It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality (2)

First, I'll extend all of my arguments from the the last round, then, I'll go over my opponent's last round and dissect it. Finally, I'll crystallize and give you really clear reasons for voting Con. First off, the 2 most important thing for you to look at is:1. He completely dropped, throughout all the rounds, that there is no link between the type of possibility that he's outlined, and the argument he's trying to make. Logical possibility never supervenes or interacts with a nomological possibility. His entire argument falls apart when he doesn't show how logical possibility shows anything relevant to us existing in a simulated reality. This was dropped through each round, though I gave him a choice to either go the physical possibility (first horn) or metaphysical [in his terms, logical] possibility (second horn) route. On the first horn, he failed to understand and argue against my argument that a physical manifestation of the universe is the only epistemically open one to us. That means if you're inclined to go the physical route, which is how his first premise would obtain, you still vote con, because any physical simulation is the real one, meaning that if he goes the physical route, which is the only way to make his argument work, he negates himself. On the second horn, he again failed to argue against two claims: a: that the metaphysical world doesn't interact with this oneb: The set theory argument shows immediately that a real world is more likely. In the second horn, which the first premise seems to be arguing, he fails to answer two pertinent objectionsIn either case, the first premise falls, and since his case is a syllogism, the rest of it falls apart.2. Since round 1, he has failed to show the connection between C2 -> C3, which is something that I've been bringing up throughout the round. There's no reason to think that "something being more possible for X" translates to "it being more possible for us that X". Since his case also hinges around this argument, which went unrefuted, he failed his burden of proof. Just based off of these two, if there's even a risk of the RWH fulfilling my BoP, you vote Con. ---3. On the argument from substitution, my opponent asked me to show him. I did, and demonstrated that his entire case is built off of ad hoc justifications given in Premise (2).4. Multiple things about Inference to the best explanation have been dropped. Extend across a That he dropped the bulk of the argument, that being pseudo-status of propositions, until round 3. b my answers to his attacks, which went unrefuted. This means that Inference to the Best Explanation holds, and that the Real World Hypothesis is the best provided in this round. This means that I fulfill my BoP, and you should vote Con already. -----My opponent's last argumentCon wasn't able to prove that its impossible for a simulated world to exist, nor was Con able to prove that it was impossible for what we consider our "physical" world to be a simulated reality. Well, I never had to. It was never my Burden of Proof to say that it was impossible, only that it was more probable that one exists over the other. Never in this debate until my opponent's final speech did my requiring to prove that it was impossible for it to exist come up. Disregard this as a new argument. Previously I alluded to, that a perception doesn't necessarily correspond to reality in the Sun rising example. This undermines the basic assumption that what we perceive is in line with reality, as such it can't be a given that just because we perceive we live in a real world, that means we must live in a real world. Con didn't refute this, so Con can't just take it for granted that a "perceived" cat is a real cat. (1) First, the Sun example was refuted in round 2. Furthermore, I claimed in round 2 that the perception was "loose talk", it's a word efficient way to talk about my argument. 3rd, this is in no way enough to argue against the entirety of inference to the best explanation, 4th, if you don't buy my second argument about loose talk, it doesn't even matter. The only counter argument to the way we perceive things is the sun rising example, which was answered back as not being able to provide full explanatory power, which was dropped. You have no reason to buy his perception argument in the slightest, and even if you do, give weight to the pseudo-proposition argument, which was completely dropped. (2) Again, I absolutely refuted the sun example, and gave you reasons to think that the world that we're in is the real world, or at the very least, is the metaphysical starting point. This directly answers why we can, and do, make assumptions about the 'realness' of the cat being metaphysically prior. Both of these went unrefuted, and instantly refute the argument he is trying to make about the cat. Both (1) and (2) here answer back this entire paragraph in two different ways, (1) for the perceived argument, and (2) for reality as being metaphysically prior. Con did present a counter argument to my probability premise, but there counter argument was even less probable, so was ineffective. This is vague. Is he talking about the probability premise (1), which has been the focus of much of this debate? The counter argument was that it was non-functional, which has been dropped by pro through out the round. If he's talking about the argument from substitution, he needs a warrant. If he's talking about IBE, he again needs a warrant for why it's less probable, even though I've clearly developed why it is, in all the relevant senses, more probable. ------The way out:You've got a lot of ways out of this debate. Let's take a look at how the debate has manifested, in terms of BoP:My opponent has two fundamental parts of his case challenged, Premise 1 and Conclusion 3, and the attacks against them went unrefuted. He failed on two counts to uphold his burden of proof. The argument from substitution, if you don't buy it, is at the very least a way of contesting his BoP. On my side, there is a weak attempt to refute IBE, which is mostly a response to an argument he dropped. The other response was promptly refuted, at which point he dropped it, only to bring it back in the last round. Even if you're unwilling to vote off of IBE, it's easy to see which side's argument stands more complete, better defended, and and provides a better explanation. My opponent hasn't extend any of his arguments, and on balance, failed to justify his claims. At best, you could make the claim that we're gridlocked at IBE, but I don't think this is the case. Finally, the argument on physical manifestation in horn A functions as offense, if you're inclined to go that route. If you want to make my opponent's argument work for him by making him have nomological possibility, you still vote con, because the simulated reality and real reality would be the same. Thank you very much for your time.