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

Solipsism disproves nihilism.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 310 times Debate No: 117302
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




Nihilism is a misguided belief (or lack of belief). Solipsism proves that you cannot ever truly know whether something actually exists, Therefore you cannot deny anythings existence. Solipsism demands empirical evidence of existence or nonexistence whereas nihilism just takes that extra step of denying something's existence without any empirical evidence.

Nihilism is false. Solipsism is an undeniable truth.

Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, Often in the belief that life is meaningless.


There's so much wrong with the resolution and case made by Pro that if this were a competitive debate in a professional arena I may very well e**culate from the sheer joy of the ease of victory.
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=i6MxaDWSQlI
Oh baby let's get rolling with a nice theme tune for this a**-whooping and them come in hard with those moves


1. What if Solipsism isn't true? If it isn't true then even if it disproves Nihilism if true, It is failing to disprove Nihilism due to being false. HOOYA!

2. What if Nihilism is true? If it's true then even if they are mutually exclusive, It would be Nihilism that disproves Solipsism. BIM! BAM! BOOM!

3. So. . . Since we're gonna be sticking to Pro's oversimplified definitions which is fair enough as I accepted the debate with the definitions in place, We have to play around with the simplicity of them, Right? If Solipsism is the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist then one must wonder if the well-being of anyone other than 'the self' matters at all. If no one else matters or even exists then wouldn't that mean that the self is then meaningless in any objective manner since there's no one else to matter to? OHHHH WHAAAAAT HOOLA HOOLA KICK-TO-THE-HEAD. . . That's right let's repeat it for a replay knockout:

    • There's only the self

    • The self matters to no one and nothing since only the self exists and something can only "matter" or "mean something" relative to things other than itself in some shape or form.

    • If we stick to the subjectivist means of drawing 'morals' or 'religious principles' we are completely conceding that we operate on a self-serving system whereby the only 'good' is what in that moment the self feels like doing and what maybe in a future moment the 'self' will hate us for having done. That's right, Even the self is totally neglected in solipsism as we have to begin to only consider the present self's urges and outlook and not even fathom the 'future' is real since there's only the self and the entire outside influence is all a lie.

Oh darling, That's SO MUCH MORE let's go round 2 hardcore yeah? I await your crippled response before I finish you.
Debate Round No. 1


/"What if solipsism isn't true? "/
Whaaaaaaaaaa? How can solipsism not be true? It's an observation of undeniable facts. I think my opponent assumes that solipsism has a 50% chance of being true. Why, Is beyond me. Solipsism means that outside the range of our senses, We cannot truly know anything exists. If my opponent has found a way to observe things beyond the scope of his/her senses, Please do tell. Lets say my opponent was actually able to prove that things do exist independently of the observer (he/she cannot, But we'll humor him/her), Does that mean that beyond the scope of our senses we actually know things do exist? No, We don't. We do not know that anything exists outside of our universe. Some astrophysicists have pondered whether we live in a multi-verse, But of course that's only conjecture because our senses have not penetrated beyond the limits of the universe. My opponent didn't even attempt to undermine the fact that solipsism is a fact, All he/she could muster was " what if solipsism isn't true? ".

Nihilism is not an observation of facts, It's an ill conceived attitude. An attitude that like my opponent has done, Needs a leap of faith without any empirical evidence to be "true". Solipsism doesn't deny that things may exist, It doesn't deny that things may not exist, All it says is it doesn't know. Solipsism differs from nihilism because the one thing a solipsist cannot deny is he/she is having an experience (life). The one thing I cannot deny is that I'm having an experience. Nihilism does deny anything exists and it does so just for the sake of doing so. It even denies existence exists. What evidence does a nihilist have to prove that nothing matters? Well, If my opponent or anyone for that matter can think of anything, Please let me know.

