Cogito Ergo Sum is Bunk

The argumentIn my first post, I made multiple arguments in context to what exactly 'I think therefore I am' is attempting to do. Now my opponent will not address the context and purpose of 'I think, therefore I am' and what else can I say? If you simply will not address the argument for what it is, then I can do no more but rewrite the argument again with the premises and arguments that I did in the first round. "beyond reasonable doubt". Firstly, this was in no way defined prior to agreeing to this debate, so this assertion is just wishful thinking Doubt, Doubt and more DoubtThis is the purpose of 'Cogito Ergo Sum', I am a little surprised my opponent would say this, does anyone else think he simply hasn't read the actual argument in its context, what is the purpose of 'Cogito Ergo Sum', where did it arise, why did it arise, what was its function? These are all questions one expects someone who would instigate a debate to understand, I am reading the argument the way it is formulated and presented in almost all the literature. 'I think, therefore I am' was proving, that we cannot reasonably doubt our own existence under radical scepticism. The argument is not an argument in the realm of being, and so, any counter argument that attempts to say 'you are begging the question/you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove, automatically fails to grasp the real crux of the debate, that is epistemology, my opponent doesn't want to acknowledge this because his three arguments rely on a more superficial reading, not an insult, but a reading of an argument that only glances at the conclusion and not the context, will always skim over the details. Kierkegaard argues this also, 'I think therefore I am was never intended to prove existence, but to prove we cannot doubt one's own existence in any reasonable way, even Descartes wrote this in his works denouncing the premising of his formulations, which I have converted to make things flow faster. In all seriousness, has a single argument been presented to show 'we can have reasonable doubt of one's own existence? No, and since the last round cannot present new arguments, I fear my opponent has wasted his chances. My opponent noticeably hasn't actually dealt with the argument directly, bar one counter example. Since no challenge has actually been made to this statement. "You cannot reasonably doubt your own existence", and based on the premises explained, I have pretty much won this debate. We cannot in fact doubt our own existence, because to doubt, is to secure valid proof that we must in some part truly exist, there is not actual way to fully disprove or cast doubt on the proposition. So, to win this debate, my opponent must get into the mind-frame of radical scepticism, note he refuses to, but that simply is ignoring the context of the argument. As explained in my opening "you cannot rip a formulation out of context and apply pressure from areas it has not dealt with. A moral argument for not eating meat, should not be dismissed on 'moral' grounds due to some economic factor, that is out of context, and likewise, my opponent confuses epistemology with being/existence." My opponent neither addressed this point or gave suitable arguments against it, and I feel that I am struggling to reword my argument anymore, because they are simply not being addressed in the slightest. My opponent HAS to give some arguments that one's own self cannot be doubted. Without this, my conclusion is proved, I think, the act of thinking is a valid and undisputed way to validate that one's self exists in some form. Another formulation of the argument I will state the argument again hopefully until there is at least some engagement. Here is another example of the argument in addition to my previous. 1.Ithink::=Tj 2.Everythingthatthinksexists::=(∀x)(Tx>(∃y)x=y) C. I exist ::= (∃x)j=x Note also, on inference, if P → Q Q:-P I was never arguing, the premises are identical, for an inference, but that inference can be made by separating the premises, and the assumption of Tj, simply is an axiom, or a self-refential move, 2-3, is where my opponent needs to be addressing, but he refuses to, instead believing I am doing the above move, assuming P, to my conclusion of Q, i never did that. Now, in this formulation, One must prove that thinking things have decent reason to reject the 2 second premise, you cannot refute the first premise, you think, is a self-referential validation, note my points on the logic of inferential that my opponent didn't challenge. So my opponent has one choice. 1. My opponent needs to show we have reason to doubt one's own existence! He simply hasn't, and I have no way to drive this debate any further, I need counters. The majority of my opponents second post is rebuttal, so I will deal each one and also, I will deal with his questionable sources. Rebuttals My opponent's definition of 'reasonably doubt' comes from a legal dictionary, not a philosophy or scientific one, he is slipping in a probability that he hasn't shown to be in any way realistic, 98-99% is his standard, where did that come from? Directly from the dictionary, he would want to actually give some format or context for this random number, note as well, he shows no link between his 'truth' table to this statistic, he simply puts them side by side, as if either has been argued or shown to be compatible. Regardless, with no argument given for 'reason to doubt one's own existence', I have won because my arguments out rank his by 100%, not to mention, no refutation was given for almost half of my first post. His 'refutation' of my logic. My opponent doesn't give a refutation, he gives an ad-hominem, he says I don't understand it, therefore it is wrong, he says it is misplaced but his only evidence is 'I copied it'. If you see the post he makes, it states 'A conceptual framework', that is all it is, a conceptual framework for inferential, of course I copied and pasted it, I never said I didn't, I also went through each step stating it was just laying a 'framework' for movement. Frameworks in logic are by in large universally applicable, and so I don't think my opponent really has dealt with this in any reasonably way, and so my argument stands until a real refutation can be made. "Oh, so we're just supposed to assume the conclusion is true before we consider the argument for said conclusion? " I encourage my opponent to remain impartial and present his work without emotive langauge, I find it easier to read the actual points then. I never said the conclusion is assumed, because we are not assuming that we cannot doubt our own existence a-priori, we are asking 'Is there a reason to doubt one's own existence?', or is it even possible to realistically be sceptical that one's own self exists, that is 'Cogito Ergo Sum', and my opponent unfortunately just doesn't get it. Pro gives no refutation of my Computer counter argument, he says he 'doesn't get it', but I re-read what I wrote, and it seems fine, also, I made two objections, he dismisses one but doesn't touch the other, Pro cannot attempt to disprove 'Cogito Ergo Sum' via applying his rational consciousness to that of another being, it strips the bounds of what the argument attempts to prove. One's own self conscious. It would be like applying a 'suffering principle' to a non-suffering agent, he is without a basis. Not only that but my opponent believes non-conscious agents think. Thinking is under every definition is either have/engage in "to have a conscious mind" "to consider something as a possible action" "to have or form in the mind" He simply defines it in the worst possible way to save himself actually referring to himself, which is the crux of the debate. Summary Pro never addresses the actual argument and its conclusion, he never once gave a 'reasonable scenario to doubt one's own existence', not one sentence to refute the statement, thinking, the process of doubt is in and to itself grounds to hold that one cannot reasonably doubt one's own existence. This debate is epistemology and doubt, that is the context of the argument and therefore any attempt to say it is 'circular' because it validates the conclusion, just misses the mark. My opponent will not admit this, and so for me, I can end it early, I have given. 1. Multiple reformulations of the argument, none challenged. 2. A basic universally applicable logical grounding for my argument 3. Refutations of each and every one of Pro's three relevant counters. Conclusion I await my opponent to engage with the argument instead of engaging in very petty name calling and pseudo-psychological analysis of 'why I wrote what I wrote' instead of, what I wrote. Since no counters have been successful and generally no engagement has been given, Pro has no met his B.O.P, and since he cannot make any new arguments in the last round, I don't see a resolution on his side, I thought have structured myself as to present the arguments, both times in the beginning, and then refute any noticeable counters, In conclusion, I have satisfied my B.O.P and we can conclude there is no reasonable way one can doubt one's self's own existence. Sources. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.sciencechatforum.com... http://www.cfh.ufsc.br... Kierkegaard, Søren. Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Hong, Princeton, 1985. p. 40. http://books.google.ie... http://www.intrac.org...