Humans cannot prove anything other than their own existence.

I will first start by undermining my opponent's arguments, then I will get to defending my own. My Opponent: "So how can I win against you at all if I can't even prove anything existence? " You should of thought about that before you accepted this debate, that's not my problem. After this my opponent goes into a rant about how define something to be so they exist that way. So, if what my opponent is saying is true, then the following analogy must be too: One day I decide to put on a red shirt. I then decide ato walk around town. Everyone I encounter says: "Hey, I like your red shirt. " I respond by saying, "This shirt isn't red, it's blue". I have made it up in my mind that my shirt is blue. Does that make it blue? The collective defines my shirt to be red, I define my shirt to be blue. What puts the opinions of the collective over those of the individual, after all, it is my shirt. What I am basically trying to say is, just because we define something to be a certain way, does it make it that way? No. My Opponent: "You assume we know nothing because our senses are capable of mistakes? What mistakes are these? Are they mistakes by the senses or mistakes by what the mind perceives the senses to be? I am just wondering how you go to the conclusion that our senses are "fallible". " Because we're human? I mean, every single on of our senses is connected to our brain. In essence, our brain is what makes us human. Since humans are flawed, then our brains must be to blame. We, as humans, are basically responders. All we do is respond to what we precieve to be around us. If you want a more specific example of our flaws, here are a few: You make it clear in Round 1 that you are an atheist, some humans believe in God. All humans have the capacity to believe in God. So, in your mind, isn't this a flaw the human race as? Every year millions of humans die in wars, our failure to resolve arguments without bloodshed in undoubtly a flaw. We also don't know everything (If God is real, if Ghosts are real, the purpose of life, etc. ) So, how is that for you? My Opponent: "I think what you are trying to say is, and correct me if I am wrong, but what you are trying to say is that our senses are our experiences as in I can see, smell, taste, touch, hear the sand blowing. But how do we know that the sand is really sand and how to we know if it is blowing? Well, we have defined it that way. We defined sand. We defined blowing. We did not create it, but we saw it and attached it to words and definitions that WE understand, and that YOU place your own existence upon. " Yes that is what I am saying. And I already answered the "definition" argument earlier. My Opponent: "I think you are wrong. Why? Because I also think. I just questioned your motives on what you were saying. Besides, what am I if I do not exist? Am I just here? If I traveled to your house and you saw me, what would you say I am? Without existence, what am I? " How do I know you think. If I saw you, I can't conclude that you think. If I touch you, does that prove that you think in my world? No. How do you know that I think? You don't, you just believe me to be in existence. In reality, you know nothing. My Opponent: "But imagination is of the mind. If I slap you in the face, you might think differently. Although you might say that the pain would be of the mind, it is not. The thought of the pain in which we define it is, but not the pain itself. The pain exists. The thought of the pain exists. Therefore, it exists, because we have defined it as so. " My sense of touch is responsible for me feeling pain. Since my sense of touch and my brain are connected, my sense of touch might not be reliable. My opponent: "Think of it this way, you have defined your own existence with "I think, therefore I am". Someone who thought that up must also exist, because you are using it for your argument of existence. That person would be Rene Descartes" Rene Descartes also believed that we couldn't prove anything. All of my arguments are actually based on the works of, French philospopher, Rene Descartes. Once again, how do I know he actually thinks? I can't prove it.