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

In defense of sollipsm. There IS no objective reality.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/30/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,443 times Debate No: 55786
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




I will start.

There is no objective reality. There is no WAY of proving there is an objective reality. Con will provide arguements to say that there is an objective reality. Burden of proof is on me to show that the arguements don't hold and don't prove anything.

Resoltuion: There is no such thing as objective reality. Nothing exists permanently without conscious awareness.

Equal BOP on Con to prove that there is an objective reality. BOP on me to show that the proof doens't hold up.

Let's start. Con's turn is next.

(note: If I lose this debate, then tell my mom I love her)


I accept. Since I am taking the place as Con, I will be arguing that Solipsism is wrong and there can be an objective reality. Before I begin, if anyone doesn’t know what Solipsism is, Solipsism “is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.”


So basically, Solipsism is the belief that the self only exist and no one else; only the self’s experience can be verified. Now we have the definition out of the way, I will now present my initial arguments.


Argument #1: Solipsism arises as an epistemological problem

Solipsism arises as an epistemological problem because, simply, it’s a paradox. According to the definition that I’ve verified, the self can only be sure to exist and there is no objectivity. Well, this definition that I’ve shown is objective and it’s absolute because that definition defines the word, “Solipsism.” Plus, if there isn’t an objective reality and if my opponent proves that there is no objective reality, then that would be an objective reality; therefore, the resolution is paradoxical and Pro will lose the debate.

(Objective – not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and REPRESENTING FACTS.)



Argument #2: Then, there’s the Proselytism problem with Solipsism

According to this article I found, Solipsism has Proselytism (the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion) problems because it would be extremely difficult to convince someone to believe in Solipsism. The author of this article used to believe in Solipsism. According to the article, there are only two ways to prove to someone that Solipsism is true.

1. “You have to convince them that they are the valid being, and that you yourself are a projection of their own self. However they'll know you can't possibly believe this yourself and will therefore believe sternly that it is not true.”

2. “You have to convince them that they are a projection of your imagination. Which they simply will never believe, because they are conscious themselves.”

You can’t prove that only one being exist and that one being controls the entire universe because everyone has their own self-consciousness. According to Pro’s resolution, “nothing exists permanently without conscious awareness.” There are things that people are not aware of, but they still exist. For example, Ovarian and Esophageal cancer. These cancers are extremely difficult to detect, yet they exist. There are other diseases that can occur in our bodies that we wouldn’t be aware or suspecting of.




Argument #3: There could only be ONE PERSON.

Since only the self can be verified to be existent, there could be only one person who is correct in their beliefs. So, if two Solipsists meet each other, one must be illusionary. If, hypothetically, 100 Solipsists congregate together for some discussion or whatever, 99 of them must be excluded. If you have an increasing number of Solipsists, 99.999999% of those believers must be non-existent. Then, it will cause a general problem because it might not be true for ANYONE. That’s because it’s not true at all. But, since there are 7.236 Billion people on Earth, each with their own consciousness and cognition, this belief would have issues in terms of Epistemology.




Argument #4: Simply, everyone on Earth exists

Existing, in definition, means “to have actual being, to be real, and to continue to be or live.”


That means you are there; you can come down to the conclusion and prove that something is there. Obviously, I’m typing my arguments with a computer. That is a fact and it is an objective reality. Well, at least, for right now because how else would the message get to the Debate.Org servers? If you can see, touch, feel, hear, and taste something, it exists. Its common sense guys. It doesn’t take a philosopher or an epistemologist to figure that out.


Argument #5: Solipsism is a misunderstanding of the human mind

According to another article I found, "The philosophical problem of solipsism is posed by abstracting one’s own mind from that of others, but this abstraction presupposes that the world is already given as a shared world. Hence solipsism presupposes its own refutation. It is a confusion, not a valid proposition.
True solipsism would require that I do not experience myself as a single self in distinction from other selves, but that I experience myself as the only self that exists. But that is impossible, for self is only defined by other. So again, solipsism is impossible in principle."



Argument #6: You can't possibly have everything as a figment of your imagination especially if that thing is uncontrollable or you haven’t even learned about it.

According to the definition, imagination is “the ability to imagine things that are not real: the ability to form a picture in your mind of something that you have not seen or experienced.”


Again, this part in the Solipsism definition is paradoxical because if everything did come down from your imagination, you would most likely have superpowers right now because you could just imagine yourself flying around like Superman. But, that’s not the case that’s happening right now.


Argument #7: There are absolute truths

No matter which view you look at it, 1 + 1 will always equal 2. 3 Cubed (3 to the 3rd power) will always equal 27. Mathematics is not the only examples of absolute truths. Besides mathematics, we will all die eventually. Every human has a birth date and will have a death eventually at some point. That is an actual fact and you can’t prove that statement false because no human has immortality. In the history of the human race, every member of the species has been born and died at some point.

