Let me put it to you this way:
You define “prove” and we will accept that as the premise for this debate, no matter who the opponent ends up being. I desire the common definition of “prove”. I want the definition that Kriswest gives. I want the definition that you give. I want the definition a 5-year-old brings me.
That is what I mean by “prove”.
And then Carleas is going to pick one of those definitions before the debate starts, right?
“To prove” means “to furnish proof”.
Proof is “the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact” (Merriam-Webster).
“Cogent” means “appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : CONVINCING” (ibid.).
Convincing to whom? To Carleas. So what one need do is convince Carleas of either position. Well, I’m not really interested in doing that. Next definition!
Ummm, Prove: to convince someone that you are right??? Because really we can actually only use words here, not hard evidence other than an outsiders report or study. Studies do not strike me as hard evidence just more convincing of being right with more words.
For me here prove would have to be who ever is the most convincing.
Proof:
A demonstration of the truth of a claim.
If I had the time, I’d love to demonstrate that it is impossible to know for sure that anything exists. That would be the position that I would “prove.”
Unless of course, we choose to accept consistent Chrisitan presuppositions…but, then again, I’m under no impression that my oponent would be willing to do so. Therefore, I’m happy with driving him or her into complete Nihilism.
Supposing you suppose the existence of your opponent, I think you could only convince him of the contrary: something exists, as he has an experience, and even if this be a hallucination, then the hallucination exists.
I would like to make the claim that non-existence exists. My opponent would not be able to deny it without by that very fact affirming it.
Were I to debate it Sauwelios…
I’d say that you would have only proven that I could sometimes use language…you wouldn’t have proven that we have any “knowledge” of aything that “exists.”
I would approach it from an epistemological angle by demonstrating that it’s impossible to know anything at all…even if “something exists” or not.
Don’t you know what you experience?
Sauwelios,
If the answer to that question was “yes” you wouldn’t have had to ask it…
That aside,
I’d hate to further derail this thread, though, it has piqued my interest. If I were to debate it, I would point out that you wouldn’t be able to KNOW that it was “you” doing the experiencing, nor would you be able to rationally distinguish between those class of things that do exist and those class of things that do not exist…therefore, you wouldn’t be able to even say something like this: “experiences are happening…”
Such is the hubris of modern humanists. They ground reality in their own mind, not realizing that their own mind in turn lacks a worthy foundation.
Well, yes, as far as “I know” there is no knower. So if knowledge requires a subject, knowledge may not be possible.
As for derailing this thread, it seems Unreasonable has abandoned it (I suspect because he couldn’t define “proof”).
These are my definitions of “proof”.
Definitions?? But that is not what I asked for.
One can convince someone of something without demonstrating the truth thereof.
Can you demonstrate that such demonstration is at all possible?
This is my definition then. I will be waiting in the shadows until next time.
So the real assignment is to get Carleas convinced that one of the debaters is convinced of the other’s claim, right?
The whole point of it being a judged debate is that the judges ruling is taken to be the decider of whether or not a point has been proven. If it’s about developing a rigorous definition of proof and then exploring a concept until we decide whether or not that definition is met, you don’t need the debate structure at all; it will just get in your way. If it’s to be a debate, the standards of proof are decided by the judge, and relative to the standards for disproof.
Well I know this is an older post, but it looks as though no one ever took the challenge. If anyone exists, please reply to accept my challenge. I hereby formally challenge you to prove that you don’t exist.
I agree to the terms set forth in the OP.
Awaiting reply.
I think your opponent has won. 
As to the OP challenge;
Existence is defined by the ability to affect.
The prior statement exists.
Foiled again… Drats! ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Never challenge the non-existent to prove itself so. The silence can be deafening. 