its more likely than not that no one can know anything

I don't understand much of what Pro said in his last round. To clarify what it is that we are debating, I revisit Pro's opening post: . .. it's a debate about what position is more likely to be true. is definitively knowing something a possibility or not? i will try to convince everyone that it is more likely that we cant know anything . .. Some things I do know: 2+2=4. I know this. There is no doubt, no way to be wrong. I also know this: I believe that 2+2=4. I know my own state of mind. There is no room for error. I think, therefore I am. There is no possible rebuttal. There are things we know. If I understand Pro's position, I disagree with it. This is another state-of-mind issue. I know my own state of mind. Either the rule of the excluded middle is right, or it is not right. There's no way around that one. Either it's true that there are things that we know, or it's not. That one is also irrefutable. So, there are some things that we do know for a fact. Given that, let's look back at the resolution: : . .. it's a debate about what position is more likely to be true. It is definitely true that I believe that 2+2=4, therefore it is more likely true than not. : is definitively knowing something a possibility or not? I definitely know that I believe 2+2=4, therefore it is possible for me to know that I believe 2+2=4. : i will try to convince everyone that it is more likely that we cant know anything . .. In fact, some things are known. Therefore, Pro's claim---the claim that it is likely that we can't know anything---is false. The resolution is refuted. I not only believe that the resolution is refuted, I know that I believe the resolution is refuted. -Okay, we've dealt with the resolution, and the resolution is refuted. Let's procede to Pro's second round post. : being 99.9% sure of something does not mean that being 100% sure of something is possible. This is true. But I never said it wasn't true. I never even suggested that it wasn't true. Moreover, our ability to distinguish 99% from 100% is in no sense a refutation of any of my arguments. : "Pro's first argument is false because some of our justified beliefs are true. Therefore, some of our justified beliefs are knowledge. ": you are implying something like the following:: 1. X is true. : 2. Bob is 99.9% sure that X is true. : conclusion: Bob is 100% sure that X is true. No, that's not what I said (or implied). I used the JTB (justified true belief) test of knowledge. Pro did not offer a competing definition of knowledge. He did not dispute the JTB definition at all. He dropped that issue, effectively conceding it. If knowledge is justified true belief, then, if I believe X, and, if X happens to be true, thenthe only factor left in play is whether the belief in X is justified. Let's substitute "the mailman came" for X: Suppose I see bootprints leading up to our walk thru the snow. They lead to the mailbox, and then back down the sidewalk and off to the next house. I also observe that our outgoing mail is gone, and our new mail has arrived. Now, based on this warrant, this justification, I conclude that the mailman came. I have, then, the belief and the justification. If the mailman did in fact come, then my belief is knowledge, even if he came thru the back door or dangled from a helicopter. There is a three prong test of knowledge, and all of the prongs are satisfied. : just because we use the word "know" loosely in everyday lifeWe aren't always being loose. Sometimes we actually know things. : "Pro has undertaken to prove that it is a fact that the resolution is more likely true than false. ": -no i said the opposite: "this is not a debate about whether or not i can prove that proving is impossible, it's about : what position is more likely". I can't tell what he's trying to say here, but the resolution is clearly refuted. Extend my arguments.