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

I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 24484
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Welcome to this, my first debate.

I will be arguing that everything in existence could very well be a figment of my imagination. You all could not be real and I would have no way of distinguishing reality from the illusion of reality.

All our reality is comprised mostly of the sum of our past experiences, which we refresh with the additional input of information we perceive in our minds. So maybe life is but a dream.


Imagination is “only part of the mind’

Argument from Anatomy of mind;

major components:

Actual physical atmosphere: physical sense perceptions (Changes depend on using your body)

Creative physical atmosphere: Where we could picture things in space, time, geometrical figures, physical memories, songs in our heads. (aka imagination/dream)

Other aspects of mind/consciousness:
Pure reasoning (logic, math, geometry), the raw formulas of the structure of ‘idea’
Emotions,(motivations and pleasure)
Long term Memory (storage of ideas)
Working memory: immediate thinking memory.(you current thought)
Intuitions; instincts and reflexes (innate)

Therefore since imagination is just the one aspect of mind everything cannot be a figment of imagination. QED!

Debate Round No. 1


You’ve decided to dissect the anatomy of the abstract concept of the mind. What makes the mind what it is? What is its source? And if this source is damaged, isn’t your mind damaged as well. If this source stops functioning, doesn’t your mind stop working? If all thoughts are is in our mind and our mind is our brain then the brain is the center of who we are. You did not address the brain at all.

Since the brain is the center of everything we could very well be connected to the Matrix at this very moment and not know it. Our brain neurons could very well be connected to this vast Matrix and recieving electrical impulses identical to those which we normally recieve; reality would be simulated in my mind. How would I tell the difference?


The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent doesn't seem to have enough time to post. Hence I win this debate by default. He has decided not to address the physical nature of the brain how it responds. Vote Pro.

Here is a picture link of my example above:

My opponent's evident lack of posting is also a point in my favor. As I can't be sure if he actually exists or not, it might have been an automated response by the web engine to my topic and when faced with the superior argument it has decided to forfeit.

Again, thank you. Vote Pro.



The Fool: The mind is consciousness, everything you ever experience is through consciousness the brain is just an object of conciousness.

For what is IS and what is not, does not exist. There is only real existence.

Refutation of the brain in the vat:
The brain in a vat theory depends on an appeal to ignorance. It state that since we are ignorant of the possiblity that we are brains in a vat, we know there is a possibilty that we are brains in a vat. It is irrational to go from the non-existence of knowledge to the existence of knowledge of the possibility. It is also a contradition.

I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist.
For we both may be automations, which are debating each other as opponent. Resolution has been NULLIFIED

Debate Round No. 3


I want to thank my opponent for such an excellent debate.

Rephrasing what my opponent has said, he asserts that real existence must be assumed. He believes that my Matrix theory is an appeal to ignorance. Turn. It's an appeal to the only knowledge I have, which is I EXIST. That's all that should be assumed and can be.

CON attempts to refute my hypothesis by stating that we both could be automatons thus my resolution is nullified. I don't see this is the case. I might not know if I'm an automaton, but I know I EXIST. CON is left now with the burden of not only proving he exists, but that he is also an automaton.

In conclusion, CON at no point of the debate proved that it's possible he does not exist. Vote PRO.


The Fool: pro makes a last desperate attempt to strawman my arguement.

Pro: The Fool asserts "that real existence must be assumed."

The Fool: I argue that everything is real. A dream is still a real existing dream and an illusion is still a Real existing illusion.
I refuted the brain in the vats argument. Either way may opponent would be just acceptible.

Me and my opponent both know that we each exist via(Cogito) but you voters don't know 100% if we exist. However I am very active and engage more in discussion group on DDO. So it is more likly to you that THE FOOL then my opponent. Who has a Fresh profile and may be a Troll. Therefore either the resolution is nulled, or its been shown wrong. either way VOTE FOOL.

plus you Love me more!!

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 6 years ago
You restart I was just about to send it in. But first round don't forfiets, are draws. because I didn't start the debate.
Posted by Splashstorm 6 years ago
Hmm.. I wonder who could possibly beat the Pro? I have occasionally pondered this thought as well. :)
Posted by PeacefulChaos 6 years ago
If you're arguing your opponent *could* not exist, then you should change the topic to "I exist, but it is possible my opponent does not exist." Otherwise, you'll be arguing that it is an absolute fact that your opponent does not exist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.