Dualism is likely true.

There are several problems with my opponents case. Most notably, since burden of proof is shared he must offer a argument in favour of physicalism or else lose the debate as well. My opponent has not given us a single reason to accept physicalism.Argument from Reason: Did I just win?My opponent has, at least on the face, seemed to concede the validity of the Argument from Reason. Now as per the rules my opponent has lost this debate. The moment he concedes this physicalism falls along with Naturalism. Why is this a problem for my opponent? Because my opponent agreed upon starting this debate that he was arguing for physicalism, see the rules. While my opponents assertion maybe true, it is simply put a red herring. I don't need to refute any other thesis other than physicalism. My opponent clearly has lost this debate with concession of the Argument from Reason lets move on to the arguments from qualia.Zombie Argument: Does my opponent know what I am supposing here?My opponent is arguing that my case says since Zombies are possible, physicalism is false assuming that physicalism is false. This is wholely inaccurate and anyone reading this debate should scoff at the very nature of this argument. My opponent clearly doesn't understand the argument from metaphysical conceivablity, I was saying because metaphysically conceivability entails possibility. My opponent argues that zombies are conceivable without contradiction on physicalism. That validates P2 and he agrees with P1. Chalmers argument since it is valid from modus tollens makes physicalism false. My opponent has fundementally conceded the truth of premises and yet denies the conclusion but the argument is logically valid. He has not accused me of any formal fallacies. While he argues that physicalism supports the idea of zombies, he accuses me of presupposing a problem which isn't there, he proposes its consistant even. But if he concedes zombies are possible and he maintains physicalism is true then it naturally entails(from Chalmers argument) a contradiction. Therefore my opponent must concede the objection and lose the debate or deny zombies after conceding their validity previously.My opponent accuses me of circular argumentation again, but this is false and misleading. My opponent has given me accusation that simply because I do not know doesn't mean Mary wouldn't know. I am not at all suggesting that, there is simply nothing in physical facts or physical descriptions of the world that tell us sensation of color. Or what it looks like for that matter. My opponent is saying the equvilent of "Your not a blind person, how do you know that if they didn't know all the physical facts about seeing, they wouldn't know what its like to see" its because nothing in physical facts or descriptions tell us what seeing is exactly like. My opponent attacks P2 of the argument with unconvincing refutation. My opponent has not brought a case to the table. And I really want to make my argument longer but my opponent hasn't given me a case to refute. This seems rather unfair since we have a shared burden-of-proof. My opponent may make a case next round but remember voters I only get one round to refute his case if he does and never get to respond to his answers. Please consider voting in the affirmative today. http://www.youtube.com...