I think Hummus is delicious

"I would love to continue an argument along these lines, but unfortunately for the topic at hand you really haven't progressed anything. What you propose is that it is possible that my thoughts are not actually mine because you can imagine a scenario in which they would not be. However, you provide no proof, or even a logical progression of thought toward this end. Instead, you simply posit that because we can have some degree of doubt, my thoughts are not my own (and therefore I do not think that hummus is delicious). This statement leads us necessarily into a realm of total skepticism. Total skepticism has three major criticisms that I would like to briefly address." What I proposed was merely a scenario where your thoughts may indeed not be your own. To address your second point, what Descartes really says with "I think therefore I am," is that it is paradoxical to think without thinking. Why limit it at just that however? When a topic such as thought is so subjective, why not bring other subjective material into play? Skepticism is a very necessary evil when dealing with subjective subjects. "1.) Most practically, if we assume a precedent of doubting anything which may possibly be imagined to be false, then we cannot function in our daily existence. I have no motivation to go to sleep tonight, because I can doubt that the world will exist when I wake up. If I actually give this idea enough credence to act upon it, I will oversleep and miss work. Pragmatically, your claim flawed." Saying that "doubting anything which may possibly be imagined to be false" is somewhat of a contradictory statement if you look at it closely. However, assuming you meant assuming a precedent of doubting anything which may be possibly imagined, I would argue just the opposite of your statement. Doubting anything which may be possibly be imagined is necessary to our daily existence. If we were to go through life never doubting anything, we would be living in a constant state of total ignorance. Doubt is what allows different viewpoints to exist, and is one of the key factors in the scientific process. "2.) Radical skepticism destroys the possibility for argument, which is most relevant to this site. Absolutely any position you take can be refuted by positing a hypothetical scenario in which your claims are false, however unlikely it may be. I can make this claim boldly because you have sought to use the denyability of thought as your thesis, however the total reality of personal subjective thought is arguably the most irrefutable of Descartes metaphysical claims. Philosophically, your claim is flawed." Not only did I address this argument earlier in this my response this round, but I approached this debate from two angles, not just one. I would say that my arguments still hold strong, and that both practically and philosophically hummus is likened to cat barf. "3.) Most important of all, you are attempting to prove something in the positive sense. Because you have cause to doubt my claim is not actually evidence of the truism of your own claim. For example, if I claim that it is always sunny outside, and you counter this claim by saying that sometimes it rains, you cannot also that that it always rains. Negative examples do not give rise to proof positive. Completely, your claim is flawed." Because I have cause to doubt your claim is indeed not actual evidence of the truism of my claim, but that works as a double edged sword. Because you have cause to believe YOUR claim, does not indeed provide actual evidence of the truism of your own claim either. That is a problem with subjective topics. (which I might note for the readers, you agree that thought is a subjective matter) You come down on me for not providing proof to a subjective matter, well I'll turn that right back at you because you are rowing the same boat with me there. "For my own part, the only further evidence that I can give of my claim that I do indeed think that hummus is delicious is that I ate a whole tub of it yesterday after work. Nobody forced me to, and I had plenty of other things to choose from. Although to be fair, I did also eat a bunch of salsa." This is a perfect example of my previous point. You say you ate a tub of hummus out of free will, but I say to you good sir... PROVE IT! "Please, if you think that the Universe is expanding into an infinite substance which is both something and also nothing, like an inflating balloon, please vote PRO." (I don't see how this is relevant to the debate) Please, if you think that the Universe is an expanding unicycle tire which is both forward and backwards like a purple monkey dishwasher, please vote CON! Also, I once again thank my opponent for his gracious understanding of my time commitments. I love him dearly, unlike hummus which hates you all so very much. *CAT BARF*