This House Supports Epistemological Nihilism!

I have as requested delayed my round as much as possible. As the resolution is being affirmed by my opponent, and since s/he is the one trying to prove a philosophical view point, the burden of proof falls solely on my opponent. The debate to be sure can be reduced to one question: does justified true belief exist? My opponent claims that justified true belief cannot exist, so by that logic I only need to show that some form of justified true belief exists, while my opponent must prove that no form of jusitified true belief exists. Envisage's burden is to show necessarily not justified true belief. As shown in logic to be []~T. It is worthy to remember that epistemic nihilism is the categorical denial of all knowledge. This is the burden that Envisage took upon himself. Before I begin allow me to explain the definition of knowledge. When we say that knowledge is justified true belief, we understand that knowledge is a form of belief which has been verified by the principles of objectivity, reason, and/or innate intuition. I shall not present my lines of arguments. Argument 1: Paradox of Epistemic NihilismMy opponent is attempting to argue that there is no justified true belief. He will hold that all knowledge is subjective. However the statement that there is no justified true belief is being attempted to be shown to be justified true belief. In essence my opponent is trying to prove a philosophical principle which would be valid, but if that principle would be valid, then it would be a justified true belief. Hence it is clear that my opponent's position of radical skepticism is self-refuting, and my opponent can never prove his claim, without self-refuting it. This is an important paradox which defeats my opponent's position, by my opponent's position. In logic, my opponent is saying necessarily no true belief []~T, but this principle in itself, if shown to be true would be a true belief T, therefore there is an inherent contradiction in my opponent's position. Argument 2: Ta Mathesis (Mathematics and Apodictic Thought)It is clear that all apodictic systems such as Mathematics possess not only objectivity, but also a priori truth which cannot be denied. Let us consider the Mathematical proposition which states that 7+5=11. It is simple enough to understand that this proposition is the same for all rational beings. All beings capable of Mathematical knowledge can a priori reach the conclusion of 11 when they add the concept of five to the concept of seven. Similarly one thinks of logic, consider the simple syllogism: all A is B all B is C therefore all A is C Everyone who understands the logic behing this syllogism, or attaches it with an analogy will understand that they reach the same conclusion that I did. It is universal, categorical, and rationally justified that all A will be C, if all A is B, and all B is C. In example think of this: all men are mortal, all mortals need oxygen, therefore all men need oxygen. These are all examples of justified true belief. All Mathesis which is the Heideggarian term of apodictic thought, or in simpler terms thought which follows a set of conceptual principles allows you to reach the same rational conclusions, and so justifies itself as truth. Argument 3: Analytic Knowledge Immanuel Kant understands analytic as that which is self -contrdictory to deny. Since all analytic knowledge is self contradictory to deny, it is then ex ve termini or by definition justified true belief because stating that is isn't true belief goes against itself. In example let us consider the statement: all bodies are extended. This is Kant's own example and what it means is that all bodies occupy space. Consider also the example all bachelors are unmarried. The knowledge statement that all bachelors are unmarried, is self evident because the definition of bachelors includes the concept of unmarried-ness. This is by necessity justified true belief. Other important examples for knowledge which is self contradictory to deny is: A=A or that an object is that object which it is. These statements which seem so obvious (because they are! ) are all justifiedly true. Consider also the statemtn by the (I say this only for bossy) "brilliant" writer Ayn Rand: that existence exists. This is definitely true, as it is contradictory to deny. Similarly all analytic knowledge is justifiedly true. Other examples include: orange is orange, or Ajab is a genius (haha :P). I must admit that I have been put an a disadvantage. Since I am the opposition, and do not hold any burden of proof my first round will be short. I now await Envisage's round. Thank you for reading, and I hope this proves to be a stimulating debate.