The Instigator
Skept
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shanor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I know I exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 12/22/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 378 times Debate No: 106072
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Skept

Pro

I know I exist. If a demon deceives me as Descartes said, I cannot know 'I think therefore I am' because I may be thought by another thing. However, I know I exist, even though the demon trick me that I exist, because there is a deceived object, I.
Shanor

Con

Well this is definitely a different type if debate for me, but I think this answer will suffice.

You are making a logical jump to your conclusion. Ideas can be thought up. If I think up a person having a crisis doing and saying exactly what you are saying he is no more real then he was before. It is possible that we do not truly "exist" but rather we are going through some other unknown process and we just think we exist. Sadly, because all we have ever done (that we know of) is "exist" so no one can wrap their heads around what else their could be, so to summarize. It is possible (whether or not their is a deceived object or not) for you to not exist.
P.S. Please be more clear with your answers so that I can accurately tell what you are saying, having adequate grammar is just a common courtesy.
Debate Round No. 1
Skept

Pro

(If I think up a person having a crisis doing and saying exactly what you are saying he is no more real then he was before.)
There is always a possibility that thing you have regarded as unreal thing happens.

'all we have ever done (that we know of) is "exist"' confirms I have existed and does not demonstrate that It is possible for me not to exist.

'I know I exist' is compatible with 'It is possible for me not to exist' which does not verify 'It is impossible for me to exist.'
Shanor

Con

Everything you just said does not pertain to my argument. For the first lines, we aren't debating whether it is possible we do exist, we are debating the possibility that we don't, so talking about possibilities is my job, not yours.

For the second lines, I specifically put exist in quotations to represent the.fact that it might not be what we call existence. So the line of reasoning is still yet to have shown flaws.

The question was I know I exist. So my job is to prove the possibility of nonexistentance, not the other way around. So please attempt to prove there is no possibility of us not existing. Or stop this argument and create a new one that has the question you want.
Debate Round No. 2
Skept

Pro

(For the first lines, we aren't debating whether it is possible we do exist)
You first noted that "It is possible that we do not truly "exist""

(we are debating the possibility that we don't)
What is the meaning of this line?

(so talking about possibilities is my job, not yours)
I cannot understand how the reason you offered is related to this words.

(For the second lines, I specifically put exist in quotations to represent the.fact that it might not be what we call existence. So the line of reasoning is still yet to have shown flaws.)
If so, why did you use the word "exist"? You should have used another word if you wanted to express another meaning like nonexistent. You cannot refute the fact "exist" means "exist" so you inevitably showed flaws that "'all we have ever done (that we know of) is "exist"' confirms I have existed and does not demonstrate that It is possible for me not to exist."

(So my job is to prove the possibility of nonexistentance, not the other way around.)
I have insisted that I know I exist, so your job is to prove that I do not know I exist. Why do you unnecessarily make another debate? I think you should make a new one.
The proposition that I know I exist is compatible with proving "the possibility of nonexistence" which does not verify the statement that It is impossible for me to exist.

(So please attempt to prove there is no possibility of us not existing.)
Even though I do not affirm this proposition, my first thesis is valid, because there is a possibility of me existing like this time though there is also a possibility of nonexistence like when we die and perish. However-You had to express like this-there is no possibility of 'me' not existing 'in the present' because I cannot write if I do not exist.
Shanor

Con

At this point you are attempting to win on semantics. That is not a debate that is worth debating

1. This has no meaning in it, write a more specific statement.

2. Exactly what I said, this debate is about the possibility that we don't exist.

3. I am saying it is your job to prove your point, not to defend it.

4. I could have, but I understood that by saying exist and by putting it into quotations it would show just how flimsy are knowledge on existence is. Sadly it seems to have just gone over your head.

5. To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth. By proving the possibility that no one does, whether you say it or not there is doubt in your mind, meaning that you cannot know it.

6. And how would you know you could not write it? The point I have been making is that you cannot know this is truly what we consider existence. So it is possible you could write it because we don't know the existence we think we feel is truly existence in the first place. So argue that rather than wasting time on semantics.
Debate Round No. 3
Skept

Pro

(At this point you are attempting to win on semantics. That is not a debate that is worth debating)
I am winning on logic. If you can not understand you would think those are just semantics.

