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

I hope my opponent accepts, since I know that he is a big fan of Descartes' works, he seems to want people he knows to debate him on here, and I figured I'd give him a topic he should know about.

If he accepts, I'll put forth my opening argument after he makes any statements he wishes to make.

(I put this under the religion category because there is no category for philosophy.)

Hello. Thank you for proposing this debate for my sake. As you might have guessed, I am a fan of Descartes work not only because he was a revolutionary in his own rights, but also for his Christian appeal that he would back up with reason.

As always, some terms need to be defined.
Merriam-Webster defines:

flaw as: "an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness <vanity was the flaw in his character> <a flaw in the book's plot>"

fundamental as: "serving as an original or generating source : primary"

is as: "Third person singular present indicative of be."

(And, no, I wasn't being facetious in defining is, it will be important later)

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's debate, shall we?

I will prove through decisive knowledge and reason alone that this resolution is wrong.

"The phrase "I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum)" (Or I doubt, therefore I am, {dubito ergo sum} which was changed in order to please the Roman Catholic church) is not used in Descartes's most important work, the Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it.

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any has survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?

"But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I {,} too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I {,} too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, {I think, therefore} I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)

Obviously, Descartes had his intention of relaying to the masses why he BELIEVES he exists, not why one must exist. You may argue that he uses himself as a reference but it is safe to assume that he literally meant himself.

Once again, thank you for this debate and good luck,
-EG

Don't run a semantics argument. That's lame, and it's avoiding arguing the topic. And it is facetious to define "is".

However, for my framework, the being that this line of think is actually supposed to prove the existence of can't be an illusion. It must be the actual being.

The entire idea of "I think therefore I am" summed up is basically: the fact that my thoughts exist prove that I exist. I could not have thoughts if I don't exist.

This is wrong for two main reasons.

1.) Why can't an illusion have thoughts? Descartes doesn't actually prove the existence of any being. You could still be an illusion, even if you are perceiving thoughts. For example: "I" might "be" someone else when I am dreaming, and "I" might have thoughts in this dream. However, this does not mean that this "being" that I "am" in the dream is real. It is still an illusion. There is no reason why we can't be illusions in "real" life, and still have thoughts. There's your first fundamental flaw.

2.) This does not prove that the thoughts are not an illusion. In order for Descartes' arguments to hold any weight, he must be able to prove that the thoughts that one perceives are not illusory. If the thoughts of a "being" are illusory, then it follows that the "being" itself is illusory.

Since "I think therefore I am" is an absolute statement, yet these two reasons keep it from being absolutely true, the statement is fundamentally flawed.

Thank you for your rebuttal.
First off, I must examine a few points. Then, I shall provide a reason as to why it is important to define "is" Or rather, I will in my last round.

1)
"Don't run a semantics argument. That's lame, and it's avoiding arguing the topic."
The semantics of this debate are no less valid than an abrupt one as it is purely a philosophical one. I am permitted to view all spectrums of debate unless given an ultimatum or having a fact-based debate.

2)
"Why can't an illusion have thoughts? Descartes doesn't actually prove the existence of any being. You could still be an illusion, even if you are perceiving thoughts."

My opponent attempts to say that you CANNOT prove existance, producing a rather Nihilistic point of view. Debating that Descartes believe he, himself existed as a whole was only one part to his philosophy.

Rene Descartes once said from his famous book "Meditations, Objections, and Replies" that if one were to be a creation of something without actual existance, That which the creator made the subject "illusion" if you will, with would exist.
For example: A painter paints a portrait. The portrait is made of paint. The paint is real but the man the portrait portrays is not.
Descartes related this to one considered mad. If a man believes he is a king, but is a pauper, or believes he is dressed in "purple", as stated in M.O.R., then one would call him mad. But the message he attempted to relay was that they believed they existed as something seperate, so why can't they have been?

3)"2.) This does not prove that the thoughts are not an illusion. In order for Descartes' arguments to hold any weight, he must be able to prove that the thoughts that one perceives are not illusory. If the thoughts of a "being" are illusory, then it follows that the "being" itself is illusory."
I have already provided evidence to support that a semantics-based case should be sufficient but I shall attempt to squeeze on refutation out for this point.

Thoughts are never specified as illusory. In fact, Merriam-Webster defines
thought as: "to form or have in the mind"
To have something in mind would obviously give evidence to the argument that thoughts are not illusory, rather, manifested as real.

And for this debate to even be valid, we must assume that humans are real. What we are debating is that through thinking/doubting existance, we must exist. Please, stick to the initial resolution.
If your argument were to work, you must say in the resolution:
""I think therefore I am" and existance itself is questionable/fundamentally flawed."
That would be the most logical resolution to fit your case.

4)
Descartes, allowing the semantics of his belief in his own existance, could not have been false. Having an opinion with no definitive truth behind it is part of human nature. Therefore, to say "Cogito ergo sum" is flawed, you are saying basic human natures, opinions, and lives are flawed. That being said, you believe one man's opinion on something indefinitive is flawed, but prove to me how the flaw is evident.

