Solipsism disproves nihilism.

It will certainly be disappointing for my opponent to get handed his/her first loss. It will sting even harder because it will be done by me, A hack. This will be my 22 debate and I've only been able to rack up 3 wins, And I've also scored 5 losses. Yeah, I remember my first loss. I thought to myself, Ok smooosh, Brush it off and pick yourself back up, There's no shame in having just one loss. Right? Then came the second one, And a third (which happened to be because RMTheSupreme voted against me and in an ever so infuriating manner, He/she told me that he/she was going to vote against me no matter what because his/her decision was predetermined) then I went into a downward spiral of debate losses. I lost my job, I totaled my car. $hit got real. People would see me walking down the street and taunt me. There goes Smooosh, They'd say. The "master"debater. Yeah, They'd actually put their hands up and make air quotations when they said it. It never stops hurting. Please Mr Supreme, Take my advice, Don't let the loss drag you down. The sooner you realize that it's not about winning or losing, It's about the fun of it, The sooner you can get past this unfortunate loss. And maybe, Just maybe, If you convince that one person, It will have been worth it in the end. Oh yeah, Whiskey helps too. Lots of whiskey. I'm curious as to what con has done to refute the validity of solipsism. All con seems to have done to attempt to undermine solipsism is claim that I claim that solipsism may or may not be real. WRONG! Solipsism is most certainly real. Whether we're inside a computer generated simulation, Or we are genuinely experiencing things as they are or seem to be, Solipsism is still true and cannot be disproven. Solipsism is simple, It just means that outside the range of all our senses, Nothing can be definitively proven. I don't know for sure that my opponent actually exists. You might be thinking right now, Well who's writing cons argument if con doesn't exist? That is not a legitimate retort. Even if con were sitting right next to me wearing nothing but his conquistador hat and playing claire de lune on his classical guitar ( yeah that's how I imagine con to be, Don't judge) that doesn't prove con actually exists. I don't know that I'm not the only coherent observer of a simulated reality and con is just a computer generated entity made solely for the purpose of my entertainment. Or maybe I'm in a dream and everyone I "know" in this dream are just manifestations of myself. Or, Perhaps everything I'm experiencing IS genuine. Organic. Actually happening the way I am sensing it. Perhaps I haven't even touched upon what is really happening and the truth is far stranger than what I'm capable of imagining. The one thing that persists in all of these possible possibilities is solipsism. No matter where I go or what I do, I can't escape my senses. That is the only manner you or I experience our lives. Every impulse, Every emotion, Every thought is done through our senses(sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Gravitational, Taste, And positional). It could conceivably be an easy win for con because all con truly must do to disprove solipsism is show us an aspect of our lives that we experience without the involvement of our senses, But how could con actually do that? Truth is, Con can't do that. Our entire life is made of information gathered by our senses. Our brain processes that information and we act, Or react based on the information we've gathered, That is all that makes up our lives. And that's all solipsism is, It's just a name for the fact that we only experience our lives through our senses. Beyond that, Nothing can be KNOWN. Con can't convince me he/she actually exists and I can't definitively know for sure con doesn't exist. I would need to step outside the scope of my senses to know definitively whether anyone or anything actually exists. Of course that's impossible, So solipsism stands. I think my opponent believes that if I can't prove that nobody else but me exists, Then I can't prove solipsism exists. WRONG AGAIN. I don't need to prove that nobody else exists to prove solipsism is real. Solipsism means that we cannot know anything beyond the scope of our senses. There could be a really nasty spider underneath the bed I'm laying in right now, But if I can't see it, Or hear it, Or smell it, I can't know that it actually exists. Solipsism DOES NOT claim that the self is the only thing that is real, That's just cons misrepresentation of solipsism. Solipsism claims that the self is the only thing that is KNOWN to be real. I think my opponent is having trouble with the definition of solipsism that we both agreed on. The working word in the definition of solipsism is: KNOWN! Whether everyone outside of my senses actually exists or not, Solipsism is still true, Because I can't definitively know for sure that they do, Or do not exist. My opponents nihilistic approach is problematic. Firstly, Con cannot use empirical evidence to prove nobody else exists. Secondly, Con has reiterated that if nobody but me exists, There is nobody to matter too. YES there is. ME! . I can, And do matter to myself. In fact, There's nobody that has ever mattered more to me than myself. As far as I'm concerned, Solipsism is an epistemological extension of Any Rands philosophy. She claims that the self is the most important person to the self. Not necessarily the only person or thing that matters to the self, But the most important person regardless. It probably doesn't come as a shock to know that before I knew what solipsism was, I considered myself to be the most important person I know, So now that I realize that it's POSSIBLE that nobody else exists, It doesn't bother me. Even with the knowledge that it's POSSIBLE that nobody else exists, I haven't "(begun) to enter an entirely nihilistic mindset wherby (I) mean nothing to anything else", And anything else means nothing to me. My opponent makes no attempt to provide evidence that I cannot matter if there's nobody to matter too. If I were to exist alone, Then there is one person to matter too, ME. /" nihilism in congruence with solipsism"/? ! ? ! ? ! Whaaaaaaaaaaa? Solipsism and nihilism are in no way, Shape or form, Compatible. Nihilism is an additude, Not an observation of undeniable facts like solipsism. Nihilism isn't generally practiced as a philosophical or spiritual way of life. Nihilism is a lack of care about anything. A loss of all hope or reason. When we mix radical skepticism with extreme cynicism and blend in a dash of misanthropy and bake it at 350 for twenty minutes, We'll get nihilism. I feel deeply sad for those who subscribe to the additude of nothingness (the word nihilism derives from the word annihilate. Annihilate derives from a latin word that when translated, It means: to make into nothing). I fear those who have lost all hope and sense of purpose. These people cannot be convinced otherwise because they reject the validity of reason. They deny all existence is real. It is the additude of self loathing, But the one thing these people hate more than themselves is everyone else. It doesn't take philosophic reasoning to get to nihilism. It takes anguish and lack of care about anything to get to nihilism. By definition, Nihilism is in direct contradiction to philosophy because philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, Reality, And existence. Nihilism is not compatible with philosophy, But solipsism is totally compatible with philosophy in every manner. What empirical evidence does a nihilist have to prove that nothing matters? A nihilist would probably answer by asking, Who gives a fu(ck? If reason doesn't exist to someone, Then that person cannot be reasoned with. A solipsist would point out that no matter what empirical evidence you throw at me, It will be impossible to prove that nothing matters. The empirical evidence needed to prove that nothing matters does not exist. You cannot prove to a solipsist that nothing matters and you can't convince a nihilist that anything matters. They are totally incompatible. Lets recap A solipsist cannot deny the self exists, But cannot know for certain whether others exist. If it's conceivable that someone can matter to themself even if nobody else exists, Then nihilism and my opponent hasn't proven that nothing matters and all life is meaningless. If the self matters to the self, The self will impose moral principles onto the self. If the self cannot prove that others don't exist, The self cannot prove that others are meaningless. If others can't be proven to be meaningless, Then the self will impose moral principles on the self toward others. So! Given the fact that solipsism is the undeniable fact that we cannot know that anybody else doesn't exist, Then we can only come to the logical conclusion that the idea that religious or moral principles don't matter, Cannot be proven. If that idea cannot be proven, Then we can only come to the logical conclusion that nihilism is WRONG. Solipsism disproves nihilism!