This House Believes That Synthetic A Priori Knowledge Exists!

Welcome! THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT. PLEASE COMMENT/MESSAGE ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THIS DEBATE, PLEASE ONLY DO SO IF YOU HAVE A HIGH ELO, OR OTHER CREDENTIALS IN PHILOSOPHY. YOU NEED 2000 ELO TO VOTE ON THIS DEBATE WITH A SELECT WINNER OPTION. Introduction: This debate seeks to adress one of the oldest, and most revelutionary ideas of Philosophy: of whether there exists knowledge independent of sense experience. This can also be extended to mean whether all knowledge is ultimately based on sense experience, or requires the conditions of the intuition: a priori. This "knowledge" will not contain elements which are formed through Imagination, for imagination builds up from what we have gained from the senses. This seeks to address whether we possess knowledge, even if it is a small, yet considerable, part of all our knowledge completely independent of sense experience. I shall be arguing for a Kantian concept where both empirical, and rational knowledge go hand in hand. My opponent would have to take the empiricist position and would be supporting the thesis put forth by philosophers like Hume, Locke, Russell, and more recently by Stephen Hawking, Karl Popper, and Hans Reichenbach. The Con side of the resolution is the one favored by nearly all physicists of today. The Burden of Proof: The Proposition holds the key burden of proof, and it is my onus to show that a priori rational knowledge exists independent of sense experience. This does not mean however that my opponent can endlessly poke holes in my arguments, my opponent must provide substantiations of any theories he uses to support his rebuttals. For example is it enough for my opponent to say that this knowledge should not be considered because anything not empirical is meaningful, if he wishes to assert this as a refutation he must prove the supporting argument/thesis. Rules:1. The first round is for acceptance/pleasentries only. Any substantiated material will be ignored. 2. The last round will not feature any new positive material from any side, if any such material is given, the entire round should be ignored by the judges. 3. Any form of plagarism will result in an instant loss. (What constitutes as plagarism is at the judges' discretion.) 4. I request that Youtube not be used, because it is banned in my country, and so I won't have any access to it. 5. It is advisable to have an easy to read font, and all sources should be cited. The references may be given on a seperate document (such as Google Documents) and a link provided to save space. 6. Semantics are discouraged, and should be seen as foul play. Any form of trolling, making a mockery out of this debate will result in an instant loss. 7. The definitions, where applicable, should be taken from a philosophical place such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, the Oxford Philosophical Dictionary, the Penguin Philosophical Dictionary, or any other respectable source, or text such as A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, or A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell (even though this is biased crap). All definitions are up for debate. 8. There are 5 rounds, of which 4 are for debate. Each round has a 10, 000 character upper limit, and a 2, 000 character lower limit (the judges should penalize any round below this other than the acceptance round), 48 hr/round, and my opponent will be taking the Con position or that against the resolution. I shall provide my definitions in my first round. Or shall cite sources for easy understanding. As a note to the judges I would ask you not to vote on this debate unless you believe you have an able philosophical foundation. This debate is, and will be rather technical.