1: You discussed whether it is possible we do exist before me to write, so I answered.

2: This debate is about 'I know I exist or not,' why do you change the theme as you please?

3: I can have a job to explain my thesis by using your sayings.

4: If you agree "exist" does include some meaning of existence, you should admit we have existed. If not, you should agree you used "exist" as a concept not related to existence.

5: (To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth.)
Your concept of the knowledge shows many fallacies.
You admit that you debate without knowing my arguments. Good debaters must know the opponent's arguing before refuting. You proved you are a defective debater on your own.
You also admit that we can decide we know or not by doubting or not. I do not doubt you are illogical, which proves I know you are illogical.
If I doubt all things, I do not know anything, in other words, I know I do not know anything. I also do not know that I do not know anything since I do not know anything. I know this and do not know this, which shows a contradiction. Your concept of the knowledge is false by reductio ad absurdum.

(By proving the possibility that no one does, whether you say it or not there is doubt in your mind, meaning that you cannot know it.)
I said, "there is a possibility of me existing like this time though there is also a possibility of nonexistence like when we die and perish." However, I did not say that there is a possibility of 'me' not existing 'in the present' which show I do not have a little doubt about 'I know I exist.' Can you differentiate these? Why did you ignore the above?

6: (And how would you know you could not write it?)
Do you think nonexistence wrote all these things? You know even air cannot write these.

(The point I have been making is that you cannot know this is truly what we consider existence.)
Truly 'this' is what we consider existence. The existence in your mind is not the existence people universally consider.

(So it is possible you could write it because we don't know the existence we think we feel is truly existence in the first place.)
The existence we think we feel is genuinely existence. The existence in your mind is not the existence we think we feel.

Why do you make another concept of existence without specific explaining? You argue about things you do not understand. That is like saying '"horse" is not a horse, but I do not know what the horse. I have the "horse," but I do not have the horse.' I am arguing not the horse unique in your mind but about the horse we consider. Why do not you debate about an existence than wasting time on existence you do not know? You made semantics by noting unnecessary concept and committing logical fallacies.
Shanor

Con

"I am winning on logic. If you can not understand you would think those are just semantics." The definition of semantics is "the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text." So the fact that a good portion of your argument was about the way I decided to use "exist" shows just how little you can differentiate the two.

1: Not worth talking about. This is a blame game that I will not waste time on.

2: The definition of know is (to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information) (be aware, realize, be conscious, be informed, have knowledge or information concerning), (or be absolutely certain or sure about something). I am saying that by shaking your knowledge of existence, you can no longer "know" through the fact that any logical person would have doubt if they found conflicting logic that is just as good as their logic.

3: I understand your thesis, it is not complex. You need to counter my arguments as you have began to do, I won't be commenting on this point anymore because it is a waste of time to argue.

4: The definition of existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality." the main point that I am arguing is that the objective reality (the definition of both being objective: ((of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.), and reality: (the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.)). Now does it not seem weird that you need objective reality to have existence yet you need existence to have reality? What I am saying here is that because there is no way to create an area of non-existence, it is impossible to know what it is like to not "exist". And because of this the definition of existence is very limited and to a point, not correct. Without an idea of how non-existence would function there is no good way to say we "exist", it is POSSIBLE that we could not exist and still be capable of functioning. It is POSSIBLE that what we are going through is something that we can not understand at this point rather then truly existing. And it is POSSIBLE that we are just imagining this reality. now the likelihood of these possibilities being true is low, the fact that there are so many ways (most of which are currently unthinkable) that we could not "exist", that there has to be some doubt that we do, not a ton. But enough to not (by definition) know.

5: to begin with, don't start by saying there are fallacies. Start by proving it, anything else is a waste of time. Next, I did not say I do not know what you are arguing. You are not arguing in the first place, your job here because of the way YOU worded this question is that you are defending your point while refuting mine. So you seem to be the "defective" one here. Next you go to twist what I say. I said "To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth" I did not say "To know something all you have to do is believe it" as you seem to have read it as. What I said was that you having none/very little doubt was essential to knowing, not all there is. So you seem confused and slightly hypocritical with that statement. And your fallacy is just wrong now that you understand the simple message I was using. And finally, if you would rather refuse to lose your faith in something just to win a debate, you are not worth debating. So by giving you doubt you can either decide to accept it and lose the debate, or you can ignore it and simply become ignorant, either way, me showing that there is doubt in the idea of existence would make you likely lose.

