This Debate Exists

Thanks, Pro. --- Pro states, "P1 is false. The statement is 'What you experience exists to you'." To win, Pro must prove that this debate objectively exists, because the resolution makes an objective rather than subjective statement. If something merely "exists to you", then its existence is subjective and doesn't fulfill the objective resolution. Pro later attempts to argue that only Con exists, meaning that what Con believes is objective. This is untrue; this would merely mean that Con's beliefs are the only existing beliefs, but they are still subjective beliefs. Furthermore, Pro hasn't proven either of the two major assumptions of P1. First, Pro needs to prove that it is possible for one entity to "experience" another. Second, Pro needs to prove that "What you experience exists to you". --- Pro states, "P2 is false. The statement is 'Con has experienced something'." Changing "Pro" to "Con" doesn't prove either of the two major assumptions of P2. First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Pro attempts this later, when Pro argues for Solipsism, but does not succeed. Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* exerience something. --- Pro states, "P3 is false. The statement is 'Con has experienced participation in the activation of the activity formally known as a "debate" '." Changing "Pro" to "Con" and using more and longer words doesn't prove either of the four major assumption of P3. First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* experience something. Third, Pro must prove that Con's experiences are accurate. Fourth, Pro must prove that Con can differentiate these accurate experiences. Furthermore, this change from "Pro" to "Con" forces Pro to prove what Con believes. As Con, I strenuously deny that I am experiencing a debate. Prove me wrong! --- Pro states, "C1 is false. The statement is 'Con is experiencing participation in the activation of the activity formally known as a debate by starting one'." Sorry, I'll use more and longer words next time I try to put your arguments into a logical syllogism. --- Pro states, "C2 is unnecessary." Unfortunately for Pro, it is not. Without C2, if *every* other premise is valid, all Pro has proven is that "Con is experiencing a debate". To win, Pro has to prove that "This debate exists." C2 was the necessary junction between the two concepts. Furthermore C2, using the new P1, would read "A debate exists to Con". As I pointed out against P1, Pro's new logical proof cannot win this debate whatsoever. --- Pro attempts to argue both that (a) only Con exists, in a weird not-proving-self-existence form of Solipsism, and (b) Con is engaging in a debate, even if Pro doesn't exist. Pro offers no arguments in support of (a). Pro must both prove that (i) Con exists and (ii) nothing else exists for this to be true. As Con, I strenuously deny that I exist. Pro argues that an exchange of viewpoints is enough for a debate to exist. I accept this. However, Pro must prove that Con exists before Pro can prove that Con is debating with Conself. --- Summary: None of Pro's unproven assumptions have been proven, and one has been added. As such, Pro's logical proof is flawed and cannot succeed. Furthermore, Pro's logical proof, even if it succeeds, now only proves subjective existence, not objective, and falls short of winning the debate.