Being a solipsist is unreasonable.

I. Defenses:1. Uncaused First CauseA. Clarification."my opponent bases their argument on the unsupported assertion that the mind 'created' all things, places, etc in a way that solipsism does not argue. The mind did not actually create anything. On solipsism, the sense perceptions which are taken to be other beings, phenomenon, etc. are projections of the mind e.g. hallucinations."ï¿½This varies from each form of solipsism. But regardless. The mind is not eternal, thus the projections of that mind are also not eternal. The problem remains.B. Conceded Point.My opponent admits that there is a problem of origin for the solipsist.He attempts to refute this by saying,"But given that something is a mind insofar as in that it thinks, it's not unreasonable that a mind (by virtue of being a functioning mind) could produce thoughts."This, unfortunately for Con does not address the point. That argument attempts to show that the mind is extant. Even assuming this, the problem of origin remains.C. The Reasonability of Solipsism Doesn't Necessitate an Argument for Creation of the Mind."So owing to the skeptical nature of the position, solipsism does not have a view on the mind's metaphysical origin. But this in itself does not mean that the solipsist is wrong in their doubt."This is not true. As I showed:Given: The mind created all people, things, places, thoughts collectively are (many) complex objects, and the mind is all that exists. (solipsism)2. All people, things, places, thoughts collectively are (many) complex objects.3. Complex objects must be created a) by other complex objects (factories, thoughts [2]) or b) from simpler things over time (ex. evolution [3]).4. The mind is, therefore, a complex entity.5. The mind must have been created (a) by other complex objects (factories, thoughts [2]) or b) from simpler things over time (ex. evolution [3])--which way is irrelevant).6. If the mind was created, it is not all that exists.Conclusion: Therefore the premise is false and the mind isa) not the creator of all people, things, places, thoughtsORb) not all that exists.As you can see, Con's explanation contradicts conclusion B.ï¿½-2. Argument from Likelihood/ Statistical ImprobabilityA. Failure to...well to read my argument.Con's Defense is this:"This argument only holds if the other 107,000,000,000 people actually existed. But the solipsist doesn't hold this to be true and so the number of people to have allegedly exist before is of no relevance. "But I even accounted for this in my argument:"My opponent may object to my use of the 107,000,000,000 [4] number as the majority are dead (and therefore never existed even in the consciousness of the solipsist). If we use the 7,000,000,000 [5] number (humans alive), there is a 0.000000014% chance a solipsist is correct in their beliefs."Again, I wrote this LAST ROUND, yet Con ignored it.-3. Argument from Biological NecessityA. Absurd claim of reasonability.Con claims that because the sense, are fallible, empirical evidence is invalid. This is truly quite absurd as we are debating reasonability of solipsism.Con is stating that it is MORE LIKELY that empirical evidence is all a lie, we are, AND I QUOTE "we are being tricked in some way," and hallucinations are the cause than empirical evidence being true.<<<<<<<That is sheer lunacy. Add to that the fact that hallucination are rare occurrences.[1] Con is arguing that all of our thoughts are hallucinations.II. Rebuttals1. Premise 1My opponent argues that One is only justified in believing that which can be known with complete certainty. He defends this by saying rationalistic arguments are sounder than empirical ones. This, he states, is because empiricism is susceptible to flaws. This may but true, but it does not defend reasonability. The possibility of failure (which is incredibly unlikely to begin with given the amount of data used before science arrives at a conclusion) does not mean there IS a failure. And it certainly doesn't mean that the vast majority are failures (reasonability again).ï¿½2. Premise 2: LOGICAL FALLACY"In order to refute this premise, my opponent would need to show why something other than the mind can be shown to exist with complete certainty, certainty wherein the concept of denying it's existence is self-contradictory."This is a logical fallacy. It is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. The fact that I cannot prove it false does not make it true. Not only does this invalidate your proof, you cannot post any new arguments in the last round as I cannot refute themNO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE THIRD ROUND. You did not give an argument, you only asked me to falsify your statement.3. Conclusion.Premise one hasn't been proven and the defense of premise 2 was a logical fallacy. Thus the conclusion is invalid.Reasons to Vote Pro:1. We are arguing Reasonability, not Logicality. My opponent has not shown solipsism to be true, not logical, but true.2. Unrefuted Arguments. Con has not refuted my arguments. His rebuttals have been shown to be self-contradictory insufficient or plainly ignorant to what I clearly wrote.3. Con's Logical Fallacy. His entire defense of Premise 2 was a logical fallacy. If Con justifies this premise in round 3, it should be ignored as no new arguments may be presented in the last round.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...