Solipsism and Debate.

[DanieltheDragon]

SOLIPSISM

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing;

This can creep up in a variety of ways in debate. Most specifically when an individual has a hard time supporting their claims. It is a tactic to shift burden away from answering a question and redirecting to attack an opponents ideas.

An example.

Person 1 =1 Person 2 =2

1 Holds claim X
2 holds claim Y

X=2+C
Y= (X= n/a)

1. X is true because C exists
2. What is C?
1. C is C
2. What is the reason for accepting C
1. We can't prove anything why would you make me prove C
2. Well I can't accept X since you can't prove C
1. You can't know that C doesn't exist
2. If I can't know C does or does not exist what value is X?
1. Y is false because you can't disprove C


I am sure there are countless variations of this. Solipsism as a concept has value. Just not in debate. If we take the stance that all we can know is our self then nothing can be known and any debate because null.

It is not a debate starter it is a debate ender. Once a solipsistic argument is made there is nowhere for the debate to go. It might seem like a clever tactic, but I urge folks to avoid it. It doesn't just end your opponents argument it ends your own arguments as well.

[Bust Nak]

The problem is in the insistence that the evidence be limited to the second mans ability to verify it empirically.

Why is that a problem? Do you regularly accept claims that are beyond your ability to verify empirically?