We Indeed Exist.

The scapegoat bleats, I have a question for you.

I dunno

You have no room to talk. This is only, really my second one. The first was a default, which doesn't count. The 2nd was a reverse pentagram. I stole Imabench's for about 3 days, but I was just being a smart alec so that doesn't count. This pic, I will keep a while. Probably about 3 months.

Why did you give me an easy win. You could have spouted some objectivism and then used Occam's Razor to prove your case?

Wylted, why are you repeatedly changing your profile picture?

You should on me then instead of message me in debates.

Wylted It's me Krazzy, they banned me too.

So why is Con debating this? According to Con, no one other than at most himself exists. Perhaps Con believes that he doesn't exist, which is absurd, but regardless if Con grants that Con exists then the problem becomes whether anyone else exists. If not, this is called "Solipism," the doctrine that no one else exists. 'Else' here refers to anyone other than the Solipsist - the speaker that utters the Solipsistic doctrine, 'no one else exists.' The burden of proof is only relevant once the pragmatics of the context of utterance are first established and secondary to that end.

The same goes with the Problem of Other Minds and the metaphysical possibility that all others than the Solipsist may be "philosophical zombies," which was Chalmers name for the things that behave as though they have minds and exhibit all external behavior as if they did, but in fact do not. Zombies are only relevant with the un-argued for position that to be a person, one must have a mind; eliminativists about the mind would dispute this as would animalists about personal identity. Whether zombies are even metaphysically possible is also contentious as their possible existence may entail the actual existence of qualia, which many dispute as they are prima facie incompatible with a functionalist account of the mind.

The possible world of one person, the Solipsist, and the rest zombies is also irrelevant as it is clear that in the actual world, Con is conducting a debate with who he is committed are not people. So it remains unclear as to how Con could win. Surely, nobody could vote for him if in fact he was correct about the actual world. By telling us that none of us exist and that there are no persons other than himself, such assertions carry the conversational Gricean implicature of presupposing the very thing it disputes: that we are person who do exist with which he disagrees. I submit that this utterance is pragmatically incoherent and that it be dismissed.

A341, he is making a positive claim. Why would BOP be on me?

I don't know if the burden of proof is on Pro, I think Pro could come up with many reasons why the burden of proof is on Con.

Scapegoat,
We in context refers to real humans. Voters typically look negatively on unfair semantics. If you accepted and was a jerk about stuff you'd likely lose.

Don't worry about my use of commas. When you did all caps on the word 'would' you technically misspelled it. I don't want to hear crap from somebody who doesn't know proper use of capitalization.