Humans cannot prove anything other than their own existence.

"What I am basically trying to say is, just because we define something to be a certain way, does it make it that way? No." Yes. What you don't understand is that when new discoveries are made the person is usually allowed to name them right there. If you want to define something which is blue as red go ahead. But you are wrong. Because you yourself identified the shirt as red in the first place, thus you know it is red, just like everybody else. "You make it clear in Round 1 that you are an atheist, some humans believe in God. All humans have the capacity to believe in God. So, in your mind, isn't this a flaw the human race as? Every year millions of humans die in wars, our failure to resolve arguments without bloodshed in undoubtly a flaw. We also don't know everything (If God is real, if Ghosts are real, the purpose of life, etc.) So, how is that for you?" It's a flaw to have a different belief? No. A belief has NOTHING to do with the senses. Neither does solving arguments. They are not flaws, they are disagreements. A flaw would imply something is wrong. There is nothing wrong. Just one person wants to destroy the other and in retaliation they want to destroy them. What I don't understand is you imply that Human's exist in the quote above, and you are Human, so you exist. As I am Human, I exist. You are saying everything basically exists. I don't understand why you are arguing non-existence when you are saying all these things exist. You believe in God, it says so in your profile. You believe magical fairy beings exist, but you don't think me right in front of you, doesn't exist? Are you retarded? Seriously, if you're going to argue this point, at least try to get into the role. Just by looking at you and seeing all of who you are I know that you believe we exist. It's kinda self-defeating. "How do I know you think. If I saw you, I can't conclude that you think. If I touch you, does that prove that you think in my world? No. How do you know that I think? You don't, you just believe me to be in existence. In reality, you know nothing." Because we have defined our existence as so. How about this. You think unless we are all powerful and all knowing we absolutely cannot prove anyone else's existence. What you are saying is that in order for us to existence we must be a God-like status. It's a call to perfection. Not only a logical fallacy, but you are implying since we obviously can't be like that, you are implying that we can't possibly ever exist. It's illogical. "My sense of touch is responsible for me feeling pain. Since my sense of touch and my brain are connected, my sense of touch might not be reliable." You have still failed to reason why our senses are fallible. You haven't shown anything why. Basically what my opponent is trying to say is that we don't exist because I can't prove you exist. We put all our existence on definition. The existence of things and our own personal existences are defined through us. Why? Because we are the dominant being on this earth. We can kill animals at will. We can enslave others like us. Does this mean we are the most intelligent race? No. Does it mean we're flawed? No. I don't even know where the hell Republican95 got this idea of our senses being flawed and humans being flawed. We make mistakes unto each other, but that's not a flaw. It's a learning experience. So we put this massive importance on defining things, why? Because we are dominant. We can. So when we define things, we can define our own existence. I'm saving some stuff for last (just to blow you out of the water with) :)