My Opponent Exists.

<"I might just be a sophisticated computer program, but still short of self-aware, cognitive thought."> This clearly isn't the case, however. A sophisticated computer program can't discern nor can it rationally think, which are abilities evidenced by my opponent throughout his tenure on debate.org. But, even if MTGandP is a computer program, he still exists. I'll expand upon that a little further down in the debate. <"There is no reason to think that thoughts cannot exist without people thinking them."> Sure there is: If brains didn't exist to think these thoughts up, then the thoughts wouldn't exist. So the thoughts existing means cognitive processes exist, which means that functioning brains exist, which means we exist. To put it simply, a brain is required for thought; the level of stimuli in our brains is seemingly what helps develop sapience, as well as advanced ability to feel things such as pain and pleasure. So, without sapient beings, the process which creates thoughts couldn't exist, so if sapient beings didn't exist, then nor could thoughts. <"It is entirely possible that my opponent's argument, as well as mine, was preprogrammed and then implanted into our heads. The mind is easy to trick, especially when it doesn't exist."> Firstly, I'd like proof that such technology exists. That is, technology which can be programmed into a humans mind, and is capable of making the readers read arguments which don't actually exist. If there isn't any, then that argument is meaningless. Secondly, even if my opponent's claim can somehow hold up, which I really do heavily doubt, I don't think it's relevant, because even if MTGandP were a computer program, MTGandP would still be a concept, and all concepts exist. To put it in a syllogism: MTGandP is a concept; all concepts exist; therefore, MTGandP exists. For a concept to exist, it merely has to come about as a result of one's cognition. Even if the concept is false, or if where it stems from is false, the concept is still existence, because an concept's existence isn't affected by any potential falsehoods which were thought up with it. This is what I was getting at when I was citing MTGandP's profile of evidence -- even if MTGandP wasn't an individual person (which I think he is, as shown by his perception, rationality, and ability to discern), MTGandP still, obviously, exists. <"Rational thought is impossible since free will does not exist; rational thought is an illusion. Therefore, I do not think. Since "cogito ergo sum" is the only "proof" of existence that anyone has, there is no longer any reason to believe that I exist."> To start, let's define free will, considering my opponent failed to, and since "free will" is a relatively ambiguous phrase: "the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces." (1) My opponent's rationale here is...well, non-sequiturial, and therefore, fallacious; the premise that he thinks free will doesn't exist doesn't follow the conclusion that rational thinking doesn't exist. Rational thinking and free will aren't at all mutually exclusive; rationality can exist without free will, as shown by the definition I provided. I'd also like to define rational: "having reason or understanding." (2) Taking into account both definitions I've posted, free will and rationality aren't unable to both be true; one can have the ability to reason and understand without having the ability to make a choice on certain things. Free will not existing means we don't have the ability to make certain choices, such as biological imperatives. it doesn't mean we don't have the ability to reason; they're separate from each other. Affirmed. My opponent, MTGandP, does, indeed, exist. (1) = http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) = http://www.merriam-webster.com...