"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Do you even know what we're debating? First of all: don't run semantics. Disprove me using logic, not biased definitions. Futhermore, this is an "ultimatum". "I think therefore I am" is an ultiamte and absolute statement. saying that it is flawed is an ultimate and absolute statement. Second, defining "is" is totally facetious. And you can't say that it will be important in your last round. Why? Because I won't be able to respond to it. That's bringing up new arguemtns when your opponent can't respond. That's an illegal move in debate. And quit trying to strawman my argument. And as for your argument that thoughts can't be illusory by definition, first, your definition doesn't make it so thoughts can't be illusory. An illusion can form in the mind. And now, from dictionary.com, here's 11 different definitions of thought: 1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought. 2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts. 3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us. 4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work. 5. a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her. 6. meditation, contemplation, or recollection: deep in thought. 7. intention, design, or purpose, esp. a half-formed or imperfect intention: We had some thought of going. 8. anticipation or expectation: I had no thought of seeing you here. 9. consideration, attention, care, or regard: She took no thought of her appearance. 10. a judgment, opinion, or belief: According to his thought, all violence is evil. 11. the intellectual activity or the ideas, opinions, etc., characteristic of a particular place, class, or time: Greek thought. None of them make it so thoughts can't be illusory. Now, my opponent's arguemnt didn't make sense. I don't think he even knows what he's talking about. But here's the basic idea: Descartes tries to prove his own existence because he wouldn't be able to have thoughts if he wasn't real. This is all that "I think therefore I am" implies. I'm not trying to disprove existence, in fact, there obviously is existence, even if everything is an illusion, because the illusion still exists. But everything that the illusion represented doesn't. It's like the painting exmple my opponent gave you: the paint aexists, but not what the paint represents. So, I can still be an illusion, even with thoughts. All "I think therefore I am" proves is that there are thoughts. I can still completely be an illusion. Furthermore, since the thoughts can still be an illusion, Descartes is wrong on two levels. Finally, my opponent is trying to say that Descartes can't be wrong because it was his opinion that he existed. Well, i have no doubt that he believed that he existed. But Descartes didn't say, "I think that I think therefore I am". That's not what we're debating. He made an absolute claim that existence can be proven on an individual level. The point is that his reasoning for this proof is fundamentally flawed, as it does not take into account the idea of a few things be illusory. "I think therefore I am" proves nothig, not even on an individual level.