I am a Homo sapien.

I hope to have a fun and thought-provoking debate! I will start by refuting my opponent's points and then go back to support my original statement, that I am in fact a human being. The argument goes like this: in the future (barring catastrophic events) it is likely that that our civilization will reach a level of technology where it is possible to generate huge and sophisticated computer simulations of worlds and of human minds to inhabit those worlds - a future equivalent of The Sims [2] for example. A single future equivalent of a laptop could harbor thousands, even millions of intelligent simulated minds, none of which would be aware that they were not real humans. This is in fact, completely irrelevant and not germane to this debate. My opponent states that in the future, sophisticated computer simulations capable of simulating human behaviour is possible. However, this is utterly fictional at the moment with our currently technology and it is mere speculation of the future. By stating it is nominally possible for me to be a computer simulation in the future, he does not prove in any way that I am not a Homo sapien right now. it is rather likely that we are in fact in that future and are one of the many simulated minds living in a simulated world. This point does not seem even remotely coherent to me. My opponent states that it is possible to have "computer-simulating humans" in the future and suddenly it is also likely that we are in fact the future right now. I do not see any correlation between this future that you have proposed and the fact that I am a computer simulated mind writing this debate right now. Are you perhaps suggesting that I, being a virtual being, have travelled from the theoretical future where computer simulated minds are prevalent, to initiate this debate? We don't of course think thatI have clearly won this debate because of this statement he has made. If my opponent does not think that I am nothing else but one of the 6.9 billion human beings on this planet, how can he wholeheartedly bring cohesive and valid arguments to the table? Given this argument, it is overwhelmingly likely that my opponent, rather than being a human, is a simulated computer program that thinks he is a human. I do not see how your argument makes it overwhelmingly likely that I am not a human being. To meet my burden of proof, I will now attempt to prove that I am indeed a Homo sapien.1. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and solving" href=". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving ">problem solving. Humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. [1]By refuting all your points that you have made, I clearly have shown pro bono capability of reasoning, introspection and a fair use of proper language. I'm also confident that I have communicated fairly well in that sense. As for problem solving, I am good in maths. Let me attempt to demonstrate to both opponent and my audience.1+ 1 = 25*5 = 258^2 = 64Thus, I have shown some ability to solve (mathematical) problems. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Humans have a highly developed brainI do indeed have a highly developed brain inside my skull which is conspicuously typical for all humans. Thank you for everyone who is reading this. I look forward to my opponent's response.