fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

I apologize in advance for the lack of organized bullet points. I am merely responding to the Pro's chosen format as best as I can.Rebuttal and ExtensionDocumentation has been conceded by Pro. To reittirate: The written word enables us to draw upon memory that is not our own. This actually answers the "if I don't remember, I have to imagine" argument quite nicely, as documentation provides a means with which to circumvent this issue.Facts are not merely about the past. It is a fact that human beings normally possess four limbs. If Pro wants to play semantical games, that's fine, but it doesn't actually change the core of the argument.Perhaps Pro is trying to get at the unreliability of memories. To answer this, I posit that this is the very reason that we must draw upon the memories of others. One person's memory is much less likely to be true than, say, a consensus of ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. Ten thousand direct witnesses are much more indicitive of fact than one. Thus, we draw upon others memories in order to test the validity of our conclusions.Pro does not address the emotional issue. The fact of the matter is, interpersonal relationships, and our evaluation of the character of individuals, has a lot to do with gut instinct. For example, a bald man with a swastika tattoo spewing racial expletives might not be the most tolerant person. One does not need to have memory of meeting this man to deduce this fact.Pro ignores arguments about deduction in general. I don't have to have memory to know that X=X, or that If A is B and B is C then A is C. -Real World ImpactsReal World Impacts are impacts that happen in the real world as a result of buying Pro's argument.Let's see what happens when we extend Pro's logic to its ultimate conclusion. 1. The only source of knowledge we can rely upon is our own memory2. Other people's memory is invalid, and cannot be taken account.3. Since we can't have any knowledge of thoughts/feelings/memories of other people, we can't be sure they exist.From this, we get some very unfavorable impacts.1. Collaborative Work becomes impossible. Expert Testimony is unreliable. We cannot trust any knowledge garnered from science. This would mean that Engineering, Physics, Astrophysics, and the fact that the Earth is round can't be taken into account. This is the reality of the Pro (Affirmative) world. As this would invalidate essentially every scientific achievement, period, our daily living becomes impossible when operating under Pro's school of thought.2. In the Pro world, Murder becomes justified. Because there is absolutely no way to be certain of memories/thoughts/feelings of others, we can't be certain that they're alive, or even truly exist. This would allow commonplace murder to become permissible. As this is a generally disagreeable state of things, for the sake of preserving basic morality, and society in general, we have to operate under the assumption that every person has their own thoughts/feelings/memories.3. This debate cannot be voted on, and you must default to the Contender.Pro's position is ultimately self-defeating. If we can't know the thoughts or memories of others, then we can't actually gain any new knowledge from Pro's, or anybody elses, argument. Thus, unless the voter is literally born with a Solipsistic mindset (which is impossible), no further conclusion is gathered from this debate and the voter can default to Con. If you don't buy the default-to-con argument, that's fine. If Pro wins, the most this debate can be without accepting the Con way of looking at things is to not vote at all.Given that voting on which position convinces us most, Pro's position goes against the very purpose of public debate in the first place.For all of these reasons, I urge a Con vote.