Logic without experience/experimentation can not achieve certainty

The BOP is on PRO. Therefore I simply must thrust my arguments in and my opponent must still prove his point. I could simply refute his claims and the debate would be lost him but that is ok. So my opponent makes the argument put very simply that outside mathmatics we need experience.The case for the reasonableness of solipsist belief[1]For the record the reason I bring up solipsism is because if a solipisist postition is correct then no empirical evidence can be used in logic because only reason can be the guide. It is the only reliable evidence.My opponent and anyone denying the reasonableness of the solipsist position must be against the concept of epistemic certainty, for that is all that solipsism is. Take an apple or a chair or a light bulb and ask "Could that possibly be an illusion?". The answer is of course yes. It happens all the time. Our senses deceive us. Whether one is a schizophrenic hallucinating wildly or a nervous man seeing what his mind projects in a shadowy alley, it cannot possibly be denied that one's senses can sometimes be and sometimes are wrong. All the solipsist does is admit this and adjust their epistemic (and metaphysical) outlook accordingly. One can never know with certainty that anything outside of one's self certainly exists and thus one would not be justified in believing so. Written in syllogistic form, the reasoning goes as follows: P1: One is only justified in believing that which can be known with complete certainty.P2: One's self (mind) is the only thing which can be known to exist with complete certainty.C: One is not justified in believing in anything except for one's mind.Defense of Premise 1I suppose the initial bar with which the solipsist sets that which can be known is what is most controversial about the position. After all, most people think that when their eyes see something, it's justified to believe so. However, one must realize that the certainty one derives from what one's eyes register (a posteriori propositions) is wholly inferior to the certainty one derives from logical necessity or reasoning (a priori propositions) as far as certainty is concerned. It is possible that one is not registering correctly what one is looking at and thus one can possibly have unjustified belief. This does not hold for a priori reasoning. If one's logical reasoning is correct, it is not possible to hold unjustified belief. The rationalistic method of acquiring knowledge is clearly more justified and more apt to yield correct results and certainty than the empiricist method.Defense of Premise 2Upon initial reflection, nothing can be found to necessarily exist with complete certainty other than the mind itself. Even the concept of one arguing that their mind does not exist sounds like rubbish on it's face. In order to refute this premise, my opponent would need to show why something other than the mind can be shown to exist with complete certainty, certainty wherein the concept of denying it's existence is self-contradictory.Defense of the Conclusion, ValidityThe argument itself is clearly valid. Premise 1 asserted a theory of what qualifies as justified belief, Premise 2 argued what stood up to those qualifications, and so the conclusion is necessitated if the premises both hold to be true. Defense of Rationalistic Perspective.[2] “I think therefore I am” stated the French philosopher René Descartes. Descartes had doubts that he existed. He concluded that if one doubted their existence then that proved thought had occurred, and thought confirmed existence of self, hence the statement “I think therefore I am.” The only thing that Descartes could be sure of using his method was his existence. Descartes’ mind and his rational thought were used to arrive at his conclusion since empirical knowledge cannot validate existence. Empirical knowledge cannot be used to conclude existence because sensory experience alone is not enough to raise doubt of one’s existence. Doubt of existence implies logic and reason. Such doubt requires a venue for occurrence, that venue of occurrence is the existent individual using their abilities to reason. Seeing is not believing. Sensory experience alone can not be trusted because it can and will deceive you. Take for example a dream. Within a dream we are almost certain we are experiencing reality, but once awakened we know this is not the case. We think that a dream is reality because our senses are still intact as we experience the dream world created by our thought. We experience the dream world that is created by our mind through our senses but a dream is not real and we cannot gain knowledge or truth from it. If our senses are capable of deceit in a dream then it is reasonable to expect them to do so in reality as well. For example, say I look into the distance and see two kids playing. My sense of sight is providing me with this information. I soon realize that these children are not playing, but in reality they are fighting. My senses deceived me and lead me to believe that the kids were playing; however it was through my logic and reasoning of the sensory information provided that I was able to conclude that I was watching a fight. Truth cannot be provided without proper reasoning and logic which provides the senses with judgment.Note on A Priori Knowledge.[3] We seem to know some things a priori, or at least to be justified in believing them. Standard examples of propositions known a priori include: a bachelor is an unmarried male; 2 + 3 = 5; if you know something, then what you believe is true; if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C; no object can be red and green all over at the same time; the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; no object can be wholly in two different places at the same time; it is wrong to torture infants to death just for the fun of it; and it is unjust to punish an innocent person. For the sake of argument, assume that we know that all of the following claims are true: some bachelors are unhappy; there are five apples in the bag; I have hands; my middle finger is longer than my ring finger, and it is longer than my little finger; the tomato I'm holding is red all over; the shortest route by car from Detroit to Chicago is along I-94; I was in California in mid-March, not Detroit; torture produces unreliable testimony; and people who are punished unjustly become resentful. The basis of the knowledge of these claims is different from the basis for knowing that bachelors are unmarried males, 2 + 3 = 5, etc. The basis for knowing that bachelors are unmarried, etc., is also different from the basis for knowing that I now have a pain in my left knee, that I ate cereal for breakfast this morning, and that there was a massacre at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. The basis of a priori knowledge is not perception, introspection, memory, or testimony (cf. Casullo 2003, 29-30; BonJour, 1998, 7). If there were such things as telepathy and clairvoyance, they also would not be the basis of a priori knowledge (Casullo 2003, 149; BonJour 1998, 7-8). A priori knowledge and justification seem to be based on reason alone, or are based solely on understanding the proposition being considered. Knowing all this there can be no other vote but a negative today. Vote Con.[1]http://www.debate.org...[2]http://socyberty.com...[3]http://plato.stanford.edu...