"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Short and simple i like that..... first off i would like to provide a few definitons just to make sure wer are on the same page. my justification will come after all definitions are given. "am" which merriam webster (m-w) defines as "present 1st singular of be" Then "be" is defined as "to take place : occur" by the same exact source these definitons are best definitions for 1) contexuality- these definitions are best fit for the context in which the phrase we are arguing meant 2) predictability- merriam webster is the most predictable source for a definition in this country 3) reliability- merriam webster is also one of the most reliable sources for a definiton. the country uses them in every public school in the nation Now down to the real business: i do not agree with your framework but i agree with the example you used and others like that not to be allowed. I kno it sounds confusing but your example is saying something like a picture cant exist but a painting is not an illusion it is just a painting but illusions "be". they "take place and occur" in the mind of one who does exist. they may not be permanent or exist on there own but everything and everybody was created by some higher being. And without your framework you automatically loose because if illusions "are" "was" or "will be" they have then you automatically loose Next to point out your arguments. Even if the judges were to grant you your framework you are still to loose your argument for the following reasons. ON your first argument you say that "There is no reason why I can't still be illusory, even if my thoughts are real." this argument in itself is fundamentally flawed. If you are the product of one who does exist you will not recieve thoughts. you would be an empty vessel a brainless figure that acts as if you have emotions and thoughts but really you would just be acting out of the will of ones mind. There would be no thought and thus they are not real. Secondly on the same argument you cannot prove that the illusion thinks and all logic and reason is in favor of it not thinking which you would have to prove wrong for your first argument to hold any weight. On the other hand having thoughts of your own and the ability to create is reserved only for those who exist. THought of your own cannot be given to those who dont exist because they cannot doupt what there creator tells them becuase then they are not dependent which means they are real. thoughts=doupt=real your second argument "Even if I'm perceiving this thought, there is nothing that makes this thought real." To be quite frank with you i just dont like this argument. You assume that perciving thought is the same as to "think". Descartes clearly said that "i think therefore i am" not that he percieves thought there fore he is. IF the thought is yours then you are real and that is what you are conceiding to and that is the point descartes was making and on the same point an illusion cannot recieve thoughts but acts and appears to recieve thoughts so thats another reason your point is invalid. They are puppets controlled by a mind and i think that we can all agree that puppets do not think. And to your last argument " There is nothing that makes it so the perception can't be illusory" (i like this argument) the act of percieving something automatically makes something real. I am sorry but i would be using one more definiton percieve- "to attain awareness or understanding" same justification but new contexuality arguement. this definition is most contextual because it fits best into the context of the debate. Now back to my point something that is not real or does not take place or occur cannot then attain awareness or understanding.One cannnot be truly aware of there surroundings if they do not think which i have proven illusions do not do. to be aware is to occur and be independent which are all the qualities of being a real boy. (pinnochio get it....i know it wasnt that funny i tried to hard) YOUR TURN