I have to say things exists even if it philosophically turns me into a hypocrite otherwise no kind of communication would be possible.

I'm not trying to trap you.

That's why I mentioned I am asking you my questions not to defeat you but to benefit you.

This duality of words and the deeply unstable nature and meaning of things is the reason we are arguing in the moment.

I disagree that "things" are all inherently meaningfully unstable. That is the real reason why we are arguing.

You use the term reality without realizing it means and has the same referent as the words "truth", "what exists", and "facts". People might have their own truths in the same way everyone's lives are unique, but that doesn't mean that the very truth itself is determined by subjective interpretation. It is not. If it were, the term truth would be totally useless. But it is not. The definition I'm using of the term truth here is able to be verified real in the same manner that mathematics can be proven applicable to engineering.

You'd probably never heard and accepted this kind of meaning before.

However, it doesn't matter that you don't know. When you say "this thing is like this" to people they need to verify whether you can really see that thing correctly. To do so, all I need to do is ask you for the proof of your claims. But so far you didn't let me have any answers or clear definitions that I could use to do anything for you.