/"If no one else matters or even exists then wouldn't that mean that the self is then meaningless in any objective manner since there's no one else to matter to? "/

Ummmm, NO! First off, My opponent goes straight into a theory that cannot be proven, We can't blame him/her for that, Most people misinterpret solipsism. No one can truly know that no one else matters or even exists, If my opponent can find a way to prove that he/she or anyone else does not exist, I would love to see the evidence. To go straight ahead and assume that nobody else matters or exists can only be an assumption. That assumption without evidence has a name, Its name is nihilism.

Secondly, I fail to see why I don't matter to myself if no one else exists, I'm the one who must endure this life and I can't be certain that if I kill myself, I won't end up in some other life with other illusionary people who I must deal with. Even if everyone else is just an illusion unconsciously made by me, That doesn't mean anything goes. There are still unpleasant affects to deal with if I were to treat these so called illusions with disrespect. Solipsism doesn't change any of that.

/"If we stick to the subjectivist means of drawing 'morals' or 'religious principles' we are completely conceding that we operate on a self-serving system whereby the only 'good' is what in that moment the self feels like doing and what maybe in a future moment the 'self' will hate us for having done. That's right, Even the self is totally neglected in solipsism as we have to begin to only consider the present self's urges and outlook and not even fathom the 'future' is real since there's only the self and the entire outside influence is all a lie. "/

Wow, That's a boatload of oversimplification. I do completely concede that I'm operating on a self-serving system, I challenge my opponent to prove that everyone else is not! Even though I live my life only for the purpose of myself, That doesn't mean that I do what I feel like doing without regard for the consequences, That would be foolish. That foolishness has a name, It's name is nihilism. I also challenge my opponent to prove that the future does exist. From my perspective, The future cannot come into existence until it becomes the present. Just because I only can conceive of the "now", I fail to see why that means I can justify serving my present self urgess without regard for the consequences, That would also be foolish. That foolishness has a name, Yadda yadda, Think you know where I'm going with this. The self is not "totally neglected" in solipsism, It's the only thing a solipsist cannot deny! A solipsist would not consider any outside influences to be "all a lie", The evidence needed to prove that it's "all a lie" doesn't exist.

Right from the start, My opponent shows a lack of true understanding of solipsism. I think he/she thinks solipsism and nihilism are different variations of the same idea. Nihilism is skeptical of everything, Even in the face of undeniable proof. My opponent agreed upon the definition I presented in my resolution, But went ahead and misrepresented solipsism. By the way, You're choice of a soundtrack truly sucked.


Nothing I said was rebutted successfully or even indirectly.

I'm going to simply reiterate it and win by pure logic and truth without bothering to address what Pro is posting:

1) Pro (seemingly admits it's unprovable but anyway) can't prove Solipsism as true. If Solipsism isn't proven to be true, Then it doesn't disprove anything as its ability to disprove other things is contingent on it being true and the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

2) Pro keeps reiterating that Nihilism is an assumption without proof. The 'assumption' that the only thing real is the self is something that goes against all evidence to the contrary (literally this debate alone implies Pro conceding that their opponent is real and the voters and audience is real, Let alone the people who invented the English language that they use had to be real too). Solipsism is itself an assumption without proof of any kind that flies in the face of what's blatantly true so saying Nihilism is an assumption without proof is hardly a good line of argumentation on which Pro can try to win this debate since I state clearly that if Pro can not prove that it is because of Solipsism that Nihilism is untrue then Pro cannot win this debate. Pro's entire rebuttal to Nihilism being true is nothing to do with Solipsism being the basis on which Nihilism is disproved.

3) If the self is the only thing that's real, There is literally nothing else to which it can mean anything or be worth anything. This is Nihilism in congruence with Solipsism. What is so hard to understand? If only you are real, Everything that appears real is a potentially fake thing (including the consnet of people you rape) and you can begin to enter an entirely Nihilistic mindset whereby you mean nothing to anything else and everything else isn't real to even mean anything in the first place.

