I am a Homo sapien.

I thank con for his swift response.As con, you are supposed to prove that I am indeed not a human being and some other intelligent being. However, my opponent is only showing here that I may not be a human being, and even this is lacking of evidence. Since it is now the final round, I will simply rebut all of my opponent's points.1. However, P1 is never asserted to be the only sufficient condition of being human. The capacity to have such attributes could be had by, for example:1. An intelligent alien. 2. A ghost.3. A computer simulated person. 4. An A.I. 5. An intelligent non-human animal.Exactly. I never did say that just because I can have the ability to use maths, the English Language and engage in formal reasoning, I am thus a human being, but it is a vital characteristic of all human beings have which no other living creature on Earth possess. You also state that I may also be for example an intelligent alien, a ghost, etc. However, none of this have been scientifically proven to exist. They are only assumptions, and there was never any substantial evidence to prove otherwise. So if I am not a human being, what other being could I be? I do not see any other being capable of reasoning, etc on this planet besides humans which only leads us to one conclusion - I'm in fact a human being.2. Computing power has increased exponentially in recent decades; there is no reason to believe that it will stop increasing and there is good reason, based on current games and simulations and the interests people have, that humans would be interested in harnessing that computing power for the purpose of recreating their own past via fictional scenarios. It is not mere speculation, but a forecast based on evidence. You have not provided any proof that computers that are able to successfully simulate full human behaviour will exist in the future. As I said earlier, they are indeed speculation. I could also assert that seeing how human transportation have improved (also exponentially) in recent decades, humans will be able to fly like Superman in the future.3. The fact that the argument starts out by supposing a future scenario is just the set up for the argument, to demonstrate that from commonly held beliefs and evidence about the apparent world we can come to the conclusion that the world is not as it seems. I do not get your point here and I will treat it as not germane to the topic. You are simply stating that computer-simulating humans might exist in the future. This is no where near being relevant to the topic, which you as con, needs to prove that I am not a human being right now.4. I'm not sure what fallacy Pro is committing - it's somewhere in the region of an ad hominem. It is, however, clearly fallacious to argue that because I might not be convinced of the argument it is invalid - the argument stands or falls based on its own merits, not my own personal beliefs which have nothing to do with its validity. I'll refute this by a simple analogy. Would it not be hypocritical and illogical if you advocated for a religion and told everyone to join it even if you don't even believe in it? I sincerely hope that all you do think that I am indeed a Homo sapien. This debate has proven to be fun and interesting, and I hope to debate my opponent in the future again. Thank you.