This Debate Exists

**ON P1:** Pro states, "The presumption is that if something "exists to you" then it is subjective however this is not the case. The provision that something exists and is tangible is always taken from the onlooker's prospective (sic) therefore it is imperative that the two be interconnected as a proof." Pro asserts that Empiricism (the belief that experience is the source of all knowledge (1)) is true. First, Pro has provided no reason why Empiricism must be true, making Empiricism another unproven assumption. (Or at least no reason that doesn't rely on Empiricism itself, which would be begging the question (2)). For example, Pro has provided no reason why we should prefer Empiricism over Skepticism (3). Second, even if Pro DOES prove that Empiricism is true, the fact that experience forms the basis of knowledge doesn't prove that what is experienced is objective. (Objective, here, means "necessarily true"; subjective merely means that "Yes, you are experiencing something, but it's not necessarily true".) It's possible both that experience is the basis of all knowledge AND that experience is wrong. Consider a schizophrenic such as mathematician John Nash (4), who believed for decades that he was working for a top-secret USA decoding program, when this was untrue. How can we tell if *we* aren't the ones hallucinating? And if Pro cannot prove that what is experienced is objective, Pro loses. Pro states, "Pro does not state that Con only exists only that the only person who has to perceive is Con." Pro stated, "The presumption actually lies in Solipsism, that is that Con is the only one that exist, and that Con's existence is all that matters in relation to the validation of the events." Pro states, "Con's existence and observation are sufficient as evidence regardless of the existence of others or their perceptions." First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Second, Pro again makes the jump from subjectivity to objectivity when none is warranted. Pro states, "The citation of Empiricism providence evidence / proof of both through axiom. Provision beyond that is unreasonable as if Pro suggests that one must prove an axiom then there is no value to the argument." Pro asserts that questioning Empiricism makes the debate meaningless. First, this is untrue. Debate over the correct metaphysical system, if any, is not meaningless. Second, this is Pro's fault, not Con's. In the rules, Con clearly stated, "No unproven assumptions will be acceted." Pro agreed to abide by these rules by accepting; Pro must take the blame if Pro does not follow them. --- **ON P2** Pro states, "Changing to Con provides as Con is typing and participating. While Pro cannot prove that Pro exists to Con there is no value to Con denying Con exists therefore no value to denying that Con is indeed participating as per Con's arguments. The values are markedly different. Pro does not argue "for" Solipsism but uses Solipsism as a means of provision for "Self" which proves that Con exists and is participating therefore lending credence, even if Con should argue that Pro does not exist, that the debate is still underway even if only with an extension of Con-self. Con proves through redundancy that Con can experience as Con participates unless Con is denying their participation and existence. Con exists by providing that Con must be proven to exist," and cites the "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) argument. Pro's assertion makes two unproven assumptions. First, that Con thinks. Second, that the cogito ergo sum argument is valid. First, why is it necessary that Con actually "thinks"? As a possible counterexample, everything Con has ever "written" is actually just the product of a random-letter-generating computer code that so far has happened to form cogent arguments. To argue otherwise would be an argument from probability (5) and fallacious. Second, "Cogito ergo sum" is not a valid logical syllogism. P1: I think C1: I am In order to reach the conclusion, a second premise must be added. P1: I think P2: An entity must exist in order to think C1: I am Why must P2 be true? Why can't a non-existent entity think? Further, why must *I* exist? How can one prove that it is oneself doing the thinking, rather than someone else? Regardless, this argument still hinges on proving that Con thinks. --- **ON P3** Pro states, "Con's experience do not have to be accurate. If Con exists and is experiencing participation then Con is indeed holding a debate with another party or an extension of themselves. The validity of the other unit is unimportant as all that matters is the participation itself and the contradictory nature of the participants in an effort to build arguments (definitively, a debate). Con's perception beyond participation and existence has no effect on the definitive nature of what is. Con's ability to differentiate is null/doesn't matter. You can be dreaming or awake." Let's imagine that Con can't tell the difference between worshipping the voices in Con's head and debating with them. If Con believes that Con isn't having a debate (cannot differentiate/acctuately describe) what is going on, then it cannot be said that Con is actually exchanging views. Rather, Con is worshipping the voices in Con's head by disagreeing with them. Pro states, "Con's perceptions beyond participation and existence again has no effective on the definitive nature of what is. Con's denial of their own existence, experience, participation, or the nature of that participation does not validate Con's position or beliefs as per Empiricism or Solipsism." Pro holds two things to be true: 1. If Con believes that Con is in a debate, then Con is in a debate. 2: If Con believes that Con does not exist, then Con is wrong. Holding both of these two beliefs is a contradiction. Why? Pro's argument behind 1 is that "What you experience exists to you" and that Con is experiencing a debate; ergo, the debate exists (because Empiricism). If, however, as is true, Con is experiencing the fact that Con doesn't exist, then according to Pro's logic Con doesn't exist (because Empiricism). --- **ON C2** Pro concedes that C2 is necessary by not arguing against Con's argument. --- Pro states, "If you need me to use simpler sentences just say so." Using extra words or higher-difficulty words always annoys me, first because often people mask stupidity with "fancy" writing, and second because it wastes reader's time. Neither is necessarily true here, but I still hate long words. :P --- **SUMMARY** Major issues: Pro has yet to prove that (a) experience of reality is accurate, (b) that Con exists, or (c) what Con experiences is objective. --- References: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org.... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... --- Reminder: Round 4 is the last round in which Pro can make arguments, because Pro cannot make arguments in Round 5. I look forward to reading your final round, Pro.