I have clearly stated (again) what I did in Round 1 and angled it in a way that more blatantly combats Pro's stance and basis for their stance. I have won this debate, It is a fact.
Debate Round No. 2


It will certainly be disappointing for my opponent to get handed his/her first loss. It will sting even harder because it will be done by me, A hack. This will be my 22 debate and I've only been able to rack up 3 wins, And I've also scored 5 losses. Yeah, I remember my first loss. I thought to myself, Ok smooosh, Brush it off and pick yourself back up, There's no shame in having just one loss. Right? Then came the second one, And a third (which happened to be because RMTheSupreme voted against me and in an ever so infuriating manner, He/she told me that he/she was going to vote against me no matter what because his/her decision was predetermined) then I went into a downward spiral of debate losses. I lost my job, I totaled my car. $hit got real. People would see me walking down the street and taunt me. There goes Smooosh, They'd say. The "master"debater. Yeah, They'd actually put their hands up and make air quotations when they said it. It never stops hurting. Please Mr Supreme, Take my advice, Don't let the loss drag you down. The sooner you realize that it's not about winning or losing, It's about the fun of it, The sooner you can get past this unfortunate loss. And maybe, Just maybe, If you convince that one person, It will have been worth it in the end. Oh yeah, Whiskey helps too. Lots of whiskey.

I'm curious as to what con has done to refute the validity of solipsism. All con seems to have done to attempt to undermine solipsism is claim that I claim that solipsism may or may not be real. WRONG! Solipsism is most certainly real. Whether we're inside a computer generated simulation, Or we are genuinely experiencing things as they are or seem to be, Solipsism is still true and cannot be disproven. Solipsism is simple, It just means that outside the range of all our senses, Nothing can be definitively proven. I don't know for sure that my opponent actually exists. You might be thinking right now, Well who's writing cons argument if con doesn't exist? That is not a legitimate retort. Even if con were sitting right next to me wearing nothing but his conquistador hat and playing claire de lune on his classical guitar ( yeah that's how I imagine con to be, Don't judge) that doesn't prove con actually exists. I don't know that I'm not the only coherent observer of a simulated reality and con is just a computer generated entity made solely for the purpose of my entertainment. Or maybe I'm in a dream and everyone I "know" in this dream are just manifestations of myself. Or, Perhaps everything I'm experiencing IS genuine. Organic. Actually happening the way I am sensing it. Perhaps I haven't even touched upon what is really happening and the truth is far stranger than what I'm capable of imagining. The one thing that persists in all of these possible possibilities is solipsism. No matter where I go or what I do, I can't escape my senses. That is the only manner you or I experience our lives. Every impulse, Every emotion, Every thought is done through our senses(sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Gravitational, Taste, And positional). It could conceivably be an easy win for con because all con truly must do to disprove solipsism is show us an aspect of our lives that we experience without the involvement of our senses, But how could con actually do that? Truth is, Con can't do that. Our entire life is made of information gathered by our senses. Our brain processes that information and we act, Or react based on the information we've gathered, That is all that makes up our lives. And that's all solipsism is, It's just a name for the fact that we only experience our lives through our senses. Beyond that, Nothing can be KNOWN. Con can't convince me he/she actually exists and I can't definitively know for sure con doesn't exist. I would need to step outside the scope of my senses to know definitively whether anyone or anything actually exists. Of course that's impossible, So solipsism stands.

I think my opponent believes that if I can't prove that nobody else but me exists, Then I can't prove solipsism exists. WRONG AGAIN. I don't need to prove that nobody else exists to prove solipsism is real. Solipsism means that we cannot know anything beyond the scope of our senses. There could be a really nasty spider underneath the bed I'm laying in right now, But if I can't see it, Or hear it, Or smell it, I can't know that it actually exists. Solipsism DOES NOT claim that the self is the only thing that is real, That's just cons misrepresentation of solipsism. Solipsism claims that the self is the only thing that is KNOWN to be real. I think my opponent is having trouble with the definition of solipsism that we both agreed on. The working word in the definition of solipsism is: KNOWN! Whether everyone outside of my senses actually exists or not, Solipsism is still true, Because I can't definitively know for sure that they do, Or do not exist.

