fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

Once again, I apologize in advance for the lack of organization. To make up for it. I will make an attempt at line-by-line. Line-by-Line"how do you know the information is correct". Education degrees, centuries of research, etc. all add to the credibility of the source. Besides, trust is an essential part of human society. Without it, we could not have a Constitution, a set of laws, any representatives, tax collectors, or basic exchange of goods/trade. For more information, look at this paper on the social contract (http://papers.ssrn.com...) We know information is correct because of the reputation of the person, and our own logical reasoning skills, as opposed to memory. None of this is in support of the Pro position."the paper and the words written I would be able to see is there, but anything written I have to iamgien is true unless its speaking of something now, like you are reading these words, you don't have to imagine that is false, as you know its true" The problem with this logic is that you could easily extend this to physical experience as well. "How do you know that the pain you feel when touching a hot stove is real? I mean, sure, you know that your nerves are sending electronic signals, but how do you know the information contained within them is real?"Remember, Pro is arguing that we can only trust physical experience. Therefore, if Pro's own framework goes against being able to trust physical experience, they have not upheld that physical experience is the only thing we can trust. Instead, Pro has proven that we can trust nothing, which turns in favor of Con because they haven't fulfilled their burden of proof."it is true I have 4 limbs as i physically experience it, i know it, and I have plenty memory of others to confirm that human beings have 4 limbs, the fact is my memory" Pro is claiming that they have seen each and every one of the 7 billion people on Earth. This is blatantly false, as simply counting to 7 billion takes more than a lifetime (http://www.infoplease.com...) multiply this by 7 and you get over 200 years). The conclusion that everyone normally has four limbs is only gathered through logical reasoning, and analytical reasoning (Four limbs being an inherent property of humans). These are methods of gaining this knowledge that go outside of physical experience, and prove Con right."you don't know, what others remember, you cant see it, you have to imagine it, so its not a past observation, like superman is not a past observation beyond what I remember happening as light on my screen when I see superman in a movie" Extend my multiple-witnesses point. If one person remembers something, then it is up for doubt. However, if ten thousand, or ten million, people report the exact same thing (we're talking real world events, not theology), then it is much more credible. Pro's memory point turns in favor of Con, because he is proving the unreliability of a single human memory. He is setting up the groundwork to explain why relying on multiple memories is better than relying on ones own, and nothing else."I can at best believe what others tell me, as I have to imagine it, and belief is false, not truth, not knowledge" See above. We can extend this to all of our senses, including physical experience.Besides, you have the opportunity to test that knowledge yourself. While this may fall under the realm of physical experience at face-value, consider this: Under Pro's logic, how do we trust the scientific instruments, or the people who built them,if we can't trust anything but what our own senses limit us to? This ties in to the real world impact, which Pro did not address. How do we trust the scientific method? The answer, of course, is collaboration, and relying on the statements of others, which further upholds my multiple-witnesses point."without memories there is no self-awareness as a human"Newborns must not be human then. Neither are amnesiacs. Be careful throwing around arbitrary definitions of human, because it comes back to bite you when you extend the logic beyond the point you're trying to make.To fully answer this, I submit that everyone has to learn a first thing. There is always that first thing we learn, whether that's to crawl, or to move, or to interpret faces. We do this without any prior knowledge. If we're not self-aware before memories, then we can't form memories in the first place."you have reason, memories, physical experience and imagination to discern weather you like a person or not" This doesn't address the core of my point, although I'll admit that I was a bit unclear. The core of my point is that we rely on hormonal reactions to fuel our "knowledge" of people all the time. These are internal, physical experiences, that can sometimes lead us astray. If our own experience was the end all be all, then this wouldn't be the case.-ConclusionExtend all of my real-world impacts. Pro did not address the justification for Murder inherent within his ideology, nor the stunting of scientific development. He didn't acknowledge the self-defeating property of his position either. Con has rebuked all of Pro's points, showing them to be illogical and impractical to the point of justifying moral atrocities.For all of these reasons, I urge a Con vote.