For the reasons presented to you, I urge you, by logic, to vote in Negation of this resolution.

Thank you,
-EG

Do you even know what we're debating?

First of all: don't run semantics. Disprove me using logic, not biased definitions. Futhermore, this is an "ultimatum". "I think therefore I am" is an ultiamte and absolute statement. saying that it is flawed is an ultimate and absolute statement.

Second, defining "is" is totally facetious. And you can't say that it will be important in your last round. Why? Because I won't be able to respond to it. That's bringing up new arguemtns when your opponent can't respond. That's an illegal move in debate.

And quit trying to strawman my argument.

And as for your argument that thoughts can't be illusory by definition, first, your definition doesn't make it so thoughts can't be illusory. An illusion can form in the mind.

And now, from dictionary.com, here's 11 different definitions of thought:

1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work.
5. a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her.
6. meditation, contemplation, or recollection: deep in thought.
7. intention, design, or purpose, esp. a half-formed or imperfect intention: We had some thought of going.
8. anticipation or expectation: I had no thought of seeing you here.
9. consideration, attention, care, or regard: She took no thought of her appearance.
10. a judgment, opinion, or belief: According to his thought, all violence is evil.
11. the intellectual activity or the ideas, opinions, etc., characteristic of a particular place, class, or time: Greek thought.

None of them make it so thoughts can't be illusory.

Now, my opponent's arguemnt didn't make sense. I don't think he even knows what he's talking about. But here's the basic idea:

Descartes tries to prove his own existence because he wouldn't be able to have thoughts if he wasn't real. This is all that "I think therefore I am" implies. I'm not trying to disprove existence, in fact, there obviously is existence, even if everything is an illusion, because the illusion still exists. But everything that the illusion represented doesn't. It's like the painting exmple my opponent gave you: the paint aexists, but not what the paint represents.

So, I can still be an illusion, even with thoughts. All "I think therefore I am" proves is that there are thoughts. I can still completely be an illusion.

Furthermore, since the thoughts can still be an illusion, Descartes is wrong on two levels.

Finally, my opponent is trying to say that Descartes can't be wrong because it was his opinion that he existed. Well, i have no doubt that he believed that he existed. But Descartes didn't say, "I think that I think therefore I am". That's not what we're debating. He made an absolute claim that existence can be proven on an individual level. The point is that his reasoning for this proof is fundamentally flawed, as it does not take into account the idea of a few things be illusory. "I think therefore I am" proves nothig, not even on an individual level.

Well, Let's cross examine these definitions, I'll start with number 1:

Merriam Webster defines:
body as: "a mass of matter distinct from other masses <a body of water> b: something that embodies or gives concrete reality to a thing; also : a sensible object in physical space"

reality as: "the quality or state of being real" {not illusory}/ "something that actually exists "

Antonyms for reality: "belief, fantasy, hypothesis, imagination, theory"
as given by:

Defining using M-W again:

fantasy as: "obsolete : hallucination"

Hallucination as: "an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion"

delusion is, as stated in M-W, synonymous to: "illusion"

We see now that the process of thinking leads to existance. Also, through extensive processes, we may prove my opponent's belief of thought being illusory is false as well due to the examples he so aptly provided for me. I have refuted this point and insist that you concede to the logic.

As per my second contention, I must drop it. I realised very quickly how illogical it sounded. The purpose of defining "is" would have gone with my second contention and thereby, I see only one contention left which I have proven and refuted to conclude:

"I think therefore I am" is not fundamentally flawed and, through definition (as that was my opponent's refutation) leads to existance.

Thank you to my opponent and the judges. I urge you to vote Con.

Thanks,
-EG

Um... Your definitions didn't prove anything. Throwing out definitions doesn't do anything. Provide a logical link. Seriously, I missed the entire point of how those definitions proved your case. You really need to work on clarification.

Actually, I'm now worried that some voters will actually understand your useless definitions and vote CON because I was too confused to actually refute them.

Anyway, you still haven't refuted this idea: I can still be an illusion, even if I have thoughts. Think about thinking as just another sense. Just because I can smell doesn't mean I'm real. It doesn't even mean that the smell is real. Same idea with thoughts. Just because I have a thought doesn't mean I'm real, and it doesn't mean the thought is real. This idea has NEVER BEEN REFUTED by my opponent.

"I think therefore I am" fails to prove existence on an individual level, even when you consider my opponent's useless definitions.

Please vote PRO.

Thank you, again for this debate and good luck. I want the judges to vote for the best debator, as always.

The fact of the matter is, you gave me definitions to choose from and, taking those definitions, I proved that existence is proven through "I think therefore I am." My opponent has refused to refute my points and does not appear to even understand my defense, therefore, you vote CON.

Thanks,
-EG