It is impossible to fully win this debate.

"But, if you truly believe that you've won, then you've won it all haven't you?" This is exactly right. He never tells you why this point is wrong. "If I believe I have a turkey sandwich, does that grant me a turkey sandwich." Yeah, it does. If you believe there's a God, he exists. If you believe in multiple gods, they exist. What we believe defines our reality and our own existence. "Descartes original statement was, " I doubt therefore I am (dubito ergo sum)", which he changed in fear of the reaction of the Catholic church and not wanting to be another Bruno (i.e., a Roman Catholic religious who was burned alive at the stake for his philosophical writings and beliefs)." That does not in any way mean that I'm going to stop thinking that I'm winning this debate. Plus, it has no impact whatsoever: Thinking and doubting are pretty much the same thing in our debate; having either doesn't really break my position or uplift his. My case says that if you believe something, then it's reality - for you, at least, and that's all that matters. Changing "Think" to "Doubt" still falls under my case. "That being said, Descartes was stating that if he doubted, he existed but never once does he mention that if he doubts, other entities exist. The same can be applied here. Simply because you believe, doubt, entrust into a certain notion, rub yourself with magick cream and make a wish doesn't mean any of that exists." I have already responded to this; refer to the God/Gods response above. ""My sole argument against the resolution is that fully win[ning] is completely dependent on a point of view. And to fully win this debate, it's fairly simple. All that we have to do is believe that we won. How we see the world is how our world appears to us." That is only true in some cases but if you look back on the original resolution, you'll see that it does NOT say "It is impossible to win this debate"" I'd just like everyone to know that I DID NOT SAY THE SECOND PART. My R1 was quote correctly up to "[...]how our world appears to us." The rest of it is misquoting, and none of the responses he makes to the second part counts, because I never said it. "No, quite the contrary. It says, "It is impossible to FULLY win this debate." Therefore, You have won in some sense and you have lost in others. And even going by your logic, I have still won and lost, ergo, because I will have believed I have won and you will believe you have won. Nevermind the votes, The wotes have, apparently, been given as only a sidebar. Please, make your rebuttal." Let's talk about existence; something that is either absolutely true or absolutely false. If you believe in God, then he exists. Who cares what I think? If I believe that I have won this debate, then I've fully won this debate. Who cares what you think? And whoever cares for either of the questions, why do they matter? Just as the votes are given as a sidebar, the comments are a sidebar as well. Fully Win was never defined as "From everyone's perspective". It was not in his R1 or R2, and I said in my R1 on OB2 that "all I need to do to win the debate is provide a way to fully win the debate. It doesn't matter at all whether or not we decide to take the possibility; only that there is a way." I have shown a way to fully win this debate for both of us: Believe that we have won. I have also proved how belief defines our reality. Those two premises being secured, the logical conclusion is that it is possible to fully win this debate - and if that's true, the PRO has already lost.