My opponents nihilistic approach is problematic. Firstly, Con cannot use empirical evidence to prove nobody else exists. Secondly, Con has reiterated that if nobody but me exists, There is nobody to matter too. YES there is. ME! . I can, And do matter to myself. In fact, There's nobody that has ever mattered more to me than myself. As far as I'm concerned, Solipsism is an epistemological extension of Any Rands philosophy. She claims that the self is the most important person to the self. Not necessarily the only person or thing that matters to the self, But the most important person regardless. It probably doesn't come as a shock to know that before I knew what solipsism was, I considered myself to be the most important person I know, So now that I realize that it's POSSIBLE that nobody else exists, It doesn't bother me. Even with the knowledge that it's POSSIBLE that nobody else exists, I haven't "(begun) to enter an entirely nihilistic mindset wherby (I) mean nothing to anything else", And anything else means nothing to me. My opponent makes no attempt to provide evidence that I cannot matter if there's nobody to matter too. If I were to exist alone, Then there is one person to matter too, ME.

/" nihilism in congruence with solipsism"/? ! ? ! ? !
Whaaaaaaaaaaa? Solipsism and nihilism are in no way, Shape or form, Compatible. Nihilism is an additude, Not an observation of undeniable facts like solipsism. Nihilism isn't generally practiced as a philosophical or spiritual way of life. Nihilism is a lack of care about anything. A loss of all hope or reason. When we mix radical skepticism with extreme cynicism and blend in a dash of misanthropy and bake it at 350 for twenty minutes, We'll get nihilism. I feel deeply sad for those who subscribe to the additude of nothingness (the word nihilism derives from the word annihilate. Annihilate derives from a latin word that when translated, It means: to make into nothing). I fear those who have lost all hope and sense of purpose. These people cannot be convinced otherwise because they reject the validity of reason. They deny all existence is real. It is the additude of self loathing, But the one thing these people hate more than themselves is everyone else. It doesn't take philosophic reasoning to get to nihilism. It takes anguish and lack of care about anything to get to nihilism. By definition, Nihilism is in direct contradiction to philosophy because philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, Reality, And existence. Nihilism is not compatible with philosophy, But solipsism is totally compatible with philosophy in every manner. What empirical evidence does a nihilist have to prove that nothing matters? A nihilist would probably answer by asking, Who gives a fu(ck? If reason doesn't exist to someone, Then that person cannot be reasoned with. A solipsist would point out that no matter what empirical evidence you throw at me, It will be impossible to prove that nothing matters. The empirical evidence needed to prove that nothing matters does not exist. You cannot prove to a solipsist that nothing matters and you can't convince a nihilist that anything matters. They are totally incompatible.

Lets recap
A solipsist cannot deny the self exists, But cannot know for certain whether others exist. If it's conceivable that someone can matter to themself even if nobody else exists, Then nihilism and my opponent hasn't proven that nothing matters and all life is meaningless. If the self matters to the self, The self will impose moral principles onto the self. If the self cannot prove that others don't exist, The self cannot prove that others are meaningless. If others can't be proven to be meaningless, Then the self will impose moral principles on the self toward others. So! Given the fact that solipsism is the undeniable fact that we cannot know that anybody else doesn't exist, Then we can only come to the logical conclusion that the idea that religious or moral principles don't matter, Cannot be proven. If that idea cannot be proven, Then we can only come to the logical conclusion that nihilism is WRONG. Solipsism disproves nihilism!


Okay, I'm not sure if it's still here as Juggle has now begun to act more actively but previously (applies to both my opponent and me) our rounds were being screwed up in formatting as there was forced altering of links and any sentence with a period or comma forced a space and capital letter to be after it. I hope it's not there now but I won't know until I submit it and can no longer edit it.