Debate Round No. 1


Note to all: While it is true that I label myself as a solipsist, that is not the true definition of what I believe. I agree with solipsism that the self is the only thing you can know for sure is real, but I do not agree that the self is the ONLY thing that exists in the physical sense. Perhaps in other levels, the self is the only thing that exists but I do not believe that I am the only thing that exists on this physical level. So in fact, I am not really a solipsist to the heart and I am only just defending this belief for the pleasure of debating.

I agree with Con's provided definition of solipsism however I do not agree that the definition of 'Objective' is relevant to my resolution. I argued that there is no 'Objective reality' and this concept brings a whole new definition that is more than just the words 'objective' + 'reality'.

'Objective reality' or what is known as 'Objectivity is as follows:

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. ..." -,

(wikipedia in my experience has always been reliable and accurate. I have never been proven otherwise so I will use it a valid source just as Con has done.)

Time for my rebuttals now.

Argument #1

First, to reiterate my resolution and say it another way in accordance to the definition above, I argued that there is no objective reality that exists for sure beyond our individual biases, interpretations, feeling, imaginings and beliefs (to throw in an extra one).

How can you claim that the definition of 'solipsism' is objective regardless of an observer? Is it not the observer who created the definition to begin with? Before the word even existed in the english language, could you say that the word existed? No you cannot because the word hasn't be created or even defined yet. The only reason it is a fact is because we agree it is a fact. We as humans have agreed what the word 'solipsism' means and its definition. Without us or an observer to agree upon its definition, the word would be meaningless and therefore not objective. A universe without humans and a dictionary full of definitions would mean nothing. The dictionary would only represent ink and paper. Humans are required for the dictionary to have importance or to contain information.

And me proving that there isn't an objective reality is only true if you or the vast majority of people agree that it is true. My proof depends on the acceptance of others in order to be a proof at all. Otherwise it is just a jumble and mix of words and phrases. Proof is subjective.

Argument #2

I did not argue that solipsism is the truth nor did is this debate about converting anyone, my argument was about the resolution that there is no such thing as objective reality. If I was expected to defend the entire concept of solipsism then I would simply title the debate, 'In defense of solipsism' period. But instead I added, 'There IS no objective reality' because this was my argument and this was what I was going to stand for. I have even stated it in my resolution. Whatever the title of the debate, it is the resolution the instigator truly argues for.

Therefore con's argument that there cannot be one being that exists and one being that rules the universe is not related to my resolution since I didn't mention once that there was only one being existing in the universe.

And things that people are not aware of cannot be proven to exist for that person. The things you are not aware of are unprovable since you are not even aware they exist. But you are aware of cancer, you are aware of Ovarian and Esophageal cancers and diseases. You can be sure they exist because you are aware of them. And you can agree with experts that it does exist since you can trust the experts. But the point is, is that you will not be even capable of proving the existence of these cancers if you were unaware of them.

Much like a computer game, your opponent or enemy does not exist until the computer creates it using binary. Then as the gamer you will be aware of its existence. The game might then later set up a logical timeline to suggest the enemy was 'tracking you' since before its appearance but in actual truth, the enemy did not exist until it was time to exist and 'pop up' from the shadows or buildings.

You might be told by some expert that you have been carrying a disease for a long time but until you actually test and prove it to yourself, how can u be sure it’s there 100%. Also the reality you experience is impossible to prove as objective. What is happening to you might not be the same for the other person. You cannot prove 100% that a person is seeing, touching, tasting the same things you do because you cannot become that person and experience things in their perspective. And science is just something everyone agrees is true. It works very well so it must exist regardless of my focus and attention to it. But so does a computer game. The physics in the game can be as real as it wants to be but as soon as the gamer quits the game, the game ceases to exist as a real objective world.

This theory is valid and many scientist do not reject this theory. Experiments like the double-slit experiment are what opens up people's minds to the true nature of their reality. How much of what you know is truly what you know?

*end of argument 2 rebuttal* (adding this, cause I feel the rebuttal was a bit long)

Argument #3

Same rebuttal here as in argument 2. The resolution did not specifically say that only the self exists. It says that without an observer, there is no way of proving that an objective reality exists.

Argument #4

I agree with con's provided definition of ’Existing’.

You typing your arguments on the computer is only a fact because you agree it is. If you were a machine with not thoughts, could you describe your actions? You physical senses are subjective to your mind. All sensory input is processed in your brain to create the images, to create the sensations you feel. These happen INSIDE of your head. The only way you prove that what your experiencing is real is by comparing experiences with others and seeing similarities.

However the similarities you find cannot be proven 100% to be objectively real. Say for instance you experience something and your friend says she/he has experienced something else. Can you now be sure your experience is real? You gauge the realness of a situation by what the mass consensus agrees happened in the situation. However this is just an agreement based on other people's own individual sensory experience. If a situation happens with absolutely no witnesses whatsoever, then how can you prove that the situation happened and that it is empirically true that such and such happened? Again, in order for proof you need mass consensus agreement.

Therefore you cannot prove the event to be objectively real or the event being real without any observer present.

