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

I will respond to my opponent's contentions one by one. 1) It is possible to create a simulated reality I do sincerely hope that we do not get into a BOP argument in this debate but my opponent is Pro and instigator of this debate and therefore he should at least expound on the technological possibility of a completely simulated reality. It is the norm on this site for the instigator of a debate to hold the BOP unless otherwise specified by the instigator. My opponent never mentioned the BOP in the first round so we may assume we are playing by regular rules. 2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will My opponent has listed a few reasons why a simulated reality could be created. None of these reasons have however proven that it makes their creation 'probable'. 1) Scientific/knowledge purposes My opponent again must prove that it is possible to create a simulated world with the exact same physical constants so as to grasp new information from it is possible. We cannot take this as a given. 2) Entertainment I will ask my opponent even if it is possible that one would want to create a simulated world for entertainment purposes, why is it more probable that one would create it versus the probability that one would not create it? My opponent's last three reasons were boredom, curiosity, and because we have the ability to. I again tell my opponent that it is his responsibility to prove that this is possible. Also to the contentions of boredom and curiosity, I could be bored and also curious as to what the inside of my chest feels like but that does not mean that it is more probable that I will take a knife and rip my chest open then that I will simple let it be and wonder. 3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one Here my opponent suggests two possible outcomes of the creation of a simulated reality. 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 will propose some other possible scenarios if I might be aloud. 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. Possible Situation D) Due to human error, the simulated reality is completely destroyed with all remnants of it's existence as well. My opponent cannot prove that situation C is impossible as I use the same reasons that he brings to create the simulated reality in the first place. If these reasons are illogical or improbable then so is the existence of a man-made simulated reality. As for Situation D, my opponent cannot deny the factor of human error. I can cite countless examples of people making mistakes. Just take the Hindenburg disaster, the Titanic, or parachute pants. Now on to my opponent's contention that situation A is more probable than situation B. Making the claim that because we can make one thing automatically means that it is probable that we will make multiple copies is fallacious. For this to be true that would need to mean that simulated realities were popular, worked properly, or could be used to make money. My opponent needs to prove this point before we may accept it. I will not point out my issues with the conclusions based on Pro's premises as if I can show the premises to be faulty, the conclusions will be faulty as well. I look forward to Pro's response.