You do not exist
Debate Rounds (4)
I'm getting tired of serious debates. Let's have a fun one.
You is defined as whomever accepts this debate.
Pro will be proving that they do not, indeed, exist.
Con (myself) will be proving that the pro does, indeed, exist.
First round will be acceptance.
To clarify, existence must be certain. There can be no doubt to my existence.
Also, my opponent must prove both my mind and my physical body exist with no uncertainty.
Let the games begin :D
Oh, now I just know you're going to run solipsism xD this'll be fun. I'll go ahead and get right to it. Thanks for accepting, by the way.
As we can see, my opponent (THEBOMB) typed a response in the first round. There are three ways that he could've done this, all of whch confirm that he exists both physically and mentally.
1. Typing on the keyboard.
Pretty standard and easy. Humans have fingers and when you press the keys, letters appear on the screen. The fact that letters have appeared in his round box means that he must've pressed the keys corresponding to the letters that appeared. The fashion that he pressed the letters in does not matter (typing with your fingers like a normal person, using your nose, using your elbow, rolling your face across the keyboard, etc.). The simple fact that letters have appeared on his part of the round confirms he exists physically.
2. Thinking on the keyboard?
Yes, people. Technology, similar to what Stephen Hawkings uses/used (I really don't know if he's alive or dead right now xD what a fail) to speak is also employed for those who are physically unable to type to still use a computer. The thought they use is corrolated into electrical signals that are sent to the computer and converted into the letters and symbols, sort of the same way that we type. This way, if it is the case, we can confirm he exists mentally.
3. He knows English!
To be able to speak the english language, as my opponent did in his last round, he must have the mental capacity to either a) know English to begin with or b) be able to look up the words necessary to make his first round acceptance. Knowledge of the English language requires, at the minimum, a basic mental cognitivity that confirms that he exists mentally.
For the above three reasons, I advocate that the pro debater, known as THEBOMB, does exist.
Have fun :D
C1. Solipsism (my opponents prediction came true)
Even with all of my opponent's arguments he still fails to prove "I" exist. According to solipsism, the only absolute certainty is the existence of your own mind. Until my opponent can prove "I" exist separate from "him" mind "I" do not exist. My opponent cannot prove with absolute certainty that "I" was the one who was "Typing on the keyboard" and this just is not his imagination placing letters on a computer screen. My opponent cannot prove "my" thoughts differentiate from "his" thoughts. "My opponent" knows English therefore, how can they prove it was not "he" that was the one who knows English and is making up a separate persona which knows English? The simple answer is, until "my opponent" proves to everybody they do not believe in solipsism, then, I am nothing more than a figment of "my opponents" imagination and not a separate being.
C2. The impossibility of proving your a human being (separate argument then above)
How can my opponent know he exists? Well they may respond with Descartes, "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" (I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am) here's the problem with that, it provides a great proof for the existence of YOUR mind, but, nobody else's. Furthermore, it does not even prove that you are a human being, simply proving your mind exists is much different from proving you exist in the form you perceive. I mean to use the famous Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi's statement, you could be nothing more than a butterfly dreaming of being a human. Until my opponent can create an argument that he is not in fact a butterfly who is dreaming of being a human how can he attempt to take on the enormous task of proving 1) my mind exists separate from his and 2) I am in fact a human being (and not a butterfly). When applied to myself, how does my opponent know he is not simply a butterfly who is asleep and dreaming of humanity (including these words which are on his screen)? The simply answer is, my opponent has provided evidence he is not a butterfly who is dreaming; nobody is a physical entity but, rather a figment in my opponent's mind.
To conclude, my existence is uncertain simply because my opponent must prove 1) he is not a dreaming butterfly and I am not a dreaming butterfly, 2) If he succeeds at (1) he must prove solipsism to be certainly false and that I am not simply a product of his mind. (Numbers (1) and (2) can be switches.) Until this is done, I do not with any certainty exist.
My fun is your fun :P
Gah xD Screw you, THEBOMB. Making this a serious debate...grrr. Oh well, I'll go forth from here like a normal debate.
I'd like to point out that my opponent completely and entirely dropped my case. Thusly, it can be extended in it's entirety as conceded. This is going to prove vital for the debate, as he concedes two reasons why he mentally exists and a reason why he physically exists, which will counter back both of his arguments. Now, to respond to my opponent's points as to why he doesn't exist.
