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


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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Unstobbaple has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 99378
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I'm making the character limit 5,000, as I want this debate to be easily read by voters, and not too lengthy. I'm open to increasing the character limit or the number of rounds if con wants me to. Be sure to comment that you want me to change it before accepting the debate, otherwise I won't be able to change it.

1) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for debate(so, if there are 3 rounds, use only 2 rounds for debate). Con may present their arguments in round 1, but must waive the last round to keep the rounds used for debate even if they choose to use round 1 for argument.
2) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults.
If either of the above rules are violated, voters should vote for the one who did not violate them, or who did so to a lesser degree.

Solipsism: the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside of the mind. [1]

Solipsism is basically the ultimate agnostic position, applying agnosticism to everything except one's own mind.



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


My argument is rather simple: when it comes to the existence of anything, it relies on our senses and perception. I've never heard of anyone being able to confirm the existence of anything without their senses, or someone else's senses. Whether it's done through math, or science, etc, in order to read that scientific data, in order to conduct experiementation it requires your senses.

There are a myriad of optical illusions out there which prove that what we see is not always what is accurate. One such is Ames room which is explained here[1]. Since perception and our senses are fallible, as Ames room and many other optical illusions show, we can never be sure when our perception is telling us what exists is accurately portrayed. In fact, it could be something entirely different.

For all we know, reality could be all a simulation. There's no way we currently have to prove it isn't that I know of. Therefore, the only thing we can know with surety, is our own mind's existence, because it follows the logic that Rene Descartes stated with, "I think, therefore I am".

I contend that the only thing we can do, is believe we live in reality. We cannot prove it with 100% surety, thus we cannot claim to know anything else is true. We can have belief, but knowledge is something we can never actually have, except when it comes to one own's existence. For example, it is a belief I have that I am communicating on a debating website called, I cannot say with surety that I am for my perception can be wrong and there's no logical way to prove my perception is accurate with 100% surety.

I'll turn this to my opponent now. My opponent should provide a way we know with surety that other things exist besides one's own mind.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
That's odd, you posted that comment 2 hours ago, but it says on your profile that the last time you were online was 4 days ago.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Dammit! I forgot about this we can restart whenever you'd like.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
I think there are good arguments against this version of solipsism. It's more difficult to argue against a matrix scenario or holographic universe. Limiting the world to my own mind would require me to be omniscient and I can't even be bothered to apply basic rules of grammar to my writing and there are many arguments along these lines.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
21"" screen..
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.