You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists.

=== INTRODUCTION === For those who are having trouble understanding the resolution: The title is "You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists" and my opponent is CON, so is against the title. This means that my opponent is making the assertion that it CAN be proven or disproven that this debate exists. I am PRO so I will being arguing that the existence or nonexistence of this debate cannot be proven. === DEFINITIONS === Prove: -verb To establish the truth, authenticity, validity or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim. [1] "This debate" -noun The debate titled "You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists.", instigated by DiggyGawg, contended by FREEDO and taking place on debate.org. The word "debate" used here isn't necessarily confined literally to the actual definition of debate which is "(noun)A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.[2]" but rather includes that definition but is more specifically referring to the formal process FOR debating on the website of debate.org. - All other definitions in this debate will be assumed upon common sense, no tricky semantics will apply. === ARGUMENTS === Whoever is reading this debate at the moment is an individual conscious entity. This person knows this because it is self-evident, that is, intrinsically known with absolute certainty that they themself are existent and conscious. It is from this consciousness that they know anything at all, that they draw conclusions about existence as a whole. Here is my first contention; that there are only two ways to know anything at all with any certainty, which is to prove. The first way is through self-evidences; something they know in of their own being, such as "I think therefore I am". The second is through axioms; a concept which must be true because in any attempt to dismiss it you would actually have to apply it, such as "a thing is itself". Outside of these two things there are no certainties. Any claim of certainty must be based on either self-evidences, axioms or both. Here is my second contention: That the assertion of this debate being existent is based on neither self-evidences nor axioms. Thus it cannot be proven to exist. My opponent might say that the existence of the debate is self-evident to the reader because they are looking right at it. This is incorrect and a fundamental misunderstanding of what self-evident is. Self-evident means that an individual conscious entity will know that they ARE sensing, but it does not mean that they know what they are sensing is true. With intellectual-honesty the reader of this debate must realize they have absolutely no verifiable knowledge on whether this debate is a hallucination or not. In-fact, they cannot verify whether ANYTHING they sense is real or not. They only thing they can verify is THAT THEY ARE sensing, as well as the truth of axioms. This website may not be real. The chair they're sitting in may not be real. This very conversation may be a construct of their imagination. They also cannot confirm that these things ARE NOT in existence. I suspenseful await my opponent attempt at a rebuttal. === SOURCES === 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://education.yahoo.com...