Oh, solipsism. How ridiculous of an argument are you. There's two things wrong with this, plus two things that went conceded that answer back for this. So, technically, there's four things wrong with this.
1. If solipsism were true, then my opponent would exist. He would be the focal point of solipsism, and anything outside of his mind wouldn't exist. Only his mental state is something that he can confirm, thusly making him the only person to 'exist'. So if you're voting off of solipsism, you're be voting con.
2. Solipsism is just flat-out false, though. There are plenty of ways that we can verify if others have mental cognitive states and minds, such as brain scans and cognitive testing. We can verify things outside of ourselves as in existence, thus solipsism fails.
3. I'm going to be outweighing because he dropped my second argument, which provides a scenario where we know he mentally exists. This disproves solipsism, as I just verified the existence of something outside of myself.
4. I'm still going to be outweighing, again, because he dropped my third argument, which proves definitively that he has a mental cognitive ability, thus disproving solipsism.
So his first argument falls completely short. Now to adress his second, where he says that he may not be a human, but merely a butterfly dreaming of being a human.
1. Even if this is true, he would still be in existence. If he were to be the butterfly, he would still be existing as a butterfly, which disproves the resolution.
2. This creates an infinite cycle of regression, because if he could be a butterfly dreaming about being a human, wouldn't it also logically entail that he could be a unicorn dreaming about being a dragon dreaming about being a platypus dreaming about being Barack Obama dreaming about being a backpack dreaming about being a fly dreaming about being Osama bin Laden dreaming about--
You get my point. There really isn't a place to call an end to it, thus making it logically fallacious and a horrible argument to make.
3. It's just wrong. We all know butterflies can't dream. Silly head :P
So with both of his points refuted and mine conceded, the only vote is for con.
"I'd like to point out that my opponent completely and entirely dropped my case."
No, I didn't. My case just clashes with your case, therefore there was no point. Anyway I cited your case within my case.
1. "If solipsism were true, then my opponent would exist. He would be the focal point of solipsism, and anything outside of his mind wouldn't exist. Only his mental state is something that he can confirm, thusly making him the only person to 'exist'. So if you're voting off of solipsism, you're be voting con."
Unless of course, my opponent was the solphist. And "me" just a figment of my opponent's imagination. Therefore, "I" would not exist. My opponent still has not shown any valid proof of my mind's existence.
2. "Solipsism is just flat-out false, though. There are plenty of ways that we can verify if others have mental cognitive states and minds, such as brain scans and cognitive testing. We can verify things outside of ourselves as in existence, thus solipsism fails."
But, have you done a CAT scan on "me"? I say no. Therefore, this fails.
3. "I'm going to be outweighing because he dropped my second argument, which provides a scenario where we know he mentally exists. This disproves solipsism, as I just verified the existence of something outside of myself."
You have not. As "I" stated above, "My opponent cannot prove with absolute certainty that "I" was the one who was "Typing on the keyboard" and this just is not his imagination placing letters on a computer screen. My opponent cannot prove "my" thoughts differentiate from "his" thoughts. "My opponent" knows English therefore, how can they prove it was not "he" that was the one who knows English and is making up a separate persona which knows English?" My opponent has not even attempted to disprove this.
4. Cross-apply 3 as I addressed your third argument.
Now for the butterfly argument :P
1. "Even if this is true, he would still be in existence. If he were to be the butterfly, he would still be existing as a butterfly, which disproves the resolution."
You had to have proved "my mind and my physical body exist with no uncertainty." My opponent had to have proven that my physical form exists. He did not.
2. My opponent claims an ad infinitum fallacy here. But, there simply must be one source for all these dreams within dreams etc. Without that nothing exists. :P Actually I like that, my opponent has upheld the resolution. Nothing exists.
3. I like this :P I ask my opponent if he has performed a CAT scan on a butterfly lately :P
Now here's another great one. My opponent could simply be insane :D. I mean he sees these letters on a screen but, how does he know there is another person on the other side of the screen typing them? 'I" could simply be a product of a hallucination.
My opponent has not proven with full certainty that "I" exist. My opponent has not shown any valid proof my mind is separate from his, nor has my opponent proven we are not, in fact, butterflies. :D
Zaradi forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: the pro does know english...
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.