyes… consequently there are many kinds of ‘truths’, and consequently there can be no truth.”  

From that idea we now live in a world where concepts of absolute truth are regarded as violence against vulnerable minorities. Is there such a thing as Absolute Truth?

Like Justice Truth is absolute, by definition. If we don’t start there then these words we say to each other about what we see and experience are absolutely meaningless. If you have your ‘truth’ and I have my ‘truth’ then Nietzsche is correct and we may as well all be lunatics. It was Chesterton who said that the sane accept that they have an element of madness in them, it is the truly mad who maintain that they are absolutely sane. Like Justice there has to be an objective Truth governing all matters regardless of our perspective, preference, circumstances, or ideological identity.

What Nietzsche was talking about was not truth at all, but rather attempts at truth; what we call opinion. Human eyes have always seen subjectively.
Even in the halls of science no one scientist does every experiment, and even if he did it would still be subjective. But even if Nietzsche had a rare case of humility and acknowledged that he had substituted opinion for truth, he would still be wrong. There are many kinds of eyes, yes! There are indeed many perspectives, personalities, experiences, preferences, and ideals. Therefore there are many kinds of opinions, again yes! No argument there. But it does not follow that there is, therefore, no opinion. The absolute nature of truth is what makes Nietzsche's "observation" nonsensical.
Nietzsche has tripped himself up, this statement can only be true if there is absolute truth, if there is not then by what means can we agree with him? But in addition he has, rather transparently, tried to apply the infinite ways that opinions can (and must) be wrong against the realities of objective truth. What he should have said was “There are many kinds of eyes… consequently there are many kinds of opinions”. Not very helpful, but much more accurate. It is hubris beyond comprehension to align human opinion with absolute truth, a kind of drunkenness or madness. It does not annihilate truth, it annihilates Nietzsche.
It seems that we all agree: when someone lies we say, “that is A lie.” But when they speak truth we say, “that is THE truth.” A lie, like an opinion, is one in an forest of lies, but there is only one path of truth.

I said in my book The Subjective God that “anyone honestly searching for the truth eventually finds that it is the searcher, not the truth, that is lost.” Recently in an interview Dr William Lane Craig spoke about the objective nature of conceptual mathematics as absolute truth. He asserted that because these concepts were not invented but discovered, there must be a mind in which they have been conceived. It is a powerful ontological argument for God's existence.

Hypocrisy

One way to test your opinion is to live it. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are prepared to sprout forth on their wisdom on how others ought to live, ought to spend their time and money, but they have all kinds of extenuating reasons why they are exempt from their own requirements. If you can't, won't or have exemption then don't prescribe it for others. It is far more valuable to live it and them testify to its effectiveness. Living one's conviction is also a very beautiful way to learn precisely what you don't know.

Philippians 1:27 “27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ."
Paul is against hypocrisy in the church.
He asks the Philippians to live what they say they believe.
The Fruit of God's Holy Spirit in Galatians 5:22–23 are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control; Paul says of them: "against such things there is no law". They are absolute, ethical imperatives.
Life is not about policy or ideals, authentic life starts when we have the courage of our convictions; when we move beyond simply trying to adhere to law. When we look to change ourselves, not everyone else. Paul says “live like in a manner…” “politeuomai” 
“live out your earthly citizenship with the same integrity as your heavenly citizenship.” This is Righteousness for the Christian, striving to live Christ's imputed righteousness, not attempting in vain to make one for himself.

It’s not up to everyone else to change… the onus is on US Friends! If we claim the higher ground we must walk in it!
It’s our job to bring a bit of heaven to earth. Let's promote, and vote for people who make promises they can (and do) keep, let's look for character above policy in our elected officials.
We should live that way too. “Simply let your yes be yes, and your no be no.” Matthew 5:37. That is to live Gospel worthy. Today Yes means no, and no means maybe, up is down, girl is boy. May it not be so in the Church of Jesus Christ.
We should lead the way, a people who know how to commit, ethically with no FOMO.
Paul says we should be “not frightened in anything”. 1st fear to overcome is FOMO, if we can’t overcome that then how can we learn to commit. If we can't learn to commit then how would we ever recognise truth on its day of visitation?