My Opponent Does Not Exist

Almost forgot about this debate . . . First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and shall already congratulate him on winning the votes that shall no doubt be provided by the "not saying" population. With that said, let us proceed carefully. ====================== Burden of Proof | ====================== My opponent seems to believe that I hold the burden of proof for some reason, thus, I shall first clarify on why he is incorrect regarding this matter. We must keep in mind that the burden of proof belongs to the side that INITIATES a claim. EXAMPLE: Lets say that a man walks into a bar and claims that gravity does not exist. Let us further say that individuals in the bar turn around and question the man and ask that he provide evidence to show that gravity does not exist. Now, by my opponent's logic (or lack of rather), it would be most reasonable for the man to say something along the lines of "Ha ha. I don't have to prove anything. It's your job to prove it exist and I am right until you show otherwise." Hence, I believe my point has been made. Indeed . . . for as far as debating goes, the one who "smelt it dealt it." In other words: If you're going to make a claim, back it up. ======================= Evidence to support my existence | ======================= Given what I've stated above, I could very well end this round immediately and insist that it be my opponent to make the first move rather than walk into whatever trap he feels overly confident about having set. However, to pacify my opponent, I shall go the extra mile and support my stance immediately. My argument is simple: All ideas exist. At the very least, Logical-Master can be regarded as an idea. Therefore, Logical-Master exist. Clarification on Premise #1: As V said in V for Vendetta, "Ideas are bullet proof." This is relatively simple ladies and gentlemen. Whether or not we live in the "Matrix" or we are simple part of a "dream", ideas remain unaffected in terms of existence; nothing can harm an idea. Indeed as ideas transcend across all plains of "reality". For example, let us take into consideration the fictional character known as Huckle Berry Finn. Whereas he would usually be argued as physically non existent, he still exist as a concept/idea. An idea merely needs to have been imagined to exist. Even if the source of the idea is possible false, the idea itself remains unaffected. This above premise may need some clarification depending on what PRO states in the following round. Clarification on Premise #2: Given that I have already entered my opponent's imagination (he already acknowledged me as we an see from the title of this debate), I no doubt have a cause even if I were to have been spawned into existence when this debate had been started. Nevertheless, I have no idea what PRO intends to argue, thus, I shall say no more on this one for the time being and shall wait for an objection. Thus, it is most reasonable to conclude that due to both of these premises, I exist at very least as an idea. ====================== Alternate approach on the topic | ====================== Of course, looking at the topic a bit differently, we must note that my opponent is advocating that I DO NOT exist. Hence, what is to stop me from augmenting his burden an arguing from the position that I MIGHT NOT exist? Indeed as it would seem rather reasonable to conclude that there's a means of determining that I do not exist. Clearly, insisting mere possibility (i.e . "might not") is more reasonable. And that'll do it for now . . .