I know I exist

"I am winning on logic. If you can not understand you would think those are just semantics." The definition of semantics is "the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text." So the fact that a good portion of your argument was about the way I decided to use "exist" shows just how little you can differentiate the two. 1: Not worth talking about. This is a blame game that I will not waste time on. 2: The definition of know is (to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information) (be aware, realize, be conscious, be informed, have knowledge or information concerning), (or be absolutely certain or sure about something). I am saying that by shaking your knowledge of existence, you can no longer "know" through the fact that any logical person would have doubt if they found conflicting logic that is just as good as their logic. 3: I understand your thesis, it is not complex. You need to counter my arguments as you have began to do, I won't be commenting on this point anymore because it is a waste of time to argue. 4: The definition of existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality." the main point that I am arguing is that the objective reality (the definition of both being objective: ((of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.), and reality: (the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.)). Now does it not seem weird that you need objective reality to have existence yet you need existence to have reality? What I am saying here is that because there is no way to create an area of non-existence, it is impossible to know what it is like to not "exist". And because of this the definition of existence is very limited and to a point, not correct. Without an idea of how non-existence would function there is no good way to say we "exist", it is POSSIBLE that we could not exist and still be capable of functioning. It is POSSIBLE that what we are going through is something that we can not understand at this point rather then truly existing. And it is POSSIBLE that we are just imagining this reality. now the likelihood of these possibilities being true is low, the fact that there are so many ways (most of which are currently unthinkable) that we could not "exist", that there has to be some doubt that we do, not a ton. But enough to not (by definition) know. 5: to begin with, don't start by saying there are fallacies. Start by proving it, anything else is a waste of time. Next, I did not say I do not know what you are arguing. You are not arguing in the first place, your job here because of the way YOU worded this question is that you are defending your point while refuting mine. So you seem to be the "defective" one here. Next you go to twist what I say. I said "To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth" I did not say "To know something all you have to do is believe it" as you seem to have read it as. What I said was that you having none/very little doubt was essential to knowing, not all there is. So you seem confused and slightly hypocritical with that statement. And your fallacy is just wrong now that you understand the simple message I was using. And finally, if you would rather refuse to lose your faith in something just to win a debate, you are not worth debating. So by giving you doubt you can either decide to accept it and lose the debate, or you can ignore it and simply become ignorant, either way, me showing that there is doubt in the idea of existence would make you likely lose. 6: How would you know it could not. You have never experienced anything but what you are experiencing now. So how could you say what something non-existent can do? There is no way to show something that does not exist can do something because of the previously-said faults in the definition of existence. next, if the definition of existence that you use is the feeling of "this", then this debate is a waste. Tell me what definitions you are using before the start of the debate or the dictionary definitions are what we both have to go by. So there is no "considering" existence, it is what it is. There is no black and white in definitions unless you say AT THE START that it is flexible. So there is just the dictionary definitions we have to go by for now. If you want to change that challenge me to a debate where your definitions are posted. Why do you get to chose what I do and don't know, the idea of existence is so flexible that a actual no problems definition is not easy to find.(and making one up does not count). And your example is comparing the name of an animal, something that was agreed on in America at the least, vs an idea that has never been properly defined due to lack of understanding. That argument means nothing. And I debate the idea of existence, not the word which has been what you have been doing. There is no unique existence in my mind, there is the definition, nothing else. So stop making jumps in logic and stop saying I have when I obviously haven't. And just so you know, people will not be voting based on whether you "know". They will vote on whether they now "know", so the question that people will be voting on is not "does Skept know he exists", it will be "do I know I exist". So a change in how I debate is necessary to make sure I succeed in changing the minds of the voters, and succeed in getting the winning side of the debate.