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

Thank you for your rebuttal. First off, I must examine a few points. Then, I shall provide a reason as to why it is important to define "is" Or rather, I will in my last round. 1) "Don't run a semantics argument. That's lame, and it's avoiding arguing the topic." The semantics of this debate are no less valid than an abrupt one as it is purely a philosophical one. I am permitted to view all spectrums of debate unless given an ultimatum or having a fact-based debate. 2) "Why can't an illusion have thoughts? Descartes doesn't actually prove the existence of any being. You could still be an illusion, even if you are perceiving thoughts." My opponent attempts to say that you CANNOT prove existance, producing a rather Nihilistic point of view. Debating that Descartes believe he, himself existed as a whole was only one part to his philosophy. Rene Descartes once said from his famous book "Meditations, Objections, and Replies" that if one were to be a creation of something without actual existance, That which the creator made the subject "illusion" if you will, with would exist. For example: A painter paints a portrait. The portrait is made of paint. The paint is real but the man the portrait portrays is not. Descartes related this to one considered mad. If a man believes he is a king, but is a pauper, or believes he is dressed in "purple", as stated in M.O.R., then one would call him mad. But the message he attempted to relay was that they believed they existed as something seperate, so why can't they have been? 3)"2.) This does not prove that the thoughts are not an illusion. In order for Descartes' arguments to hold any weight, he must be able to prove that the thoughts that one perceives are not illusory. If the thoughts of a "being" are illusory, then it follows that the "being" itself is illusory." I have already provided evidence to support that a semantics-based case should be sufficient but I shall attempt to squeeze on refutation out for this point. Thoughts are never specified as illusory. In fact, Merriam-Webster defines thought as: "to form or have in the mind" To have something in mind would obviously give evidence to the argument that thoughts are not illusory, rather, manifested as real. And for this debate to even be valid, we must assume that humans are real. What we are debating is that through thinking/doubting existance, we must exist. Please, stick to the initial resolution. If your argument were to work, you must say in the resolution: ""I think therefore I am" and existance itself is questionable/fundamentally flawed." That would be the most logical resolution to fit your case. 4) Descartes, allowing the semantics of his belief in his own existance, could not have been false. Having an opinion with no definitive truth behind it is part of human nature. Therefore, to say "Cogito ergo sum" is flawed, you are saying basic human natures, opinions, and lives are flawed. That being said, you believe one man's opinion on something indefinitive is flawed, but prove to me how the flaw is evident. For the reasons presented to you, I urge you, by logic, to vote in Negation of this resolution. Thank you, -EG