Cogito Ergo Sum is Bunk

Overview of my position In my closing post, I will give an overview of how my arguments were presented. I argued, like Descartes argues, that the process of conscious thinking, is evidence, that we cannot reasonably doubt our own existence. That is in essence 'I think, therefore I am'. This is a conclusion to previous premises in Descartes work. My B.O.P was to explain and extend 'I think, therefore I am', and await counter arguments to show that thinking 'is not reasonable evidence for the statement, one's can doubt one's own existence. My opponent's B.O.P was to refute the conclusion of 'Cogito Ergo Sum', that is he must give adequate reasons to suppose that thinking, that is conscious doubt, is not adequate, and we can still have reasonable doubt of one's own existence. I would now like to ask, did my opponent give a single argument to that conclusion? He did not, and therefore did not satisfy his B.O.P, even when I explained in detail what the argument attempted to prove. My arguments ranged from 1. Multiple formulations and premised points to the conclusion of 'Cogito Ergo Sum 2. A platform in inferential logic, to allow movement, that is 'moving premises' 3. A second logical formulation of my argument 4. Detailed counter arguments. My opponent only presented three arguments, and retrospectively failed to counter my objections. His arguments. 1. It is begging the question/circular reasoning. 2. A logical formulation. 3. 'computers' think, but are not conscious example. 1. Notably his first argument is his weakest, as I noted in detail, the argument is not establishing existence from non-existence, but establishing a knowledge claim to one's own existence, one's own existence as I pointed out is a self-refential validation, and it is 'can we doubt our own existence' is the heart of the debate, not 'prove I exist'. 2. This is simply a rehash of point 1, and I referenced this in my rebuttal. 3. My opponent states "thinking" is using 'rationality', now firstly this is not a standard definition, with no reasonably argument to back it up, as I pointed out, and secondly, rationality, is a state of mind, it is 'being rational', a computer can rationally deduce formulations, but it cannot reason them rationally, and so my opponent is sneaking a hidden premise into this argument, like I pointed out in my first post. My opponent also notably ignored my objection, he stated he 'couldn't understand it', well, I gave two objections, he dismissed one, and ignored the other. Conclusion, my opponent's three arguments failed to be relevant/ failed to be defended upon further inspection. Now, in relation to my opponent's closing. My opponent cites, a source I use, but unfortunately cites a portion, I wasn't citing, so in fact he is saying that I have to argue everything on the page, even though I selected my point carefully, that is just a bit absurd. On reasonable doubt My opponent claims no definition in philosophy is given, has my opponent read the material we are debating, I suspecting he hadn't, and considering he misunderstood the argument, it is no doubt he would also assume there is no basis for it, in summary Descartes defines reasonably doubt as "Any valid doubt that can be given, any logically possible scenario that can be produced to negate certainty in the conclusion." I expected him to actually read the material we are debating. "So, it's appropriate to use the legal-definition of this term." This is a philosophy debate, so no it isn't. "This is because it's a circular argument." Pro concedes his logic table is just a rehash of his points about begging the question, thereby proving he only produced two notable arguments, the computer and begging the question. Since I went into paragraph after paragraph trying to explain the conclusion and purpose of 'Cogito Ergo Sum', I can only assume my opponent didn't want to debate the real conclusion of the argument, and secondly the computer argument was refuted easily. He gave no real explanation of what it meant, nor could he, because it doesn't make any sense in the context of the rest of his argument. "He's just quoting generic passages on what 'inference' is from a textbook on logic." 'Generic passages'? I have no clue what my opponent is referring to, as generic, also a basis or framework is obviously going to be universal, especially on inference, that is why I detailed the premises along side the argument. In conclusion, my opponent just didn't have any notable counters to my formulations, simply saying 'it doesn't make sense to me' is not adequate. ""[W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt …" [5]"A concession that he really did know the conclusion of the argument but wouldn't deal with it. And so, we don't, the conclusion is we cannot doubt our own existence, it is a pity this late in the game we actually agreed on this, and I probably would have been more engaged if the debate stayed relevant. I can't explain anymore that Descartes intended the argument for epistemology and that Pro's arguments were just not relevant. Pro states my arguments were not relevant, but unlike my points, which detailed why he was not relevant, he just states I am, without explanation. Pro's Conclusion Pro spends a large majority of his time, actually he spends most of his time, trying to gain points from voters, ignoring the actual arguments to simply state he likes his 'source layout's better than mine. That is fine but is that really what we should focus on? A passing remark would suffice, but since there was a lack of arguments on Pro's side, and I had to keep explaining my position, it became very one sided. Pro also spends alot of time stating I copied points and it was close to plagiarism. Plagiarism would be if I stated I wrote the points out myself, and didn't cite. I did cite, I had sources, and I won't be dragged into petty point scoring, I think this debate should have focused on the points, not simply keeping a score on a website, which is what Pro's conclusion is, a walk through of nice sources and grammar. I could engage in this "We're SUPPOSSED to assume the "I"" On Caps locking a full word, but truly I won't go that low, or how Pro was incredibly condescending, but I prefer to keep it formal and without petty remarks, so I will continue onto my conclusion My Conclusion I have given ample arguments both in paragraphs of text, and in logical formulations, no real argument was given by pro to the conclusion 'thought is not reasonable evidence against the proposition that we can doubt one's own existence. No counter arguments to my formulations, no thought experiments and no engagement with the title and resolution, made this debate very one-sided for me. With the combined force of my arguments and rebuttals we can conclude that I managed to prove my B.O.P. For that reason and for the reasons I gave positively, we can conclude that 'Cogito Ergo Sum' proves that we can have certain knowledge that we do in fact exist in some form, and that we cannot reasonably doubt one's own existence. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.sciencechatforum.com...