I exist in this world as more than a consciousness.

"I decide who has to construct the first argument, not you." It's not about who decides, it's about the format of debating itself and proposing philosophical propositions. If you make a positive claim (as you do) the burden is upon yourself to uphold it. Until then there is no argument for me to make. "I decide which one of these it is, not you." Again, it's not a choice, it's what your position is that determines it. "We are not concerned with investigating origin, nature, methods, or the limits of human knowledge." Except we are, you even place it there yourself: **"I am con in support that I don't exist in this world as more then a consciousness." There is your positive claim. The deviation of the normative experience and knowledge - which is simply a reversal of the resolution you posted to fix the double negative. **"Pro must prove that I exist in this world as a physical being beyond all reasonable doubt." Proof and doubt are both epistemological concerns. That you wish for a metaphysical solution is irrelevant. You yourself place this firmly within epistemology. "The reality of whether or not I exist in this world as more than a concious form." Again your positive claim rears itself. That you word it negatively isn't the issue, since it's explicit you are talking about a position that is a deviation. "You must prove that I exist in this world as more then a conscious form." Incorrect - read your round 1 claim again: "Pro must prove that I exist in this world as a physical being beyond all reasonable doubt." Doubt is an epistemological concern precisely because it relates to knowledge; proof is an epistemological claim precisely because it relates to knowledge. If you provide no basis for doubting the proposition that you are a normal human - then my burden is fulfilled simply by recognising this. A dull debate sure, but sceptics such as yourself rely upon others playing the sceptic game, and that's simply not required. "I don't really need to provide an argument first because without extremely strong evidence, you can't prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that I exist in this world as more than a conscious form." I can, quite easily. I simply need to link a few textbooks on human physiology. Such as: http://www.amazon.com... http://www.sinauer.com... We both are quite aware of what the standard evidences are for these matters - and since you insist on providing no evidence contrary - there is simply no reason at all to doubt that you too are of the same class. If there is no provided function, whereby evidentially you can support the proposition that you are a deviation to the extent of your proposition, then by definition any doubt is both baseless, and therefore unreasonable, both in a looser colloquial sense, and in respect to "adheres to reason". "I don't see how the matrix example proves anything in your favor. If anything, it destroys every argument you could make." That's just your scepticism talking. :P No, the point is that *because* your argument (and the variants of it) rely on the proposition that there is no means to knowledge, it cannot **disprove** **anything**. By definition it cannot. A proposition that is neither true nor false, nor cannot ever be proven as true or false makes said claim arbitrary and useless - both as a metaphysical claim on reality, and an epistemological one on truth. All it is your imagination. That is it. And since you insist that imagination requires no formalities like evidence and proof - there is no *reason* to treat it as valid in any sense. "A super advanced computer program, like that of the matrix, would be capable of tricking your mind, or consciousness, into believing that it was sensing things even though your flesh form is sitting in a tank feeding machines power in the real world." Again, imagination is not a proof. Nor is doubt a proof. The claim is in form of perceptual representationalism - the brain simply doesn't work that way - we don't have car shapes in our brain when we see a car. To argue that our position on neurology is incorrect requires you again to be providing proofs, but as we can see, proofs are the bane of the sceptic who wishes to rely on pure speculations as being valid - and since the proof would necessarily deny the validity of the proposition it seeks to support - well, it doesn't look good for the sceptic. You have not fulfilled your own requirements of proof and a basis for any doubt, let alone one of that magnitude. To "prove" something means to demonstrate that it is true. The concept truth means in accordance with reality. Thus direct sensory evidence is proof in the most fundamental terms - it is direct perception of reality. As for reasonable doubt - you have provided no reason to doubt the standard proposition that we both recognise - that you are indeed a human body with the normal version of consciousness. Certainty is epistemological, like doubt, and relates to knowledge in context i.e., what you know. Since you provide no proof (and your position is that there can be none) - you have simply ensured no doubt is reasonable and thus the claim that you are simply human, can be adequately stated without doubt i.e., with certainty.