This Debate Exists

[ Pro states, "P1 is false. The statement is 'What you experience exists to you'." To win, Pro must prove that this debate objectively exists, because the resolution makes an objective rather than subjective statement. If something merely "exists to you", then its existence is subjective and doesn't fulfill the objective resolution. Pro later attempts to argue that only Con exists, meaning that what Con believes is objective. This is untrue; this would merely mean that Con's beliefs are the only existing beliefs, but they are still subjective beliefs. Furthermore, Pro hasn't proven either of the two major assumptions of P1. First, Pro needs to prove that it is possible for one entity to "experience" another. Second, Pro needs to prove that "What you experience exists to you". ] ---- 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 (http://www.britannica.com...) therefore it is imperative that the two be interconnected as a proof. Pro does not state that Con only exists only that the only person who has to perceive is Con. Con's existence and observation are sufficient as evidence regardless of the existence of others or their perceptions. 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 states, "P2 is false. The statement is 'Con has experienced something'." Changing "Pro" to "Con" doesn't prove either of the two major assumptions of P2. First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Pro attempts this later, when Pro argues for Solipsism, but does not succeed. Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* exerience something. ] 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. --- [First, Pro must prove that Con exists.] Redundancy. Con exists by providing that Con must be proven to exist. (http://www.britannica.com...) --- [Second, Pro must prove that Con *can* experience something.] Same redundancy. [Third, Pro must prove that Con's experiences are accurate.] 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). [Fourth, Pro must prove that Con can differentiate these accurate experiences.] 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. [Furthermore, this change from "Pro" to "Con" forces Pro to prove what Con believes. As Con, I strenuously deny that I am experiencing a debate. Prove me wrong!] 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. ( If you need me to use simpler sentences just say so. )