fact=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience

This is the last round, so I'll restate the undisputed criterion for winning the core of the argument (this is outside of the argumentation in general, which includes the real-world impacts, critiques, and rebuttals)"Since the pro is arguing that facts and knowledge can only come from ones own memory, the Con must be able to hold a counter-example which proves that knowledge can either be held without memory, or that others memories can be accessed."With that in mind, I'll begin the line-by-lineLine-by-Line"religion=to rely on"This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the debate at hand. Instead, it is merely a display of Pro's potential personal motives/bias in starting this debate. Therefore, it should not be taken into account."I have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason to truth or distrust"Two things. One, this assertion by Pro is blatantly false, as this entire debate was sparked by an extreme amount of doubt on their part.Two, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the "memories-are-faulty" argument (it would have to be, because there is no other place where this would make contextual sense to apply.) The faultiness of our memory has nothing to do with theological doubt and belief. Instead, it is a simple matter of the objective memory deterioration that happens even to the best of us. More information can be found at this link: (). For memory in general, watch this () Because Pro did not attack the fact that relying on the memories of other human beings is essential to maintaining accurate information, this point stands."I have to imagine nerves sensing electrical signals, information is separation, I am one is true do you want me to burn you? why not.."No, I do not want you to burn me, as I am the Con side of this debate and do not support any conclusion garnered from Pro's logic. This rhetorical question actually turns in favor of Con, because if the reader has the adverse reaction Pro seems to be gunning for, it only proves the point of Con's example even more. Simply put, the point is that we must rely on trust to some extent for knowledge, and that if we don't, then we cannot trust "physical experience" either. "physical experience is necessary, no trust involved, you are dead without your senses"Am I even alive to begin with? I doubt that anyone reading this remembers the incident of their birth, yet we remain certain that birth is our origin. This is simply another point in favor of Con."now you are just entertaining, I didn't use soft language like you but I easily can.. "human beings as I know them", done"This still doesn't address the core of the issue. The fact of the matter is that knowledge about the inherent properties of any given object can be applied to all other objects of the same kind (or, at the very least, most of them) without actually seeing each and every one of its kind.Pro has not refuted this."I can at best believe what others tell me. imagination is future, and memory can only be in the past"You can do independent research, which is knowledge that you would not have gained without the effect that the actions and memories of others had on you.You can rely on the fact that the very nature of the scientific field allows for that multiple-memory reliability that Pro has not refuted.One last method (although by no means is it the only one) is simple use of deductive reasoning. If I tell you that X is X, you don't have to see X to know that what I say is true; to say other wise is simply absurd.Pro has not refuted multiple-memory-reliability, the fact that even independent verification is caused by someone making a claim in the first place, nor the real-world scientific field that relies on the unrefuted collaborative/multiple-memory argument. Con's point stands."so because everyone is more credible to you as a mass, shouldn't you be a Christian? just go with whatever the masses is required to believe, annnnd also its a fallacy, only personal physical experience of now is true, therefore even if everyone on earth said the same thing and you disagree... this gives them no advantage, as the definition of true is not determined by humans, but by existence"If you'll recall, I specifically excluded theological (faith-based) claims. Instead, I relied on the very physical experience which Pro himself validates, the only key difference being that I advocate for the usage of the experience of others (especially thousands at once) instead of just a lone experience.After all, how much of the world would we know at all if we didn't trust the claims of others? Even this debate relies on 'belief' in one side or the other, with logical reasoning as the discerning factor in the mind of the reader (which is not the same as physical experience)."sense=physical experience=true non sense=Imagination and memory=false and truth you are a theist to science, and science is your god"To this, I say, how do you know, Pro? According to you, there is no way to know the experience of others.On a serious note, this actually highlights a point in favor of Con: Psychology. We can use psychology, language, inferences, and tone of voice to read what other peoples thoughts or intentions are (including whehter or not they are telling the truth.) Pro continously throws cheap-shots at Con that actually further Con's own points. Add that on to the list of reasons to vote Con."new borns are not selfaware, as they have no memory"Let it be known that Pro's skepticism invalidates the life of infants, and thusly justifies infanticide. Pro has conceded that voting Pro is synonymous with advocating baby-killing. This cannot be ignored.On another note, this argument begs the question, "How do we form memories in the first place?" If Pro is to believed (which, thankfully, they're not), then there would literally be no way to form meories in the first place. Without self-awareness, we could not seperate the world from ourselves, or have the motive/means/ability to learn. "look I can make it real easy, did I just look at my dog, is it a fact that I just looked at my dog? actually, I don't have a dog, but am I now lying about not having a dog in which case it could be a fact? how do you know"One, you just told me. While this seems like wordplay on the surface, the simple truth is that those who lie tend to get careles, and reveal themselves as frauds in due time. That is where reputation (which is based on the memories of others) comes in. I might not immediatly recognize a lie, but that does not mean that I can't look to the memory/thoughts/experiences of others to proveit wrong. A well-known example is the link between Autism and Vaccines. Here's a source: https://www.health.ny.gov... I'll quote directly from it, so that my main point can come across: "After years of investigation, former doctor Andrew Wakefield, London-based author of the highly publicized report connecting autism and vaccines, was found to have acted unethically, and his study was proven false by multiple sources. " What this shows is that while a lie may slip through at its onset, the memories/thoughts/experiences of others can destroy the lie. If we are to rely on our own memory alone, we are subject to accidental falsehoods, as shown in the videos aboveThis is yet another rhetorical question whose answer is in favor of Con and turns against Pro."what my opinion has to do with murder is irrelevant... im talking about what is true to me... the police force is necessary, being mechanical is necessary, for jobs, beliefs are necessary... this is you sidetracking"I reject this accusation. I am merely following the Pro logic to its ultimate conclusion. Pro is stating that he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion of his logic, and as most of us are bound to know, you can't accept a school of thought without accepting its ultimate conclusion. To do so is hypocritical, and throws contradiction upon contradiction to the argument. Since Pro has not actually rebutted the argument that the Con school of thought is necessary to have these things, he has conceded it. Thus, to maintain any level of society whatsoever, we must live under Con's school of thought.ConclusionPro has not cited a single source in this debate.Pro has not used efficient organization, or even basic grammar, foresaking what might have been streamlined argumentation.Pro's unfounded logic has been refuted, Con's arguments ignored. Pro's argument for why knowledge from others experience is invalid also invalidates physical experience, and destroys the resolution.Pro's rebuttals all work to further validate the notion that we must rely upon the memories of others in order to avoid the very falsehoods which Pro is afraid of in the first place.Pro's logic goes against any good that comes from society and science, while justifying murder. Pro does not deny this. Instead, Pro merely agrees that those outcomes are bad. To do so is to conced the debate, and that's exactly what Pro has done.From the layman to the Philosopher, this is a cut-and-dry victory for Con. So please, Vote Con! (And watch those videos, if you get a chance. Really interesting stuff).