Humans cannot prove anything other than their own existence.

I will start by debunking my opponent's claims. My Opponent: "Yes. What you don't understand is that when new discoveries are made the person is usually allowed to name them right there. If you want to define something which is blue as red go ahead. But you are wrong." My opponent's basic belief is things are as they appear. Meaning we can define something as we wish and it somehow by the Grace of God be that way. For example, one day I sit down at my telescope and discover a new planet far beyond Neptune. The planet to me appears to have a blue and white atmosphere, similar to that of Uranus and Neptune. Since Uranus and Neptune are both cold planets, I define that this planet is also cold. My work gets published in textbooks and websites and it is pretty much soon understood that this new planet is cold. Well, 100 years later we actually find out that the blue and white atmosphere of this planet is actually water and clouds, and the average surface temperature is actually 150 degrees Fahrenheit. So, I defined something to be, does that make it right? No. Similarly, just because we define the grass to be green. By no way, does that actually prove that its green. It only appears to be green, we actually have no way to prove it to be green. Which is what this whole debate is about. My Opponent: "It's a flaw to have a different belief? No. A belief has NOTHING to do with the senses. Neither does solving arguments. They are not flaws, they are disagreements. A flaw would imply something is wrong. There is nothing wrong. Just one person wants to destroy the other and in retaliation they want to destroy them." It's a flaw to have a different belief? Yes, at least, in your world. Since you are an atheist, in your utopia of a planet, the belief of a God would not exist, everyone would be an atheist. You have DEFINED it in your own personal world that believing in a God is flawed, otherwise, you would belief in God. You've set yourself up quite nicely. My Opponent: "What I don't understand is you imply that Human's exist in the quote above, and you are Human, so you exist. As I am Human, I exist. You are saying everything basically exists. I don't understand why you are arguing non-existence when you are saying all these things exist." My claim, as the debate title states, I cannot PROVE other human's existence. Which so far, your only argument is that if we define something to be so, it is. Which is maybe the largest fallacious argument I've ever seen. My Opponent: "You believe in God, it says so in your profile. You believe magical fairy beings exist, but you don't think me right in front of you, doesn't exist? Are you retarded? Seriously, if you're going to argue this point, at least try to get into the role. Just by looking at you and seeing all of who you are I know that you believe we exist. It's kinda self-defeating." The debate is not centered around belief, it is centered around proof. I have no proof for the existence of God, or do I have any proof of your existence. I just believe. Maybe I do believe you exist, that doesn't make me right. I have no proof of your existence. My opponent: "Because we have defined our existence as so." Here we go again with the "definition" thing. It holds no water whatsoever, just because humans collectively say something is so, that doesn't make it that way. That is a very fallacious argument. My Opponent: "How about this. You think unless we are all powerful and all knowing we absolutely cannot prove anyone else's existence. What you are saying is that in order for us to existence we must be a God-like status. It's a call to perfection. Not only a logical fallacy, but you are implying since we obviously can't be like that, you are implying that we can't possibly ever exist. It's illogical." Yes, I believe that in order to prove anybody else's existence, we would have to be at some God-like level. However, this is far from illogical. Where is it illogical? Is it illogical that we can't achieve this God-like status? Well, isn't that a flaw? Meaning that humans are flawed, meaning that I've won this debate (sorta-kinda). How is it a logical fallacy? How can the truth be false? Cause all I'm telling is the truth, my opponent doesn't seem like he can handle it. My opponent: "You have still failed to reason why our senses are fallible. You haven't shown anything why." The following link exposes just one of the flaws in our senses, sight to be specific. 1) http://www.whatjamiefound.com... My Opponent: "Basically what my opponent is trying to say is that we don't exist because I can't prove you exist." No, I'm saying I can't prove you exist. Which is only helping my cause, because the debate title is: Humans can't prove anything other than their own existence. Thank you. My Opponent: "We make mistakes unto each other, but that's not a flaw. It's a learning experience." The opposite of being flawed is being perfect. My opponent argues that we are not flawed. Therefore, we must be perfect. However, my opponent says in the above quote that we are flawed, because we learn. In order to be not flawed, hence perfect, we wouldn't have to learn anything, meaning we would have no learning experiences. Also, my opponent's earlier claim that we have to be promoted to a perfect status in order to prove the existence of anyone else, he debunked his own arguments. He basically said that we aren't perfect, and since in order for us not to be perfect, we must be flawed. Meaning he is wrong and I am right. --MY CLOSING ARGUMENTS-- I have done what I set out to do. I have made it quite clear that we can't prove anything. My opponent only helped this claim by saying we are not perfect, meaning flawed. So, how can a flawed being come up with the perfect answer. Quite simply, they can't. My opponent's fallacious claim that definition is truth, is so repulsively idiotic that it causes my eyes to bleed. I mean, come on, definition is truth? Yeah right. VOTE PRO!!! Con admitted humans we're flawed, which allowed me to win. GIVE ALL 7 TO PRO!