Argument #5

Interesting argument. However, same rebuttal in argument 3 here. I am not arguing in favour of the entire concept of solipsism, just the resolution I proposed in round 1.

Argument #6

Again, my resolution did not mention that everything is a figment of imagination. Just because I argue that there is no objective reality does not conclude that everything therefore is imagination. Also we do not know the extent of imagination and its true nature. At least I don't. Nowhere in my resolution did it say that only the mind exists and therefore reality is caused by imagination.

Argument #7

Now this is an argument I can truly rebut. The idea that mathematics proves that there is an objective reality. Pythagoras theory, area of a circle, trigonometry, and mathematics will always work regardless of there being an observer present.

However, again, I can give the same rebuttal here as in Argument 1. Can mathematics still have meaning when humans do not exist in reality? Can you still say 1+1 = 2 when there are no humans around to prove so? When there is no consciousness to prove so? How can you be so sure mathematical logic will still exist objectively when there is no consciousness involved? A computer can have an arithmetic game that you can play. It can have all sorts of logic and maths that you can test yourself with. But once the computer is broken, the systemic function of the game ceases to exist. If the universe is destroyed, would mathematics continue to exist? I highly doubt so.

It is like Schrödinger’s cat. Put a cat in a box where there is no possible way to observe the cat and all of a sudden can you be so sure it exists? And in the same experiment, make the cat have some probability of dying and when you close the box, you will not be able to tell whether the cat is dead or alive. In quantum terms, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

You cannot prove the cat is alive or dead. Not until you observe it. You cannot prove any mathematical knowledge will exist when there is no observer around. It is impossible to prove an objective reality exists. Humans created the system of mathematics based on the nature and structure of reality. But it solely depends on human’s experience with reality. Without the humans, without the observer, reality becomes just like the box the cat was in. Closed and unable to observe, can anyone actually say with certainty what goes on in the box?

Not until a consciousness is present or an observer is present, you cannot prove that an objective reality exists.



I'm sorry for wasting time for you debate, but I have made an important decision. I hereby declare that I will not participate in this debate or any other debate because of the effects I have been experiencing over the past couple of weeks. Due to my constant attendance in the DDO website, I am foreseeing my constant attendance will be a major distraction in the future because I have been focusing too much on conducting my arguments when I should be focusing on my school work. Also, I have also been experiencing some anxiety and heart issues ever since I joined here. Therefore, I must leave this website for a couple of reasons:

1. I am predicting that the constant attending and participating in this website will be a huge distraction from my education career.

2. I am foreseeing that participating in these debates on this website are becoming hazardous to my health and it will become an issue for my mental and physical health if I continue to debate.

3. I have already acquired the skills I wanted from debating.

I am sorry for wasting your time, but hey, at least you have free elo points.

I claim forfeiture and concession. Goodbye.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for taking the time to debate thus far anyway. Free elo points don't matter since we did equal arguments. One argument from you, one argument from me.

I hope you the best in your educational career and your health. Debating can be stressful when you have the choice of just lolling on your bed thinking about things rather than writing them out and debating with others.

So yes. However, you don't have to concede this debate if you don't wish to. We have equal arguments. This way, you could have the chance to win the debate even if you leave the debate early.

So it's up to you, I don't mind either way. If however, you do not see this and have left DDO already, I will still not take that as forfeiture. Votes expand to you as well.

A little advice if you do see this; if you find yourself in a position of stress when studying, take time to rest and relax. I find that when I overwork myself, I am more vulnerable to common colds and illness. In the case of your heart condition, the effects may be more severe.

Thanks to all who've read this debate thus far. If you have been skimming, please go back to the top.




Dishoungh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
wikipedia unbiased? that's a good one. It's so biased, I call it "The Christian History Restoration Project". It is a ridiculous source as the influence of dishonest chrsitians has ruined the pure thing it was. I'd trust facebook chatter over wikipedia "articles". I hope they go under, they deserve it.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
"Exactly what I was thinking" refers to your comment, "what?" to Myhiel's comment. I am pro solipsism in this debate, however I will explain more when I post my argument.
Posted by Dishoungh 3 years ago
Hold on, Adam. Are you absolutely sure that there is no objective reality? Are you positive about making that statement?
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Exactly what I was thinking.
Posted by Dishoungh 3 years ago
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Actually if you are PRO for Solipsism, burden of proof is still on you to be CON. You are CON in Solipsism.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Basically whatever beliefs, ideas Con puts forth to argue that there is an objective reality regardless of whether there is an observer or not, then I will argue against that.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
You could say that yes. But it can go in other ways too.
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
The purpose of this debate is to arrive at an objective truth aided by logic and reasoning right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Capitalism194 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Dishoungh applied a light amount of semantics, while simultaneously giving pure logic.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con made an unfortunate, yet graceful concession in Round 2. I wish him the best of luck in the future, and look forward to reading more debates from Pro here on DDO. Good job to the both of you.