I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate

1) Base Arguments 1A) All arguments by us are fallacious in nature It simply because you and I are non-omniscient beings. We know nothing about anything. You know that argument, I think it's called solipsism... Yeah the one that says you can't prove anything is real except maybe self. Well, like it, we can't really prove any reasoning is valid (non-fallacious). I'll try and illustrate my point: Is the universe random? Actually a better question, is complexity random? Now you could probably find a lot of people with this kind of view, especially among those naturalists... basically If you don't believe that a rational mind created the universe, then your doomed to think the universe is random and meaningless, after all if no mind created the universe, why would the universe therein be rational? But anyway, if we entertain the idea that complexity is actually random, then the universe is 5 minutes old... Yeah I know, you didn't see that one coming did you? You might say, hey there is no way the universe is 5 minutes old, you might even say you remember things that happened last week (like playing fallout 4, or going to work or whatever) Yeah, but your memories are from the mind, and the mind is complex, so the memories would be random too. Simply your memories wouldn't count cause they're based on randomness instead of truth. While sure I don't actually know how old the universe, as I said these things to make a point. I could even take this a step further, if our minds are random, can one prove two plus two equal four? We could never know from any arguments made from us mortals. Simply because our minds are random, we may simply think 2+2=4 out of randomness instead of certainty. But I'll try and sum this up in a flow of agreements, if you disagree on one of these please reference which mise your talking about. 1) Complexity might be random2) Our minds are complex3) We cannot know anything for certain if complexity is random4) If we cannot be absolutely certain about our arguments, they are fallacious As you can tell, this would cause problems with all my opponent's arguments. 2) Rebuttals 2A) Shortness of debate is irrelevant. As the resolution reads, “I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate “, this point doesn't seem to help you out at all in proving that you will not commit a fallacy in this debate. You only need 1 round to commit a logical fallacy, you have 3 rounds. 2B) Awareness of fallacies doesn't necessarily mean immunity to making them Look, I've read up on fallacies before, a book I'd recommend get is the fallacy detective, good book. I also do have experience with actual debate, as I did team policy debate for just a little over a year. And I can tell you that it is very foolish to think that you will never commit any bad reasoning after studying arguments. Sure, I hope your arguments will improve, but not necessarily to the point where your arguments are invincible. The debate topic doesn't read “my chances to make a fallacy are much less than a debater who does not know logical fallacies.” but is “I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate” So saying this or that will improve my chances is irrelevant, the thing you have to establish is will you or will you not commit a fallacy. Chances don't prove anything.