Solipsism is entailed by logical extension of Idealism

Preliminary Remarks:"we know the laws of logic exist externally from our minds because we can’t think of a possible world where they could not exist in and be untrue." My opponent has successfully defeated Idealism while attempting to disprove solipsism. 1. Refuting Idealism minus SolipsismMy opponent cites the existence of logical absolutes as evidence against solipsism. In this argument I will show that solipsism doesn't attempt to refute logical absolutes, and further show that Con's argument can be applied to disprove Idealism via logical absolutes, as he has already done so in his quoted argument.1.1) There is no reality beyond the solipsistic reality for logical absolutes to apply toReality is everything that exists. This is not different in a Solipsistic reality. Logical laws apply to all of reality, and by definition there is nothing beyond reality. Thus logical laws apply to only reality. In any reality, logical absolutes are the same. This is what Con means when he calls them objective. In any possible world, there will be those same laws of logic applying universally. Let us assume reality is solipsistic. Can we conceieve of logical absolutes that apply beyond the solipsistic reality? No, because there is no such thing as 'beyond' the solipsistic reality. For Con's argument to follow, there in fact needs to be a coherent concept of 'beyond reality.' This isn't the case, thus Con's argument fails.1.2) External Logical absolutes are as incompatible with Solipsism as with IdealismEither logical absolutes are a product of the mind and the mind's mental reality, or they are sourced from somewhere external. One of the key tenets of Idealism holds that there is necessarily nothing which is not mental. Mental reality is all of reality. An immediately apparent implication is the fact that these logical absolutes Con speaks of, being 'external to the mind' are not compatible with the idea that logical absolutes are evolved from the mind.1.2.1. Either Logical absolutes are evolved from a mental reality, or a non mental reality (law of excluded middle)1.2.2. If Idealism is true, logical absolutes are evolved from a mental reality (definition)1.2.3. Logical absolutes transcend mental reality (con's argument)C1: Logical absolutes are not evolved from a mental realityThis argument is especially effective against Idealism because while my opponent was attempting to prove that not all Idealistic realities are solipsistic realities, he failed to consider that all Solipsistic realities are necessarily Idealistic realities. If Solipsism is false due to the Idealism inherent in it, then it is not so much the single mind which is the problem as it is the mental reality. Solipsism is after all, Idealism but with just one mind present. Con's argument doesn't distinguish between Idealism with one mind and Idealism with many minds. He claims that Solipsism is false because it cannot account for logical absolutes. The thing is, if we add another mind to the solipsistic reality, we still cannot account for logical absolutes because the nature of reality has not changed. It is still fundamentally a mental reality. Con's argument thus negates the resolution.1.3) Further Analysis of Con's argumentCon in this debate is tasked with showing why Idealism works without solipsism. In support of this he argued only that logical absolutes exist transcendentally to the mind, thus solipsism is false. Con has attempted to argue nothing more than that Solipsism is false. Con should be reminded that he still needs to show why Solipsism is not entailed by Idealism. Showing that Solipsism is false does not show that it isn't entailed, it simply shows that solipsism is false and supports the idea that Idealism is false as well.In his argument, Con presents a faulty syllogism that doesn't follow. As you can see, premise 1 and 2 use two different terms for a similar concept, neither of which are used again in the argument. Each premise doesn't link terms from the prior premise. Furthermore, the argument attempts to mimic modal logic but has the feel of a basic categorical syllogism. Since currently the syllogism doesn't work and is poorly written, I have rewritten it in modal logical so that I have something substantive to argue against.1.3.1. If thought exists, logical absolutes exist.1.3.2. There exists a possible world where only thought exists.1.3.3. There exists no possible world where logical absolutes do not exist.C2: Logical absolutes are transcendental to thought.The first problem you may have noticed with this argument is that premise 3 is entirely redundant and the conclusion doesn't even attempt to link to the premises. Premise 2 is wrong because a statement that is necessarily true in a world where only thoughts exists is not consequently transcendental to thought, it is simple true in the world where only thought exists. The premises are not sound, they don't flow and they don't link to the conclusion. The argument is invalid.Affirmative Arguments:2) On Epistemic Mechanisms Last Round I presented the argument that the absence of a mechanism that allows minds to experience coherent information exchange means that any Minds seperate to self ~S(M) are necessarily evolved from the Mind of self S(M). In other words, if Idealism is true, any other minds in your mental reality are actually evolved from your own mental reality, and not a reality separate to your mental reality.My opponent attempted to contest by claiming "I know that other minds exist because they express properties that my mind also expresses which would show me that they are in fact a mind." He later rambles on about God, sin and the bible but as this isn't relevant I won't address it.Focussing on my opponents claim, we can see that his justification is mistaken. In a mental reality, all properties are evolved from the mind. Thus all the properties of all the minds that appear to be similar to your mind are in fact your own perceptions. We can demonstrate this with a simple thought experiment. You pass three unique minds waiting at a bus stop, A, B and C. By Con's argument, since A, B and C all have similar properties to your mind, they must all exist as individual minds. However, C is actually a sophisticated robot and doesn't have a mind. Thus you have been fooled into thinking that C is actually a person. This thought experiment shows that you need an epistemic mechanism to demonstrate the existence of another mind (as I pointed out in round 1).The minds of others in Idealism actually don't exist, as you simply perceieve them as being a part of your own reality. They are evolved from your own mind, and cannot exist because there is not epistemic mechanism that shares information about reality to them. Note the following diagram: S(M)1 is you. You live in Mental reality 1. For Idealism to be true, S(M)2 also needs to live in Mental reality 1. Unfortunately S(M)2 lives in Mental reality 2, and thus you are the only mind that exists. Reality is therefore solipsistic. To solve this issue, a mechanism by which multiple minds can perceieve the same reality is required: Such a reality would indeed be Idealism minus Solipsism, however both Con and I agree that E(M) is a incoherent idea, thus Idealism will always infer solipsistic realities.3) On Identity ViolationCon elects to reject only premise 3. Quite simply, he should be taking issue with premise 4 and not this one because this is true by definition. In Idealism, anything that interacts with an entity is a property of that entity. This is because entities do not have a physical form under Idealism, there is a logical limit to what they can be. An entity which is not as high order as a mind can be a property of a mind, but a mind cannot be a property of another mind. Ergo P is not instantiated.Summary remarks:Con's current argument against Solipsism doesn't fulfil his BoP. Next round is his last opportunity to present an argument against the topic. Heil Smithis.