Solipsism states only the self is real. This involves (as I said) the need to prove why Pro is even having this debate. If I am not real and the voters aren't real, This debate is pointless and perhaps itself not real. Pro keeps saying how Solipsism doesn't have to be proven but Pro is wrong. Solipsism has to be proven to win this debate. Solipsism even further is curious as while it doubts everything being real except the self, It doesn't apply the same doubt to the self being real something that Pro never explained this entire debate and which I didn't say was wrong as that helps it lead to one supporting Nihilism.

Throughout this debate, We've seen Pro consistently explain that while Solipsism is a theory about reality, Nihilism is somehow an attitude. This is a lie in itself contradicted by Pro's own definitions. Nihilism, In this debate, Is a theory that states that ultimately nothing means anything in any significant or 'true' manner. If only the self is real (which has yet to be proven true, So Pro has already lost the debate in that regard) then it follows that everything other than the self is ultimately meaningless as it's not even there to begin with. If only the self is real, There is nothing for the self to mean anything significant to.

Pro tries to twist around the burden of proof in their Round 3 by demanding me to prove Solipsism false. It's not only a lie to say that the default is Solipsism but even if it were the default, The fact that Pro is engaging in a debate with an opponent who isn't them on a site which isn't them and is owned by people who are not them (Pro doesn't work for Juggle in any apparent manner) then it follows that Pro is conceding to you voters and readers (who also are not Pro) that others exist than Pro himself/herself.

Then we must prove Solipsism true despite this, Yet Pro never ever does. If Solipsism is not true, It cannot disprove anything as it's a lie to begin with. Even if Solipsism is true, I've explained how Nihilism in the way Pro's defined it is entirely viable.

Thanks for reason, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smooosh 3 days ago
RMTheSupreme, you voted against me in a debate I did with BertrandsTeapot. I don't blame you though, I couldn't get the right angle on it. In the debate "Free will is an illusion", you admitted that you were "very biased" because you're a "hardline determinist". You said you tried to "remain unbiased", but you "consider determinism to be a truism". It was nice debating with you, and I hope you weren't offended. This will be my last debate here. After the voting period, I'm shutting down my profile. Good luck to you!
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 days ago
Pro lies about me in Round 3 and not sure if that's bad conduct but it's utter bullsh** and trolling.
Posted by Smooosh 4 days ago
Whoa whoa Topaet, Wait till con posts the last argument before you vote against me. Just to clarify my stance a little.

1 Solipsism can be proven. It cannot be disproved.
2 Because solipsism cannot be disproved, Any conclusions nihilism reaches, Is false.
Posted by Topaet 4 days ago
I'm perplexed as to why Pro believes that if something can not be proven to be true one has to conclude that it is wrong,

"Then we can only come to the logical conclusion that the idea that religious or moral principles don't matter, Cannot be proven. If that idea cannot be proven, Then we can only come to the logical conclusion that nihilism is WRONG. Solipsism disproves nihilism! "

Pro's basic argument seems to be
P1: If something can not be proven to be true, It is false.
P2: Nihilism can not be proven to be true.
C1: Nihilism is false

This seems to be a classical argumentum ad ignorantiam
Posted by RMTheSupreme 1 week ago
The formatting is forcing a capital letter to follow a comma, This is not my S&G this is a glitch that Juggle is causing to occur.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 1 week ago
Secondary test to see if this is a www specific filter:

http://youtube. Com/watch? V=i6MxaDWSQlI
Posted by RMTheSupreme 1 week ago
Testing if formatting is normalised yet:

http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=i6MxaDWSQlI
Posted by Smooosh 1 week ago
Nice job taking down that pedo douche rocket by the way.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 1 week ago
yeah something rly weird is happening to the formatting idk
Posted by Smooosh 1 week ago
I'm not fu(king loving the fact that all the letters after the apostrophes are capitalized. What the, Ummm fu(k. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Over.
No votes have been placed for this debate.