The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Are any of us real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 52521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




We have lived life asuming we are real, asuming we exsist in this state. But can you prove that we do? How do you know that this, any of this is real at all. Perhaps it does perhaps it does not. The fact of the matter is that you can't just jump into some one else's body and see what they see. And you can't just know. Have you ever stopped to wonder about that? Really taken the time to think about it? The question should be are we alone? It should be am I alone. Becuse I have no proof that you all arn't fake, nor do you have any proof that You are not alone. Perhaps this is all false, you are all fake, we are all fake.


Exist: to have actual being [1]

Well you have premises that don't lead to your conclusion so this may get interesting

Premise 1: You can't prove we exist

We do indeed exist, to have consciousness we must exist.

Consciousness: a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

It is impossible for anything non-living to have consciousness.

Premise 2: You can't understand someone else's perspective

Indeed, every individual being lives a different life and has a different perspective, but this fails to show their is a possibility that we have no actual being.

Conclusion: It's possible that nobody exists

Incorrect, as I states earlier to have consciousness you must exist.

You said: "The question should be are we alone?"

Could you explain to me how this is a question? Although perhaps you're just confused because you have a lack of understanding of existance, or maybe you wish to confuse the audience for whatever reason.

Debate Round No. 1


Indeed this should get intresting. My question I proprosed was not are we alone. It was am I alone. I would invite you to consider another question, what is exsitents? My oppent gave an answer, a deffnison, but try to define it in your own words. Your conculsion should be that I think, I live so I exsist. When I say do we exsit I mean do we exsit here on earth in this form. Perhaps we do. But do we think? What is thinking? Do we live? what is living? A man once attemted to answer this ever pressing question. His answer was, I think therefore I am. I am. What a curious stament. What am I? I am what? Please consider that.


My opponent has dropped both of his premises round two, and the conclusion. My opponent has asked questions in hope to get subjective answers but I have provided a definition, and have no reason to define it in my own words. As for thinking, and living I have provided you a source in which you can look up the definition.

In conclusion my opponent has dropped his points and gone far off-topic, all arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for not proving your point. Your job as my opponent is to prove that we do exist. So far you have based your augment off of my augment. You have pointed out that I have strayed from my opening arugment. But, you never actually proved your point. So I have proved more than you have.


I have shown your premises to not match your conclusion, and have made my own premise about consciousness that you failed to refute. I refused to go off-topic like you did, I even extended my arguments yet you refused to make a rebuttal. In conclusion I never had to use a scientific source to defeat you or defend my argument since you ignorantly refused to engage in debate and my premises that led to the conclusion we must exist went completely unrefuted.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
So, solipsism. Okay. The issue with solipsism is that, it cannot be proved. Either way it cannot be proved for nor against. Debating it as a fact/truth then puts a BOP on Pro and Con which cannot be met whatsoever unless you can objectively prove that I, who sees things from my perspective only, do not exist. Now, I cannot do the same back which is why it is futile debating it in the first place.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made several spelling mistakes all of which disturbed me while reading this debate. con mentioned the following words in order to justify my S & G point: exsitents,deffnison,exsit,becuse,asuming,conculsion,exsist,arugment. The count is huge, one that is enough to warrant the s&g point
Vote Placed by AthenaMusic10 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: um...there was no real argument in this.....