It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality

I thank Con for their reply. 1) It is possible to create a simulated reality Con presented no reason what so ever why this premise is a logically impossible. Con makes other demands which are simply red herrings. Once again, is their any reason what so ever given by Con that this premise is logically impossible ? Nope. 2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will Argument 2 address the two possible outcomes of something/s that has the ability to create a simulated reality. 1) They will create 2) They won't I gave possible reasons why something/s would choose to create. Cons once again objects you have no proven that its possible. Con seems to think that we should accept "impossibility" as our default position. 3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one Con says "Possible Situation C) Due to the reasons of entertainment, boredom, curiosity, the possibility of gaining scientific knowledge, and the fact that we possess the ability, man decides to destroy the simulated reality and all remnants of it." Not too sure where "man" is, in this scenario. If you referring to man that are inside the simulated reality, then trying to destroy it is going to be a problem. Cause they themselves are subject to the simulated reality laws, and they are not "real" themselves as they are simulated. If man is the creator of the simulated reality in this scenario, which I will call (C2), then it is indeed possible for the above reasons given they might destroy the simulated reality. But this highly unlikely compared to not destroying it and I will explain why..... With the destruction of the simulated reality, obviously it can no longer provide scientific knowledge, or entertainment or any of the other reasons given for the creation of the virtual reality. The destruction of the virtual reality is a one off event, what ever is to be gained in this one off event would have to outweigh the costs and opportunity costs of not destroying the virtual reality. Con says Possible Situation D) Due to human error, the simulated reality is completely destroyed with all remnants of it's existence as well. Again same problem, if you mean Man is within the simulated reality, then any mistakes they make are within the parameters of the simulated world, thus it won't result in its destruction. If you mean Man in this scenario is the creator of the simulated reality, then by all means mistakes should be expected even its possible destruction. But so what ? Creators of simulated realities never heard of saving their work or back ups ? Clever enough to create a simulated reality, not clever enough to save their work ?, I doubt it. You also left out the option that even if the creators of a simulated reality do destroy it, that they don't have other simulated realities. I would also point out that my argument did not rest on man being the creator of a simulated reality, it addressed the creator of a simulated reality as "something/s" Con says "Making the claim that because we can make one thing automatically means that it is probable that we will make multiple copies is fallacious" Yes Con, if that was my argument. I never said said it was "automatic", I left in the option of only one virtual reality is created. Previously I showed that...... Possible Situation A) 1 created simulated reality (no more created after the first one) Possible Situation B) More than 1 simulated reality (anywhere between 1 and infinity) I never argued it was "automatic" or necessary that more than 1 virtual reality will be created, just that its more probably that more than 1 will be created when compared to only 1 will be created. Con says "For this to be true that would need to mean that simulated realities were popular, worked properly, or could be used to make money" Con just gave me some new reasons why something with the ability to create a simulated reality would create a simulated reality and also create more than one, these include....... 1) Profit motive. 2) Building a better simulated reality than the last one. Learning from the previous simulated reality and building a better one. 3) Popularity, If some one else has one, I want one too. Impossibility has not be proven Con seems to imply, that if something is not shown possible then that proves it is impossible. If Con claims that they weren't implying that the premises were logical impossible, that means they agree that the premise is "possible". Closing Argument With the logical possibiliy of the premises shown unrefuted, what about where the probability claims were attacked by Con ? Trouble is Cons alternative propositions, although possible, were shown to be even more unlikely than what they were trying to attack. With possibility of the premises in my argument unrefuted, and the probability claims of this argument unrefuted the conclusion that "6) Therefore we are more likely to exist in a simulated reality than an actual reality" is affirmed. I remind Con that this is my last round so I can't respond to any new arguments made. I thank Con for participating in this debate. I ask that the vote go to the Pro.