You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

You state in Round 1: "But in that simulation program, a character was created who was to reveal to you that the world around you is not real. So here I am and I know this message will reach you and you shall try to prove that your world is real."In Round 2 you state: "The world outside is different with more than 5 senses, maybe 27 senses."Already this argument is becoming pretty weak. You claim to be a character created by the simulation, and your function is to reveal that I am in a simulation and that this is not the real world. But note that although you claim to deliver this message, you seem to have very little detail concerning what you claim to be the real world. Maybe 27 senses? Why so vague? Wouldn't a program designed to show me the falsehood of my reality be a bit less wishy washy?To all of my arguments showing that real things always have evidence of their existence, you simply brush it all aside with the claim that everything is a simulation.When I show the philosophical flaw in your argument, you state: "The philosopher you talked about is also a simulation and whatever he said was included in the program."But this does not negate my argument. What you must realize is that the philosophical argument would still hold true, even if Bertrand Russell were a fictional character (which he is not).In Hamlet, Polonius gives a long-winded speech to Laertes, and it contains some very useful advice. "Neither a borrower nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend..." is one example. "This above all: to thine own self be true" is another example. Should this advice be discarded simply because Polonius is a fictional character? Certainly not! In Aesop's fable of The Tortoise and the Hare, should we forget the lesson that being arrogant and overly confident can lead to one's demise? Of course not. The characters and situations may not be real, but this does not cause us to reject the moral of the story.So when you try to negate the philosophy of Bertrand Russell by claiming that he doesn't exist, I consider this a failed attempt. I have shown that we can learn lessons from fictional characters. Russell's existence, therefore, should have no bearing on the philosophical truth of his arguments. You are still giving the typical argument from ignorance, and such an argument is widely recognized as a fallacy. Furthermore, it is not pragmatic. There is zero evidence that your simulation machine exists, and the very lack of evidence serves as justifiable evidence against its existence.When you ask me "Have you ever seen or felt the time before [you] were born?" the answer is actually yes. I have seen the time before I was born, because there is video footage of many things that took place before I was born, as well as photographs and paintings. Through such windows, I can look at times before I was born.You then add that this simulation machine is just like a video game. Well this seems extremely inconsistent with everything else stated. You wish for me to believe that someone in the "real world" built this incredibly advanced simulation machine-- a machine that created a vast universe, all of the wondrous physical and chemical processes, all of the various forms of life in all shapes and sizes, all of the complex and different people, all of the wonderful literature, et cetera. And in creating all of these phenomena, it was also decided to create a video game where I sit at my desk for 8 hours a day. Even if we go by your previous statement that a day is an hour, we can do the math. 8 hours is one third of 24 hours, therefore this so-called video game has me sitting at my desk non-stop for 20 minutes. That is a pretty lame and boring video game that I most certainly would not like to play. One would think that someone who created the entire universe and all of its wonders in a simulation machine could certainly come up with a better video game than that.I won't even discuss Mario's point of view, because Mario doesn't have a point of view. He IS clearly fictional.As far as me being the main character controlled by the real me, this is also highly unlikely. Why would the real me want to make the simulated me so ignorant? If I am controlling myself in a video game, wouldn't I want myself to know everything? Furthermore, how long am I playing this game in the outside world? I'm 36 years old. Using your given formula of one day = one hour we have:36 x 365 = 13,140 days which then converts to 13,140 hoursDivide that by 24 and we have 547.5 days in the "real world." So that would mean that I have been playing a video game non-stop for a year and a half. That is an extremely unlikely scenario. Even the most diehard video game junkies don't play for THAT long.To summarize, your scenario is so extremely unlikely that it has to be logically rejected.