I can not prove that I exist.

The actual issue of arguing whether or not I can prove my own existence, or that my opponent can prove her existence, has been lost inamongst definitions and "clarification" of my opponent's arguments that I have already proven to be fallacious. Just for this, the resolution still stands. I fail to see how asking for clarfication of how, or the way in which, my opponent's initial clause implies her two premises and proving that she uses circular logic and contradictory reasoning is a straw man argument. My opponent's statement "It is impossible to be mistaken about one's own existence. If we do not exist then we cannot be mistaken." is an argument from ignorance and is comparable to saying "You can't fail if you don't try." Aside from the obvious fallacious denotation, this is an assertion that was unnecessary for refutation and does nothing for her arguments. I never said that existence and consciousness are not what they are. I said that we can't prove that they are what we think they are because nothing can be proven or disproven. My opponent's "clarification" of an axomatic concept proves that an axiom is fiscally the same thing as a premise, assertion, or assumption. I understood this fully when I answered her arguments and proceeded to refute them with logical arguments that my opponent did not even attempt to refute. Her only response was this "clarification" with the hope that all of my arguments were a result of my misunderstanding of her method of argumentation. I have here proved that her method of argumentation, though presented as definedly different from standard techniques, is the same. In short for the rest of my opponent's arguments, all of the evidence my opponent gives cedes two points: 1. She comes out and admits that her arguments are based on Descartes' "I think therefore I am" by saying that "Whatever thinks, exists, is self evident." This philosophy has been proven to be faulty logic, especially because of the next thing my opponent cedes. 2. "Proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur." My opponent admits that her arguments are assumptions, "pre-supposed." She gives no warrant to back up her premises and only says that they are inherently self-evident. This A = A is circular logic. My opponent also misread my argument. She says "Now for a quick argument against my opponent saying that nothing can be proven..." My argument was that nothing can be proven OR disproven. Since she does not refute my argument, it stands. My opponent also uses the word "unproven" instead of "disproven." An unproven argument is one that has no actual warrant or evidence to support its claim. An argument that is disproven has been invalidated by hard evidence or the presence of a logical fallacy. If I may call up the definition of Prove that I provided in the first round: Prove: http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim. 2. Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate. 3. to give demonstration of by action. 4. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore. 5. to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, esp. through one's actions. 6. Mathematics. to verify the correctness or validity of by mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof. 7. Also, proof. Printing. to take a trial impression of (type, a cut, etc.). 8. to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness. 9. Archaic. to experience. My opponent failed to even attempt refuting my points A, B, and C, therefore my arguments to support my claim that nothing can be proven or disproven still stand. My opponent's last words for this debate "What my opponent has essentially said here is that she is subscribing to solipsism - but even those who believe solipsism do not deny that they have no proof of their own mind" is both a straw man and an ad hominem. This was an extremely low blow for my opponent to attempt to make. To refute: my philosophy is not solipsism because solipsism is defined by my opponent's own source as "the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists." My philosophy is that nothing can be proven or disproven to exist. There is a clear difference. For all of these reasons the resolution is affirmed and all of my arguments still stand.