Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy

Who doesn't love a good Hollywood adaptation? In the Matrix, the Wachowskis panted a wonderful allegory. But within such a story there are necessary truths (see below for a further discussion of the need for "internal logical consistency"). Recall one Key Master. (As an aside, I thought the mighty individual should have used Philip K Dick's "We'll Remember It For You Wholesale" aka ... Total Recall. The ending is necessarily much more ambiguous, leading to a more powerful allusion. I encourage him to use it if he attempts the same debate again with another challenger.)As a result, there was an internal logic which allowed a greater freedom for the narrative to unfold. Thus, what is essential is a consistent narrative. The proponent of the motion "Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy" has made a bold assertion, some say he has taken the indefensible position. As such, I applaud such a brave move. But it must be noted that the debate rests upon provable truth claims, and consistency- not mere bravery- however laudable that may be.Further, it must be noted that the burden of proof rests upon the mighty individual to "prove his assertion" not merely repeat it. As a result, it must be noted that my open questions remain unanswered.1. How is Solipsism "true and real"? We understand that is his claim, but, again, repetition is not proof. My question goes unanswered.2. How is Solipsism "a philosophy proper"? Much of the history of philosophy has traditionally used "solipsism" as a reductio ad absurdum- to demonstrate a failure in one's logic. I see no compelling reason offered by the mighty individual to overturn such a historical interpretation. Perhaps, the mighty individual has a proof, but we have yet to hear it. My question goes unanswered.3. How is Solipsism "singular in excellence"? Again, my question goes unanswered.Truth be told, the might individual is forwarding a radical understanding of skeptical idealism as the "one and true philosophy". I do not disagree with the notion is "a" theoretic-logical possibility, however poorly articulated and defended. Rather, I merely ask that the mighty individual defend his assertion that solipsism possess the three qualities he asserted in the opening round.If I were to assist him, I would point out that the rhetorical power of his view comes as a counterpoint to a philosophic assertion. It is ill suited to serve as a positive assertion. If I were to use an analogy from chess, it is akin to logically checkmating an opponent- only to realise that one has counted incorrectly, and the "tempo" belongs to the side opposite.Thus, the mighty individual miscalculated in asserting a negative claim as a positive one. I would encourage the mighty individual to try again in the future but take the "con" side and challenge the one forwarding an assertion to disprove the might individual's incredulity. His chances might improve greatly with such a strategy. (As an aside, solipsism's power comes from individual reflection- not a debate which necessarily requires 1. The burden of proof 2. Other respondents (imagined or otherwise) 3. Strict logical consistency.As such, we have a repetition of unproven claim. He is the holder of the burden of proof, and what a heavy burden it is.Having taken on skeptical idealism, which is what solipsism truly is, the mighty individuals use of the external world as a source of justification for his claim is a source of great befuddlement. Clearly, we all realise that such an appeal necessarily discredits his assertion. Here we find the essential objection to his assertionThe mighty individual must show how an appeal to an external world is not self-defeating. Moreover, the hermetic logic of solipsism works only if one is asked to "disprove it". Again, it must be noted, that mighty individual is the holder of the burden- not the skeptical hearer.In addition, if it we were to grant the mighty individual the claim he is forwarding- which we are not. Then, the responsibility of providing a consistent set of assertions "within his worldview" (i.e. internal logical consistency) would be necessary for the mighty individual to win the "debate", real or imagined. The mighty individual forwarded the idea that this exchange is in fact a "debate" (I.e. round #1 stipulation). Thus, if we are to take the mighty individual at his word, then - ironically- we might not even need to disprove his skepticism- we would merely need to win the debate "within" his self-asserted possible world.There are necessary truths in possible worlds. Consistency is required.Furthering the notion of 'debate', it must be noted that presumptions exist. In my first round, I specifically made reference, and continue to do so, to the "mighty individual". The nature of a "presumption" is such that a presumption, if unchecked, becomes an agreed upon convention/ truth. So far, the mighty individual has not countered the presumption that he is "in fact" a "real person" on the opposite side of this debate. I must point out that the "burden of disproof" ( I.e. the necessary response to a presumption) rests with him. Should he not address the issue, according to the logic of a debate, we can safely assume it to be true.If the mighty individual choose to completely ignore the three unanswered questions, along with both the burden of proof (regarding his three assertions) and the burden of disproof (regarding my presumption of his actuality) ... let's say in a nifty piece of performance art, then it must be remember that even a performance has an audience, and such a performance would be judged according to how well it conforms to its own internal logic. Recall, the mighty individual called this exchange a "debate" at some point. He should be held to this assertion.I eagerly await the mighty individual's response.