Being a solipsist is unreasonable.

If you are a solipsist, this will be an easy win for your as you are debating yourself. For now, we will assume that I exist. Clarification: 1. As was explicitly stated in the debate title, the resolution is on the reasonability of "being a solipsist," not solipsism itself. And there is a difference. Again, we are not debating solipsism's logicality directly, rather, whether or not it is reasonable to be a solipsist. 2. Definition of solipsism. The definition I gave was incomplete. solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; [1] What is reasonable? For my opponent to win, he must do ALL of the following: 1. Refute ALL of my arguments. 2. Build up a case of his own 3. Defend said case successfully. Until such time as he has done so, he has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that being a solipsist is a reasonable position to hold. So back to the point. If something has overwhelming odds against it's veracity, its veracity has not been justified. Thus, until my opponent has shown the odds to be in favor of solipsist beliefs, he has lost. In addition to this, he must prove there is sufficient logical grounds upon which to hold said beliefs. Arguments: Before I can address solipsist beliefs directly, I will first define them. What does a solipsist believe? 1. They, "the self," are the only extant entity. 2. All other objects, people, thoughts, and actions independent of the self are figments of their consciousness. I. Uncaused First Cause 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 is a) not the creator of all people, things, places, thoughts OR b) not all that exists. Either way, solipsism fails. (That was the most complex indirect proof I have ever come up with) II. Argument from Likelihood/ Statistical Improbability Given: All people, things, places, thoughts do not exist and are merely figments of consciousness of one mind (one person). A solipsist believes only he/she exists. (solipsism) 2. Only one person, of all people, conscious beings, existed. 3. Only one person, of all people, conscious beings, can logically be a solipsist. 4. 107,000,000,000 people (I will stick with just humans, have been alive. [4] 5. Only one of those 107,000,000,000 people can logically be a solipsist and be correct about their beliefs. 6. There is a 0.0000000009% chance that a solipsist is correct in his/her beliefs. Those are astounding odds. 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. With this proof, the possibility of veracity exists logically, but the debate is about whether or not it is "reasonable" to believe such. III. Argument from Biological Necessity. There is no basis upon which to presume that only one consciousness can exist. Biology proves that the "mind" and "self" and other cognitive phenomena are the results of biochemical attractions, interactions, and effects. "Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurons in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self. ” [7] Conclusion: I have shown that being a solipsist is self-contradictory (Argument 1), highly improbable veracity (Argument 2), and is not biologically necessary (Argument 3). Con must refute thoroughly and completely ALL of my arguments and present a case of his own that proved every premise of solipsism. Until this time, one has no logical reason to be a solipsist, thus making his beliefs unreasonable. Again, we are not debating logicality, we are debating whether such a position is unreasonable. Back to Con! Sources: 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.prb.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. Logic. 7. "Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism" by Vexen Crabtree