It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality I did not provide a reason why a simulated reality is impossible to create because it was my opponent's responsibility to prove it was possible as he is instigator and pro for this debate. We cannot assume that a god exists because it has not been disproven. To accept a claim, one must bring evidence to support this claim. I may claim that I have a third eye on my armpit but we cannot assume this unless it is proven. 2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will I did not only object because my opponent has yet to prove that a simulated reality is impossible, I objected because my opponent had not proven that it was more probable that a simulated reality would be created over one not being created. My opponent provided arguments for why people might want to create a simulated reality. I also provided an argument for why I might want to slit my chest open to feel the inside of my stomach but that in no way makes it probable that I will. 3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one Pro responds to my proposed scenario C with: Not too sure where "man" is, in this scenario. If you referring to man that are inside the simulated reality, then trying to destroy it is going to be a problem. Cause they themselves are subject to the simulated reality laws, and they are not "real" themselves as they are simulated. By "man" I am referring to those who create said simulated reality. My opponent then writes: With the destruction of the simulated reality, obviously it can no longer provide scientific knowledge, or entertainment or any of the other reasons given for the creation of the virtual reality. I disagree with my opponent here. It would certainly provide entertainment to some who like to see things destroyed. Also scientific knowledge can be obtained through multiple ways. I can demonstrate gravity by dropping a brick on a car. As to situation D where man through human error completely destroys the simulated reality with all remnants, my opponent responds: If you mean Man in this scenario is the creator of the simulated reality, then by all means mistakes should be expected even its possible destruction. But so what ? Creators of simulated realities never heard of saving their work or back ups ? My opponent seems to not have read my actual argument. I wrote in the scenario that all remnants of the simulated reality are destroyed. This would of course include back ups or saved work. You also left out the option that even if the creators of a simulated reality do destroy it, that they don't have other simulated realities. I already showed that it has not been proven more probable than not that if a simulated reality could be created, that multiple copies would be made. Impossibility has not be proven Again, my opponent must prove why a simulated reality is possible as he is making the positive claim and is the instigator of this debate. =========================================================== While my opponent's arguments have been refuted there is one simple thing which voters must take into account. My opponent has not shown why a simulated reality is possible so the BOP has not been upheld and thus I urge a Con vote.