I know I exist

0: You admit that I differentiated the two meaning of existence. One is in the dictionary; the other is your interpretation. You interpreted the definition of existence unnecessarily, which shows you did not use the word 'existence' in definition's sense itself. 1: You started that. 2: I do not doubt I know I exist because I found clear logic. Refer to my last paragraph of the third round. 3: Arguments can include a partial agreement to opponent's thesis. 4: (The definition of existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality." the main point that I am arguing is that the objective reality (the definition of both being objective: ((of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.), and reality: (the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.)).) That dictionary's definition itself explains well 'know,' 'existence,' and so on, which is why your following interpretation is not in the dictionary. Dictionary's definition is determined by investigating in what sense do people use words. (Now does it not seem weird that you need objective reality to have existence yet you need existence to have reality?) We know that nothing is nothing, and existence is existence. Accordingly, we know that nothing is nonexistent, and existence is existent. The reality which is consists of existence also exists. (What I am saying here is that because there is no way to create an area of non-existence, it is impossible to know what it is like to not "exist".) Even though there is no area for non-existence, we know that non-existence is non-existence, and not to exist is not to exist. (And because of this the definition of existence is very limited and to a point, not correct. Without an idea of how non-existence would function there is no good way to say we "exist",) You say the definition of existence is not correct, and say "There is no unique existence in my mind, there is the definition, nothing else." in 6. You admit existence in your mind is not correct. Thus all your arguments about existence are not correct. (it is POSSIBLE that we could not exist and still be capable of functioning. It is POSSIBLE that what we are going through is something that we can not understand at this point rather then truly existing. And it is POSSIBLE that we are just imagining this reality. now the likelihood of these possibilities being true is low, the fact that there are so many ways (most of which are currently unthinkable) that we could not "exist", that there has to be some doubt that we do, not a ton. But enough to not (by definition) know.) All possibilities you noted presuppose existence in definition's sense. 5: Placing conclusion before premises is one of the methods clarifying arguments. (Next, I did not say I do not know what you are arguing. You are not arguing in the first place, your job here because of the way YOU worded this question is that you are defending your point while refuting mine. So you seem to be the "defective" one here.) Refer to 3. So do you not doubt my arguments? If you doubt, you do not know my arguments by your statements of knowing. (Next you go to twist what I say. I said "To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth" I did not say "To know something all you have to do is believe it" as you seem to have read it as. What I said was that you having none/very little doubt was essential to knowing, not all there is. So you seem confused and slightly hypocritical with that statement. And your fallacy is just wrong now that you understand the simple message I was using.) You try to cloud your fault by changing "you must have none to very little doubt" to "you having none/very little doubt". Former still implies my conclusions. (And finally, if you would rather refuse to lose your faith in something just to win a debate, you are not worth debating. So by giving you doubt you can either decide to accept it and lose the debate, or you can ignore it and simply become ignorant, either way, me showing that there is doubt in the idea of existence would make you likely lose.) That has no effect because your interpretation of knowing is contradictory. "If I doubt all things, I do not know anything, in other words, I know I do not know anything. I also do not know that I do not know anything since I do not know anything. I know this and do not know this, which shows a contradiction. Your concept of the knowledge is false by reductio ad absurdum." You ignored this. 6: Refer to 0, 4. From your point of view about knowing, you do not know existence itself people universally "consider," in other words, written in the dictionary. Because you doubt "this" existence's truthfulness. Keep in mind that you admitted existence in your mind is not correct. (And just so you know, people will not be voting based on whether you "know". They will vote on whether they now "know", so the question that people will be voting on is not "does Skept know he exists", it will be "do I know I exist". So a change in how I debate is necessary to make sure I succeed in changing the minds of the voters, and succeed in getting the winning side of the debate.) Voters determine.