I know I exist

0: I have the definition of existence within this debate, I do not have a personal view of something like that. Nor will I state personal opinions. That is not a debate. That is whining. 2: I found holes in your logic (and yet you say I am the one ignoring you.) did you just not see them? 4: It explains the word know well, it does not explain existence to a good level for the reasons I said in the other paragraph. You know the word is the word, you do not know the attributes or possibilities within it. Words mean nothing without something to back them up, in a book, there is emotion, in a scientific paper, there is evidence. The definition of a word however has only logic to back it up. There is no logic in two words if they both reference each other heavily. It makes no logical sense, and therefore the words have bad definitions. This is the greatest logical fallacy I have ever seen in my time debating here, and that is a fairly long time. "You say the definition of existence is not correct, and say "There is no unique existence in my mind, there is the definition, nothing else." in 6. You admit existence in your mind is not correct. Thus all your arguments about existence are not correct." this is wrong in so many ways I now think I might have thought of you as more intelligent then you were. Because the definition is bad, I instead believe that there is no way to define existence currently because we do not have any idea what "non-existence" might seem to be. As I said, because the definition is sloppy, I think there is no true definition that works currently. 5: I do doubt it, so I don't know it is true. You seem to like twisting words to attempt to seem smart. Just make a worthwhile argument. I am literally debating non-existence right now and doing well enough that you have to try to twist my words just to have a chance. That is truly sad. I am not clouding fault, implications or not you should have asked rather then said I did it, that is just common sense. If you are confused ask. (and how does adding a / make anything clearer anyways?) I thought you would understand something so simple. Read into what I said before you pick it apart. When I doubt a persons words, I do not doubt that the person said them, I doubt the truthfulness of them. I could easily call that a straw man fallacy with what you attempted to do there. So don't try twisting words in any other debates. You do not look smart, you look like you are scrounging to win. And why is it that when I point out a contradiction (the fact that the definitions need each other) you pretty much say "because" for a lack of a better word (it is what it is would be another way of putting it), yet when you point out a non-existent contradiction I have to put up a paragraph? That seems like quite the double standard. 6: Once again you are assuming quite a few things here. One, there are many people who define existence as different (as with other broad words), and this makes the definition even less clear. Two, once again, because existence is such messed up term, there is no good definition for it, so I say that I don't know what existence is (along with everyone else, including you.) Are you just commenting for no reason? I already said that. I have sat through you twisting words in a fairly simple debate for a while now. So if we debate again: 1. Create a better question. 2. Don't twist words. And 3. just less rude (I have done the same admittedly. But there was no other way I was going to make a suitable argument if I let you keep twisting my words and challenging my intelligence.)