I am a Homo sapien.

I will argue that his has not provided adequate reason to believe he is a human being in this debate (which is crucial - voters should only take into account what has been said in this debate, and ignore any external arguments or evidence or their own prior beliefs) and in addition has not provided a serious counterargument to the computer simulated human scenario. I will respond with the numbered points my opponent responded to. 1. Pro's arguments were intended, as he said himself, to *prove* that he was human. If this argument does not do so, and since he has conceded the argument that he has a brain and is thus human, then he has failed to demonstrate the resolution and the debate thus goes to Con by default. Pro argues that there is only substantial evidence for the existence of humans - but this begs the question against the simulated human scenario, and in addition, he has not provided this evidence or shown that the other possibilities are not viable contenders. He says that he (I assume he's referring to common experience rather than merely his own, or this argument wouldn't even get off the ground) has not 'seen' other rational beings than humans on this planet. Well firstly, one of the possibilities is extraterrestrial so we wouldn't expect to. Ghosts are beyond normal experience so we should trust seeing there. And if the simulated scenario is true, then we expect that to be the case exactly the same! So this argument does not eliminate other contenders because the world is as we would expect given Pro's point even on the existence of them. In the end, all we know (sort of) is that there is something on the internet posting arguments for the Pro side of the debate - but we have seen no substantial reason to think that that thing is a human being. 2. I provided reasons to think that the computer simulated humans scenario is true, but Pro does not respond to them - merely asserting that I have provided no proof and that it is speculation. As I said, it is a forecast based on evidence and we have seen no reason from Pro to doubt it, beyond bare assertion. He attempts a reductio ad absurdum, arguing that if my argument is valid we would be able to prove that people could fly like superman in the future. Firstly, it is very plausible based on the curve of technological advancement that at the very least in the future transportation will be vastly more convenient, efficient, cheap and effective than it is now. Obviously that wouldn't lead to people being able to fly like superman because superman is an alien who essentially flies by magical solar power. However, perhaps something similar like some kind of futuristic version of a jet pack wouldn't be implausible. 3. The reason we are more likely to be computer simulated humans is that the number of computer simulated humans would vastly outnumber, by several orders of magnitude, the number of real humans on this scenario. Again the argument is not that this will happen in the future - that was just the set up - but that we are in that future right now. I am not stating that 'computer-simulating humans might exist in the future' but that we have good reason to think that at some stage in human technological development human invent incredibly complex computer systems with simulated minds and that considering the number of minds that would be likely be created it is vastly more likely that we are one of them instead of a real human. 4. Whether or not I myself am an illogical hypocrite has no bearing on the strength of my arguments. If someone provided evidence or arguments for the truth of a religion, or anything else, then those arguments would be good or bad irrespective of the motives of the person arguing. This is a complete logical fallacy. If I believed everything I have said in this debate and my arguments were exactly the same, this would no longer be a relevant objection - but Pro would still have to respond to the exact same arguments! This argument has actually definitely become an ad hominem attack since he has presented an analogy in which I represent someone who is illogical and hypocritical. Thanks for the debate. :)