6: How would you know it could not. You have never experienced anything but what you are experiencing now. So how could you say what something non-existent can do? There is no way to show something that does not exist can do something because of the previously-said faults in the definition of existence. next, if the definition of existence that you use is the feeling of "this", then this debate is a waste. Tell me what definitions you are using before the start of the debate or the dictionary definitions are what we both have to go by. So there is no "considering" existence, it is what it is. There is no black and white in definitions unless you say AT THE START that it is flexible. So there is just the dictionary definitions we have to go by for now. If you want to change that challenge me to a debate where your definitions are posted.

Why do you get to chose what I do and don't know, the idea of existence is so flexible that a actual no problems definition is not easy to find.(and making one up does not count). And your example is comparing the name of an animal, something that was agreed on in America at the least, vs an idea that has never been properly defined due to lack of understanding. That argument means nothing. And I debate the idea of existence, not the word which has been what you have been doing. There is no unique existence in my mind, there is the definition, nothing else. So stop making jumps in logic and stop saying I have when I obviously haven't. And just so you know, people will not be voting based on whether you "know". They will vote on whether they now "know", so the question that people will be voting on is not "does Skept know he exists", it will be "do I know I exist". So a change in how I debate is necessary to make sure I succeed in changing the minds of the voters, and succeed in getting the winning side of the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Skept

Pro

0: You admit that I differentiated the two meaning of existence. One is in the dictionary; the other is your interpretation. You interpreted the definition of existence unnecessarily, which shows you did not use the word 'existence' in definition's sense itself.

1: You started that.

2: I do not doubt I know I exist because I found clear logic. Refer to my last paragraph of the third round.

3: Arguments can include a partial agreement to opponent's thesis.

4: (The definition of existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality." the main point that I am arguing is that the objective reality (the definition of both being objective: ((of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.), and reality: (the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.)).)
That dictionary's definition itself explains well 'know,' 'existence,' and so on, which is why your following interpretation is not in the dictionary. Dictionary's definition is determined by investigating in what sense do people use words.

(Now does it not seem weird that you need objective reality to have existence yet you need existence to have reality?)
We know that nothing is nothing, and existence is existence. Accordingly, we know that nothing is nonexistent, and existence is existent. The reality which is consists of existence also exists.

(What I am saying here is that because there is no way to create an area of non-existence, it is impossible to know what it is like to not "exist".)
Even though there is no area for non-existence, we know that non-existence is non-existence, and not to exist is not to exist.

(And because of this the definition of existence is very limited and to a point, not correct. Without an idea of how non-existence would function there is no good way to say we "exist",)
You say the definition of existence is not correct, and say "There is no unique existence in my mind, there is the definition, nothing else." in 6. You admit existence in your mind is not correct. Thus all your arguments about existence are not correct.

(it is POSSIBLE that we could not exist and still be capable of functioning. It is POSSIBLE that what we are going through is something that we can not understand at this point rather then truly existing. And it is POSSIBLE that we are just imagining this reality. now the likelihood of these possibilities being true is low, the fact that there are so many ways (most of which are currently unthinkable) that we could not "exist", that there has to be some doubt that we do, not a ton. But enough to not (by definition) know.)
All possibilities you noted presuppose existence in definition's sense.

5: Placing conclusion before premises is one of the methods clarifying arguments.

(Next, I did not say I do not know what you are arguing. You are not arguing in the first place, your job here because of the way YOU worded this question is that you are defending your point while refuting mine. So you seem to be the "defective" one here.)
Refer to 3.
So do you not doubt my arguments? If you doubt, you do not know my arguments by your statements of knowing.

(Next you go to twist what I say. I said "To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth" I did not say "To know something all you have to do is believe it" as you seem to have read it as. What I said was that you having none/very little doubt was essential to knowing, not all there is. So you seem confused and slightly hypocritical with that statement. And your fallacy is just wrong now that you understand the simple message I was using.)
You try to cloud your fault by changing "you must have none to very little doubt" to "you having none/very little doubt". Former still implies my conclusions.

