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

You do 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 986 times Debate No: 43860
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




Hey first round acceptance.
Second round opening arguments.
Thrid round rebuttals.
last round crystalize points and closeing arguments.


I accept. um, what else do people say at this part?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2


The case for Solipsism.(And against your physical existence.)

Firstly anyone who the solipsist position must have entire epistemic certainty.

Solipsism Is take a keyboard or a penny and ask Could that perhaps just be an illusion and not really exist ?.

Yes physical senses can and are deceptive whether delusional and hallucinating for example seeing what ones mind projects it cannot possibly be denied that one's senses have a possibility of being wrong.

The solipsist admits this and adjusts his metaphysical outlook accordingly.

One can never know with certainty that anything outside of one's conscious self certainly exists and thus one would not be justified in believing so.

These are my points.

P1; One can only be justified in truly believing that which can be known with complete certainty.

P2; One's mind is the only thing which can truly be known to exist with complete certainty.

C; One is not justified in believing in anything except for one's mind.

We can therefore conclude that if my premises are sound you really do not physically exist.
Defense of p1

When physical eyes see something, it's justified to believe that something exists , however, realize that the certainty from what physical eyes register is inferior to the certainty derived from logical necessity or reasoning as far as certainty is concerned.

It is possible that physical senses are not registering correctly what one is looking at and thus one can possibly have unjustified belief.

If one's logical reasoning is correct, it is not possible to hold unjustified belief. The rationalistic method of acquiring knowledge is clearly more justified.
Defense of P2

Mothing can be found to necessarily exist with complete certainty other than the mind In order to refute this premise, my opponent would need to show why something other than the mind can be shown to exist with complete certainty, certainty wherein the concept of denying it's existence is self-contradictory.

Defense of the Conclusion, Validity

The argument itself is clearly valid. P1 and P2 hold.The conclusion is sound if the premises both hold to be true.

You do not exist.



Contradicting P1:

Your first point states that you must be completely certain of something to believe it. I'd like to ask you where in your life have you ever been completely certain? Science isn't 100% certain, and neither are your own senses. The Sam Harris books you've so obviously gotten these arguments from must be real to you, or why would you believe in them? Why take something that may not be real and base yourself on it? Can you look at your hands and say they are real? Your eyes very well could be deceiving you too, I assume you know about the holographic principle. It states that the world may be in 2D, but you cannot look around and see in such a way. So, I end this with nothing is certain, but some things are more probable than others. (Such as my existence.)

My own point:

Most of your arguement is about how the world can be doubted, and I found this.
"It doesn't matter whether you exist in some matrix world or not. The "realness" of the universe is not in question. The statement "I exist" is absolutely true, because to argue it, you must first assume it is true. (You cannot argue it if you don't exist.) I suggest you think about it some more.

- Warren"
If I do not exist, how do non-existent beings interact? From the mere moment I started thinking, I existed as much as you. It would be rather odd to talk to someone who didn't exist. If I were to punch you, would you duck? By doing so you would admit I am real.


This is a very contradicted point that you picked just because it's hard to refute, but it's rather trivial. I cannot argue with you that I do not exist, because from the moment you started talking I existed. I cannot prove my own existence in the way you would like me to, all I can say is that it's highly probable I exist, and I myself am definite of it.

Note that Pro's grammar isn't the best. (not to mess around with Muphry's law though, I am sure I made mistakes too.)
Debate Round No. 3


Contradicting P1: Science isn't 100% certain, and neither are your own senses

Con has nearly all but conceded here con is simply reaffirming my entire case from this we can surely gather that P2 is indeed sound since in con’s words our senses are not certain nothing but the mind is.

Therefore reality exists only in my mind for that is only what is truly justified therefore my premises stand and the conclusion is sound.

Cons “Point”
"It doesn't matter whether you exist in some matrix world or not. “

I am not doubting the existence of my mind I know it exists since this reality is a product of my mind.

Oh but it does as I proved with my contentions this world exists only in my mind therefore you don’t actually exist.

Conclusion.You do not exist outside of my mind a mere filament of thought.



sparrowlefox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
This is very weird, how did you skip round 2?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
If this debate was more Philosophical, it would be entitled something like: "Our Image of Ourselves and Others Does Not Exist"
Because we build our own concepts of ourselves and others from innuendo, myths, sensibilities, social norms, rumors and Communal Delusion.
Thus what we see of ourselves, mostly comes from feedback, physical/sensory feedback and feedback from others and comparisons we make with others and social norms.
As Buddhism has always taught, we really are just our own brain based Illusion.
The same can be said of others, they are often not who we think they are.
Though we do have an unusual ability to make a reasonable assessment of some.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Watch the Forfeits, I don't give conduct points to those who forfeit, even if being attacked by their opposition.
Stand your ground and points may come your way.
Though I forfeited my first debates, because work took me off D.o.
My wife reminded my of my work commitments and the amount of time I spent researching debates was wrecking my work, so I quit.
If work gets busy again, I'll have to leave, whether half way through a debate or not.
Though I would not expect any points for those debates, nor would I care.
Posted by sparrowlefox 3 years ago
No idea, there was no prompt from it. Smart said it was a glitch in the site.
Posted by Vladimir_Lenin 3 years ago
What happened to round 2?
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
Um WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO ROUND 2....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
don't worry i support you, and its not hard debating. as you are con you will only need to be obliged to reply to Pro and find contradictions in his arguments.. then, you can state your own arguments. hope this helps you and if you need help just ask any DDO member
Posted by sparrowlefox 3 years ago
This is literally my first time debating D:
Posted by msheahan99 3 years ago
We should sacrifice con to the God of thunder to prevent eminent nuclear war!
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
I have to give all seven points to Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough one for Pro to argue, though Pro had done a reasonable job. The Title is a little Grey, not really defined very well. Con gave up, spoiling a chance of a conduct vote.