I Don't Exist

Pro says "I clearly laid out how this debate was to work and Con did not follow my guidelines. For this, Con should be marked with misconduct" It was not my intent to not follow the guidelines, it was my understanding that in the absence of any argument to support a probability argument for Pros existence I as the Con would have the default burden of having to prove with certainty Pros existence. Maybe Pro could find it is their heart to forgive me ? Its with great regret we are all not perfect like God................and maybe Pro. "Things will be made more simple for my simple-minded competitor. Con's burden shall be shifted to prove certainty rather than prove probability and the rest of the debate shall be back and forth with rebuttal arguments on the same issue rather than have two parts" I thank Pro for making things more simple. As it has been said, complication beyond necessity is deception. Pro says "For it is not Con's job to prove that Pro exists but to prove that "I" exists. After-all, the definition of I is "The entity who started this debate.". In-order for Con's argument to have any ground, it must first be proved that the person debating right now is the same person who started the debate." When Pro made these claims, they were referring to themselves as the "I" This is semantics over Pro vs I. I will reword my first argument then....... 1) Only something that exists can make a claim about existence. 2) The entity known as "I" is making a claim about existence. 3) Therefore "I" exists. Pro says "in-order for Con's argument to have any ground, it must first be proved that the person debating right now is the same person who started the debate." Do I ? The claims made by Pro as the "I" were made in a temporal context. (the past) Lets look at Pros existence in two different temporal contexts, the past and the present Context 1 in the past 1) In the past Pro has claimed they do not exist 2) Only something that had existed can makes claims of existence 3) Therefore Pro has existed Context 1 in the present 1) Pro claims they do not exist 2) Only something that exists can make claims of existence 3) Therefore Pro exists Now Pro claims lack of continuation between the past Pro and the present Pro. But so what ? The argument only applies to its respective time reference. If Pro wants to only reference the past, the argument stands. If Pro wants to only reference the present then the argument is still the same To demand that the past and present be the same is a contradiction, if the past was the same as the present in the same time reference then it would cease to be the past. As it has been said time (past/present/future) is what stops all events happening together. Pro as the "I" claims about existence is an event in time. The argument it is........... 1) Pro as the entity know as "I" makes a claim about existence (whether in the past or present) 2) Only something that exists can make claims about existence (whether in the past or present) 3) Therefore Pro as the I exists (whether in the past or present) At the very least, it has been proven Pro as the "I" exists (in a past time reference). Therefore the claim "I don't exist" (which was made in the same past time reference) is proven false. I Look forwards to Pros........or should I say the entity known as "I" response.