Cogito Ergo Sum is Bunk

"This is about epistemology"I never said this. Go ahead and "ctrl F" this sentence to prove it. Con is lying, and therefore anything Con says about epistemology in reference to my argument can be tossed outright as a blatant misinterpretation of what I've said.If you've read Con's argument and are left thinking "what the heck is he talking about?", you are not alone, because Con doesn't know what he's talking about either. He's just copied/pasted derivations from "The Age of Alternative Logics" [1] in the hopes that you'll have no idea what he's talking about and just assume he knows what he's talking about. He literally lifted the entirety of the derivations he posted from this book (I, on the other hand, wrote all of my own). [9] This is why Con's derivation looks so out of place and is so poorly explained, and it's also why almost all of his sources are NOT readily available, while literally ALL of mine are. Con drops a lot of names, but makes damn sure none of what he's talking about is as simple as 1 click away for you (the voter) to verify, and this isn't an accident."My B.O.P is to demonstrate that 'I think, therefore I am' is validation of one's own existence to one's own self beyond reasonable doubt."This is where Con concedes the debate. He specifies that his BOP is to show that his position is correct "beyond reasonable doubt". Firstly, this was in no way defined prior to agreeing to this debate, so this assertion is just wishful thinking, but more importantly, even if this was the case, Con still cannot prove his position "beyond reasonable doubt", and I explained why in my last round. Clearly Con did NOT check out the truth-table I linked last round. If he had, he'd see this [3]: Remember what I said about Con's argument being truth-functionally indeterminate? It's not just indeterminate, it's equally indeterminate on both sides. 1 = always true, 0 = always false, and since there are 2 true conclusions and 2 false conclusions, it is equally likely that the conclusion is false as it is that the conclusion is true. Con may be unaware of this, but "reasonable doubt" has an actual definition, which is:"Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standardof proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence." [2]That means certainty within the range of 98-99% [4]. That means anything under 98%, including 50%, is evidence enough that Con is wrong, and therefore Con loses the debate.By Con's own words, he's already lost the debate."I am not required to prove X to Y"Con claims he isn't required to prove this claim to me, or you, or to anybody other than himself (oneself). That's great and all, but it's entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who you're trying to prove something to, circular-logic is circular-logic. If I say "Unicorns are real because the sky is blue because unicorns are real because the sky is blue..." etc. etc., it doesn't matter who I'm saying that to, it's still nonsense, and that's just what Con is arguing here. Con's SyllogismCon provides the following syllogism:1My senses can be doubted.2The real world can be doubted as a certainty of existence.3I can doubt.4I cannot doubt, I amThis isn't even how a syllogism works. If we break this down into an actual derivation, we get:1. S2. R3. I-----4. CI don't see any way to derive the conclusion from the premises using any of the rules of sentential logic [5]. Even this logic-calculator can't derive a conclusion from this series of premises [6]. These are a bunch of unrelated clauses. The only ones even vaguely related are 3 and 4, because both contain an "I", but then again, that makes them circular, as premise 3 assumes the very thing Con is trying to prove in his conclusion (line 4). So we're back to square one, Con is limited to circular logic.If you can read any sense into this syllogism, it's because you're assuming additional premises not present in the actual argument, not because Con has laid out a sensical argument."He is stating the argument doesn't prove 'I exist', nor does it need to"Yes, yes it does. Need I remind Con, the resolution is "The argument "I think, therefore I am" fails to prove its conclusion." Con needs to show that "I think" proves "I exist" End of story. "There are thoughts, I am experiencing those thoughts, therefore I am."Once again, Con inserts "I" before he actually reaches that conclusion. All he can really argue for via the existence of thoughts is "there are thoughts, therefore I am", which is obviously nonsense. This is actually a very famous criticism of Con's argument [7].You cannot say "I am experiencing these thoughts" without first assuming "I exist", so concluding "I exist" from this premise is circular-logic. there is no simpler way to explain it. You cannot prove you exist by first assuming you exist. Denying you exist is only a paradox if you first accept the premise that you exist, but accepting a premise doesn't prove it's true. That's the difference between science and a thought experiment. "you cannot rip a formulation out of context and apply pressure from areas it has not dealt with"Says Con. He doesn't give any reason why this is, he just asserts it as though it matters. As I've shown, even within Con's own context, he's still wrong."my opponent confuses epistemology with being/existence."You mean Ontology. I'm not confusing Epistemology with Ontology. This debate comes down to 2 simple things; Proving something exists vs. proving something makes sense. Cogitio Ergo Sum makes sense when you accept its premises, but that's only because it's circular logic. The same is true with any circular argument. The fact is, you can't prove something is true by showing it's derivable from a sentential argument, you need empirical evidence. Con has provided none, so he loses the debate."'Can we know of God's existence' is not equal to 'Does God exist'."Actually, it is here. We can't know of God's existence if God isn't real, because if God isn't real, then whatever means we used to come to the conclusion that we "Know God," must be false. Likewise, we can't come to know unicorns if they don't actually exist, because if they don't exist, whatever knowledge we have on unicorns will have actually been false. If it's theoretically possible to know if something exists (of something), then its existence is falsifiable, and therefore falls into the realm of empiricism [8]. "This would be in some way question begging but truly, cogito ergo sum asks us 'Can I even be certain that I exist', note we are questioning the assumption of X, and so a-priori to the argument we are on a minimal axiom of existence."Questioning "X"? What is "X" here? Con doesn't say. I have a feeling Con is just throwing things at the screen in the hopes that something sticks. Either that, or most of Con's thoughts just didn't make it to paper. Either way, this is nothing short of an epic failure of a response. Up until this point everything Con has said has been a fancy way of saying "We're SUPPOSSED to assume the "I" before we look at this argument." Kind of like how we're "supposed" to assume God exists before we look at any of the ontological arguments for God -- except not even theologists would make such a bold and absurd assertion to preface their argument. Oh, so we're just supposed to assume the conclusion is true before we consider the argument for said conclusion? Sorry, that's not how arguments work, that's not how debating works, and that's not how logic works. All bachelors are single. This argument is true regardless of if it's within context or out of context. This is because logic is logic regardless of whatever overly complicated prefaces you want to obfuscate an issue with. "I think the main problem here is Pro has copied some logic but misplaced it into an attempt to refute the thought experiment"This is projection if I've ever seen it. Con's derivations are literally copied and pasted. There's nothing else to say, he's misplacing copied logic. "Pro cannot enjoin his conscious experience to that of another being, and therefore cannot say with certainty, a thinking thing requires anymore material or conscious activates that himself, therefore negating his attempt to transcribe 'cogito ergo sum' on a machine, so theoretically he is without a sound basis for his move"Does this sentence make sense to anybody? I've read it over and over again, and it just doesn't follow. Con claims computers don't think, but by the very definition both of us agreed upon prior to this debate, computers do think, so Con must, therefore, be wrong. ConclusionI think the issue here is that Con realizes he's stuck in a logical trap, and so all he has to fall back on is a shoddy attempt at confusing the issue as much as possible to get whatever votes he possibly can. Almost nothing he wrote specifically addresses my arguments to him, his sources are almost entirely Easter-egg hunts, he drops a ton of names without explicating the relevance of them, and most importantly, he defines the conditions of his victory in such a way that means he's already lost the debate. My arguments still stand. Cogito ergo sum is a circular argument containing no actual evidence to support its conclusion.The resolution is affirmedVOTE PROSources:1.http://tinyurl.com...2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://programming.dojo.net.nz...4. http://courts.uslegal.com...5.http://en.wikibooks.org...6. http://logic.tamu.edu...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org... 9. http://jarda.peregrin.cz...