I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate

1) All arguments are fallacious A) Well I agree with you to some extant that it might be true that if you think you might exist. How would I know? I never met anyone that could think and not exist simultaneously... Yet,I never met the Queen of Sheba, that doesn't mean she never existed. So I can't rule out the possibly of such a a being to exist. You and I might feel that 2+2=4 is true or that raping a woman is immoral, but if everything is random there might be something wrong with our minds that the feeling of it being true is simply chemical. Sure 2+2=4 might be true, but how could we possibly know if we can't trust our own minds? And if you can't trust your own minds, then you have the same problem with saying “I think therefore I exist” because your using your mind to rationalize that statement. The flaw here is that your using your mind to assert this. Guessing is always fallacious, because it's a “flaw” in reasoning. As fallacy defined by you “formally as a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.” Guessing is always a flaw in an deductive argument, as it renders it possibly untrue, hence why it's invalid. Sure it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that it is fallacious. i'm going to count that as falacious reasoning as you said“ In fact, if I outright guess the answer while still NOT being absolutely certain, the answer is certainly NOT fallacious “ and this was committed in round 3, not in round 1. just saying You mentioned that I made a leap to being “might be random” and that the mises don't correlate. We're talking about uncertainty here, if you agree that complexity might be random, you can't be certain that it isn't. Otherwise you would contradict yourself because your saying your certain and uncertain simultaneously. I think i'm uncertain that complexity is random, and if you do too mise 4) works because it's about uncertainty. Also if you have a problem with words, google can help. If you search “complexity define” you will find “the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.” The human brain is very intricate, it's possibly the most complex 2 pound matter in the universe. Definitely more complex then a computer. 2) Shortness is irrelevant You agree that there is a chance. You clearly can't defend the resolution that reads “I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate” cause you can't prove it. as I said before it doesn't say “I might not commit”, but will not. Obviously I don't have the burden of proof here, which is why it's problematic for him. Also I don't think I can assume about a perfect round, assumptions are to fallacious for my taste-buds. We could just simply assume that you committed a fallacy, and I won the debate. That might be true too. =P Dialogue to Voters Already voters, if for anyone of these reasons you agree with, please vote con. You only need to agree with one, not with all of them. As the challenge was imposed on my opponent, not me, so i don't have the burden of defending any argument of mine as being non-fallacious. 1) If you agree with my argument about the mind possibly being random, and causing complications with anything being certain, which would inherently make our arguments fallacious (especially ones Pro made). Please vote in favor of Con 2) If you feel that Con can't defend the resolution that he will not commit a fallacy (which Pro claims there is a chance that it might happen because of an accident, which is pretty much guessing he won't). Please vote in favor of Con 3)If you agree that guessing is a flaw in an argument, and therefore a fallacy. Please vote in favor of Con. Anyway, thanks for the debate. Got to work my brain cells a little.