I think therefore I exist

It is cons job to refute my existence, so con has to prove to me that I don't exist. If this debate was about me proving I exist to someone else, then I would have worded it that way. So I immediately dismiss contention one and two. For all judging, do not hold this against con since it wasn't fully clarified. In fact that it wasn't clarified should be held against me for not fully clarifying in round one. Now to con's contention 3. I cannot prove that my life isn't already planned for me. But I can show evidence to believe that my life isn't already planned out. Quantum mechanics make it impossible to for someone to know 100% what I am going to do so I clearly cannot be controlled by anything that isn't in control of quantum mechanic. Also any higher deity that could fully and completely control me would be some form of god. I do belong to a religion that believes in a god, but my religion belief is also that this god gave us free will, thus isn't fully controlling us. But I cannot prove that my religion is correct, and my entire belief in it is based on faith. Now for the second part of con's contention 3. I cannot pin down exactly "thinking" is and what thoughts mean to reality. But what is exactly thinking? Is a computer getting input of what it does, thinking or a conscience? I would say not, do to the fact there has not been evidence that computers have a conscience that works in the same way as human conscience. If I built a robot that did exactly what I was doing now, it could certainly give the output equivalent to me, but does it actually exist on the inside. If I program a robot to copyof emotions of humans, does it feel human emotions? It acts like it has emotions, it gives output as if it has emotions. But it doesn't actually have emotions, there is nothing on the inside that actually hurts or feel love. It merely does the programing that says what to do when in as state meets the conditions for programmed emotions. It doesn't have a soul so to speak. My apologies if anybody reading this is a robot, and I am wrong on the feelings and soul thing. Now for con's contention 4. Yes our brains can be damaged by accidents, drugs, and disease, and these inhibit or alter the process of thinking. But under these conditions you can still think just not clearly, not fully, and with no recollection of it happening. There is even evidence that we think when we sleep, are in comas, and even when we are legally dead. Now do I have a actual self that isn't just the brain? Is there something that goes that can impact what I do that isn't physical? Well if this said thing, can alter the outcomes of quantum mechanics, it can impact without being physical. This thing that isn't physical could not be fully controlled by physical events since it is not physical, and as such cannot be fully controlled by chemicals or things controlling the signals themselves in the brain. So if this thing exist, I think regardless of damage, mind control, or even death. Now you said in the end of contention 4, you said it is my job to prove exactly what reality is. This is not my job, and if it was it would be impossible for me prove. Even if I exist, I cannot be certain that anything around me exist. Everything I see or touch, is an input to my brain. Thus anything that can copy this input could make it seem like everything around me exist even if does not. So I cannot say that I am with complete certainty that I am not in a virtual reality. But I can say to myself that I exist, because I can be aware of what is happening and being aware of me being aware. So I can prove to myself that I exist, but I cannot prove to you that I exist. So this is the reason why it worded "I think therefore I exist." instead of "I can prove to you that I exist.". If it was "I can prove to you that I exist." it would be impossible for me to do that, but I could go into all the nitty gritty of why I couldn't. Since the wording of this debate is "I think, therefore I exist" con is in the impossible to do category. Probably the most important reason why con can't convince me that I don't exist is that I have beliefs that I have a soul. Since my reason for believing in a soul if based on faith, con could not convince me to question if I exist even if I did not infact exist. So the winner of this debate is not going to be about who is right, but on who debated better.