Reality is no more important than Fantasy.

In closing I would first like to inform my opponent, Pro that my position as Con, does not have the BOP, nor do I have to present an argument as to why Reality is MORE important. My position only has to disprove the BoP you put forward and offer my warrants for doing so. Lol. Below is the summary of how I have demonstrated that Pro has not satisfied the Bop for his claim that " Reality is no more important than fantasy." Pro's warrants his dismissal of reality by demonstrating that in order to answer any question about the nature of reality, fantasy must be applied because reality cannot supply such answers. What Pro does not acknowledge is that the questions themselves presuppose that there is something there to be apprehended, or else the questions would never have arisen. So Pro continues to belabor under this misconception, which leads him to conclude that without fantasy (that which enables us to ponder these meanings) there would be no point to reality. This leads to the haphazard conclusion that without fantasy, we would be robotic organisms, i.e., animals who follow basic instincts while also specifying that they do not have the ability to reason (a capability that sets humans apart). He delves even further into this misguided conception and claims, worse still, that this lack of fantasy would make us no different from rocks. My response was that this is not true because despite lacking this fantasy animals still demonstrate motive or goals...and that nothing about nature is robotic. That they display an array of diverse motives via purposeful actions, so if animals are not rock-like (action-less) without fantasy, it is inconsistent to conclude that we would be (without some other proof, of course...lol). The second example he gives misconstrues the concept/function of goals, saying that fantasy alone is what establishes goals. Although goals must be conceived by the mind, a goal is something that we want realized, i.e., a result, change or occurrence. So goals cannot be separated from reality, because their apprehension necessitates the acknowledgment of a future outcome (consequence), and engagement (actions) with reality in order to be realized. Dismissing a response to my queries/concerns, Pro simply asks, the 'original why' questions, e.g., "what makes this desire to survive? What makes us have this instinct? Where does it come from? So why does instinct want to survive? Why would Evolution form to survive? what makes the motive, or instincts?". A fallacious attempt to further his warrant by assuming that if we don't know the answers, we must accept the proposed one, instead of offering proof. He reaches even further, positing that fantasy could even exist independent of reality (pure consciousness). Which is falsely concluding that because it can be employed to find meaning within reality, it must be the meaning/origin behind reality. Moreover, the origin of the motives behind nature is tangential to this debate. We have within our grasp, both the functional concepts of reality and fantasy. Reality is what exists, and fantasy, per our agreed defintion, is our non-physical perception of it. So, determining which is more important does not require the origin of nature or reality. Pro also uses quotes (sources) without realizing the tacit acknowledgements inherent in them: Descartes' " I think therefore I am" Consciousness creates reality". "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics ... without reference to conscious Consciousness, as I have said since the onset, is the awareness of self i.e., the 'I'. We cannot apprehend the self, without apprehending what the self is not, or other, or external world i.e., reality. The quotes on consciousness or the awareness of such, presupposes an awareness of reality (the other). I don't know why this reasoning seems so foriegn to Pro, especially as he has posted the quotes that assert precisely that in his closing argument..lol. "Consider this for a moment. Can you see that any physical object is bounded by "not that object"? If an object did not have any borders"that is, if it wasn"t surrounded by "not that object""it couldn"t be distinguished from everything else. In other words, it wouldn"t exist." So if we must have this contrasting /negating process to define our world (internal and external), how can we have ever come to ascertain the self without recognition of other? This is why fantasy cannot supersede reality. Pro however, has not answered this... Also I find reality versus fantasy to be a false dichotomy, because he defines it as the perception of reality, and that perception has real world consequences, so it is not the opposite but a complement. There is no way outside of consciousness because there is no way outside/opposite of reality (which would be nonexistence), because it would have to present itself in order to stand in contrast, but then it too, by definition, would exist. Lol It was fun while to lasted... Thanks for reviewing... Vote con!!!!