I've been wondering,
Can something that we hold to be an ethical, self-evident truth be justified a priori to someone who disputes it? Could a debate along these lines ever get anywhere? Can you analyze someone’s ethical beliefs until you get down to the point where they believe that something is wrong/right "just because it is?"
P.S. - I mean "debate" in a loose way.

Good questions, I'm glad the forum is starting off well. Alright, I'll give my opinion on the matter:

I would say no. Often times, things we hold as a priori truths are not in fact truths but are instead good conclusions based on reasons which existed prior to experience. This type of situation could be easily filed under reason. So I believe that the question of a priori/a posteriori is tied directly to empirical thought.

Along philosophical lines? Well, they might get you somewhere, but it's best to not take on an assuming attitude. One must always endeavor to be open-minded, no matter how difficult it might be. If you approach these "debates" with a humble manner and don't look at them as things to be won, then you will most likely come closer to a potential conclusion.

Ha, have you heard of the "metanarrative?" It is basically a biased or opinionated view (nothing can be totally objective/neutral, such as text books, which follow the lines that they wish to follow). If you reach a point in a debate where your opponent said "It's just true," then that would be a very metanarrative place for them to be. There should be a reason for almost everything.

I believe there are a few absolute truths in the Universe. One of these would be Math. It has always existed a priori. It's irrefutable. Its rules have aways existed, and if we play by them then we can see them clearly, even define them. They were there all along, though. Just because we didn't use them doesn't make them not true (personally or axiomatically). The only way for us to have discovered Math and its laws is by a posteriori experience.

Another question linking to this topic is, "Can there be definitive a priori awareness of a thing?" I believe so; it's called instinct.

I hope my feedback has helped you in a constructive way.

Yeah, it does. :) Real quick, though,

That really kind of echoes of Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, don't you think? I think that's it, at least. Wasn't it him who said that we have some sort of "extrasensory perception" of the universe around us? (correct me if I'm wrong on this)
:unsure:

I believe your right. Yeah, that is very similar. But he also stated that we cannot fully understand a system that we are a part of, for our view will not be objective (again, metanarrative).

One must first seek to understand...and then perhaps it would then be possible to be understood. How can one assume to have the "right" stand on an issue, unless there are certain truths accepted by all...and that seems to be where there is great difference of opinion. In the American culture, it is not accepted to state that anything is "right" because inherrent in that statement is that the opposite is "wrong." While I hold a belief that there is right and wrong, I am just recently becoming aware of the effect that my worldview holds on me. I have accepted that it is 'wrong' for me to state something as 'wrong,' even though I accept it to be wrong- for fear of offending others. How ineffective I have allowed myself to be...not effecting my world around me for fear of offending. My priority has been passivity and thoughtless of my having any positive impact.
I realize I am rambling, but I am new to forums, and posting.

I'm not sure if you understand topic precision ;) .
I believe that what you're saying is true (you probably should have started a new topic concerning this, but it's fine). Nowadays, truth tends to be treated as opinion, which (linking this back to the original subject) makes truths of any nature harder to find/understand. Is a truth really a truth if truths are considered to be subjective? I, for one, do not believe that truth is subjective; we all have our perceptions of it, but those perceptions are not realities. For someone to declare (openly or subliminally) that truth is subjective is for them cease the pursuit of the thing and, in exhaustion, say that truth is something found within and not without (which I do not believe is true). If truth came from within there would be no reason for us to look to others, so if you believed that truth was internal, then it would be pointless for you to participate in a forum like this, unless you hope to show others the truth that you've found (but your truth isn't necessarily their truth, so that doesn't work either).

Truth is not subjective. You are not what makes truth right, truth is what makes you right (or wrong). Without an objective truth to strive for and pursue, we would become lethargic, with regard, not for truth, but for ourselves.

~True.

But what is the gauge/judge of "truth?"

From a purely philosophical point, I would say that there is no judge of truth. Truth exists on its own, above judgement, it is a priori (who's to say whether truth is true or not?). From a religious standpoint, though, I would say that God is the judge of truth since He is the one that created it.