Everyone's beliefs involve faith

Ladies and gentlemen, please pay close attention to everything I am about to say as it is vital to this debate that every voter who reads this understands the exact reality of the debate. To recap. I am to prove that matter needs no faith to believe in. My opponent has tried everything but to give me a reason as to why I need faith to believe in matter. Now, he attempts to intimidate me by destroying the validity of evidence with his "millions of scientific websites which prove them right and me wrong."-Pro. Does this scare me? Not in the least. Why? Oh simply because..... Quantum Mechanics : The theory. The simulation argument: Impossible without Matter. This is what I have come up with upon researching his arguments: The definition of quantum mechanics speaks of "Subatomic particles". The word "Subatomic particles" when broken down is defined as "Any amount of various units of matter below the size of an atom, including the elementary particles and hadrons." Subatomic is defined as: smaller than or occurring within an atom. particles are defined as both a minute portion of matter and any numerous subatomic constituents of the physical world that interact with each other. Please take the time to note that the word "matter" is in the definition. I will explain later why this is relevant. Matter is defined as "That which occupies space and possesses mass. Upon reading the link which my opponent posted in this round, I realized what he was trying to prove. That subatomic particles act as waves when not observed but as particles when observed. However this does not mean that matter does not exist. The reason that it seems this way is due to how one observes matter. When matter is observed, it is a particle. This means that the observer has located the position of the particle. Because in this theory, all particles move about to some minute degree which leads observers to classify them as waves. When the wave is observed, this means that the observer has located the particles momentum. However, no observer can locate both the position and momentum of a single particle or wave at the same time. This simply proves that matter exists but with certain characteristics. The reason my opponent says that upon providing this information, matter does not exist is due to "Wave function collapse". (Everyone keep in mind, quantum mechanics are all mathematical equations which revolve around "Theories" which do not qualify as sounds law or fact.) Wave function collapse means that the value of all the energies inside one subatomic particle condenses into one single energy as an observer observes this. However, no observer can ever see the entire collapse which is what keeps all particles in existence. With all technical stuff being said, I ask that all the voters hold in there and please finish reading everything I have to say. Thank you. My opponent gives evidence that inside the quantum vacuum all matter does not exist and does exist at the same time as all particles are fluctuating due to the observation effect. However! The validity of the perturbation theory lies on the adiabatic assumption, which assumes the eigenenergies and eigenstates (energy values) of the Hamiltonian are smooth of parameters such that their values in the vicinity region can be calculated in power series. This means that His entire argument rests on theory! I have already proved that Matter exists, he is attempting to prove it doesn't with evidence that has the sound possibility of not holding true! Please remember this voters! Now on to the argument which proves even more definitely that my opponent NEED"S MATTER in order for his arguments to hold true. The article the Pro posts in round 4 states at the very bottom that all reality could be virtual. Upon reading this, I decide to look back at my opponents previous link posted in round 2 suggesting the possibility of a "simulated world." I listened to the 23 minute explanation of this argument and learned the following: The simulation argument contains three theories. only one of these theories can be true. Once one is proved true, the other two are false. The first theory states that Man kind will never reach a "post human" state of technological advancement. (basically incredibly intelligent people.) The second theory states that Man kind will reach a "post human" state but have no interest in running simulations. The third theory is that we (as the world we know) is currently living in a simulation. If the first two are true, that means that reality is not virtual. The quantum mechanics theories will never be fact and matter without a doubt exists and be acknowledged as a constant without the need of faith. If the third one is true however, that means all of reality is virtual. But wait! Virtual: Something not concrete or physical but is *simulated*. Simulated: To *imitate* the appearance or character of. Imitate: Take or follow as a *model*. Model: Take as an example to *copy*. Copy: A thing made to be identical to another. Another what? At some point in this long line of simulations, there is an original from which every simulation is based off of. Therefore, Matter exists. If it does not then the Pro cannot state that: -There are simulations. -quantum mechanics and quantum vaccumes are the reason matter does not exist. Evidence means nothing anymore as he seems to have based his entire argument off the evidence and proof which his other "thousands of scientists" have provided. In conclusion, Quantum mechanics are only possible because of the existence of matter. Quantum mechanics base its research around the effects of particles which are defined as minute portions of matter. However, if this is not the case then his virtual reality argument holds true. In this case, matter still exists because in order for a simulation world to be created, there has to be an original world in which matter exists and quantum physics are strictly theory. Because in a simulated world, physics would still need to be present and identical to that of the real world, all the definitions of matter from the first round hold true and are indisputable because they hold true without question in the original world (for these definitions please refer to my first argument). Therefore, the Con should win for proving matter does not need faith to believe in because it is a constant. My simple observation, is the only reason your arguments have any credibility.