(And finally, if you would rather refuse to lose your faith in something just to win a debate, you are not worth debating. So by giving you doubt you can either decide to accept it and lose the debate, or you can ignore it and simply become ignorant, either way, me showing that there is doubt in the idea of existence would make you likely lose.)
That has no effect because your interpretation of knowing is contradictory. "If I doubt all things, I do not know anything, in other words, I know I do not know anything. I also do not know that I do not know anything since I do not know anything. I know this and do not know this, which shows a contradiction. Your concept of the knowledge is false by reductio ad absurdum." You ignored this.

6: Refer to 0, 4.
From your point of view about knowing, you do not know existence itself people universally "consider," in other words, written in the dictionary. Because you doubt "this" existence's truthfulness.
Keep in mind that you admitted existence in your mind is not correct.

(And just so you know, people will not be voting based on whether you "know". They will vote on whether they now "know", so the question that people will be voting on is not "does Skept know he exists", it will be "do I know I exist". So a change in how I debate is necessary to make sure I succeed in changing the minds of the voters, and succeed in getting the winning side of the debate.)
Voters determine.
Shanor

Con

0: I have the definition of existence within this debate, I do not have a personal view of something like that. Nor will I state personal opinions. That is not a debate. That is whining.

2: I found holes in your logic (and yet you say I am the one ignoring you.) did you just not see them?

4: It explains the word know well, it does not explain existence to a good level for the reasons I said in the other paragraph. You know the word is the word, you do not know the attributes or possibilities within it. Words mean nothing without something to back them up, in a book, there is emotion, in a scientific paper, there is evidence. The definition of a word however has only logic to back it up. There is no logic in two words if they both reference each other heavily. It makes no logical sense, and therefore the words have bad definitions.

This is the greatest logical fallacy I have ever seen in my time debating here, and that is a fairly long time. "You say the definition of existence is not correct, and say "There is no unique existence in my mind, there is the definition, nothing else." in 6. You admit existence in your mind is not correct. Thus all your arguments about existence are not correct." this is wrong in so many ways I now think I might have thought of you as more intelligent then you were. Because the definition is bad, I instead believe that there is no way to define existence currently because we do not have any idea what "non-existence" might seem to be.

As I said, because the definition is sloppy, I think there is no true definition that works currently.

5: I do doubt it, so I don't know it is true. You seem to like twisting words to attempt to seem smart. Just make a worthwhile argument. I am literally debating non-existence right now and doing well enough that you have to try to twist my words just to have a chance. That is truly sad.

I am not clouding fault, implications or not you should have asked rather then said I did it, that is just common sense. If you are confused ask. (and how does adding a / make anything clearer anyways?)

I thought you would understand something so simple. Read into what I said before you pick it apart. When I doubt a persons words, I do not doubt that the person said them, I doubt the truthfulness of them. I could easily call that a straw man fallacy with what you attempted to do there. So don't try twisting words in any other debates. You do not look smart, you look like you are scrounging to win. And why is it that when I point out a contradiction (the fact that the definitions need each other) you pretty much say "because" for a lack of a better word (it is what it is would be another way of putting it), yet when you point out a non-existent contradiction I have to put up a paragraph? That seems like quite the double standard.

6: Once again you are assuming quite a few things here. One, there are many people who define existence as different (as with other broad words), and this makes the definition even less clear. Two, once again, because existence is such messed up term, there is no good definition for it, so I say that I don't know what existence is (along with everyone else, including you.)

Are you just commenting for no reason? I already said that.

I have sat through you twisting words in a fairly simple debate for a while now. So if we debate again: 1. Create a better question. 2. Don't twist words. And 3. just less rude (I have done the same admittedly. But there was no other way I was going to make a suitable argument if I let you keep twisting my words and challenging my intelligence.)
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Goldberg123 6 months ago
Goldberg123
The logical reasoning of the Con side seems to be a non-strict attempt, it attempts only to criticize many irrelevant things. This is by the way an old debatable topic
Posted by Surgeon 6 months ago
Surgeon
This is relatively uncontroversial. To deny ones own existence is self refuting, given that even thinking it (let alone saying it) requires ones own existence in the first place.
Posted by KostasT.1526 6 months ago
KostasT.1526
Well, that's intriguing. I want to see how it will proceed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.