I can not prove that I exist.

First I refute my opponent's arguments: I would like for my opponent to clarify how the "act of grasping existence as a statement" implies her two premises. This is not the root issue of her first "paragraph" of argumentation, however. My opponent uses circular logic to attempt to prove that she exists. By her reasoning, she exists because she perceives that she exists, but, by her same reasoning, one must exist to perceive (through consciousness). Not only are those premises fallaciously used together, they themselves are assumptions that are unproven. "something exists which one perceives" It is common knowledge that perception is flawed. I am sure readers and my opponent can think of many examples of this for themselves. "one exists possessing consciousness" This is an assertion that directly contradicts my position, but has nothing to prove it due to the ambiguity of my opponent's opening clause. My opponent's second "paragraph" of argumentation is also inherently false. Aside from the rather sumptuous statements the causal link between existence and consciousness is based on her first premise which I have already disproved. "A consciousness without something to be conscious of is a direct contradiction. " A consciousness capable of being conscious of something but in present state unconscious of anything is covered by my opponent's next sentence, below, which is a fallacious one. "Before one can even say they are conscious, they have to be conscious of something. " This is where my opponent appears to affirm her faith in Descartes' "I think therefore I am. " They are conscious that they think, or of their own consciousness and ability to think, therefore they are conscious and exist, by my opponent's reasoning in her first "paragraph" of argumentation. This is where my opponent's logic falls. This is another fallacious argument of circular logic. My opponent attempts to use the awareness of consciousness as a result of itself. My Argument: I cannot prove that I exist because nothing can be proved or disproved. A. Our lives are based on circumstances in which we are conditioned to believe, or not believe, certain ideals or statements. There are plenty of examples of this including political party ideology, religion, Santa Clause, ghosts, evolution theory, basics of morality, etc. These are all things that we are taught by society that we are from early on conditioned to believe or not believe. B. The things we are conditioned to believe are not always true. There are also plenty of examples of this, but for better examination purposes let's use Santa Clause. Small children are led to believe by the only piece of society they are capable of experiencing, their parents and other relevant adults, that there is a great jolly man who brings them presents at the end of the year if they follow the set of rules set down for them by those authority figures or are "good. " As children mature over their years they learn the truth. This institution of rewards implemented for the purpose of social obedience has been copied across many levels of government and other social hierarchical structures. C. Decisions are made based on the societal norms laid before us. Again, for the purpose of meaningful examination, let us look at one example, though there are so many. When we get up in the morning, we must decide what to wear for the activities of the day. We will take into consideration whether or not it is cold or hot outside, a societal teaching intended for the general physical welfare of the human body, but also what is considered to be "in style," and may put the perceived standard of society above our own desires and needs, simply for the reason that "everyone else is doing it. " Conclusion: Thus, we cannot prove anything to be true or false. In these ways, I may have been told or led to believe that I exist, but, in reality, I may not. The resolution stands: I cannot prove that I exist.