So the central matter under contention is whether or not modal entailments necessitate modal constitution, whereupon the reasons which people might normally or ordinarily give for the modal facts are themselves contingent, further establishing a regress of conceptual analysis, Entailing that we can't even be sure that we are making the argument. Because if we first take it that the PSR is true, which is to say everything that is the case has a sufficient reason, then it can't be the case that it is only contingently true but that it must be necessarily true. So you create a sort of foundational bedrock for justification or that by the absence of such a foundational bedrock justification becomes meaningless and futile And so it seems like you have to accept that there is something which grounds our reason for believing that the PSR is true and the only thing which can possibly secure the truth of the PSR must be found within the very structure of the PSR itself In other words, the PSR serves as its own justification for it being true, and that it is impossible to have a possible world where the PSR does not apply, as there would be no reason to even consider such a world as the existence of a world where the PSR does not hold true would be in direct contradiction with the fact that the PSR in fact is true. And so the PSR must be true. And so premise one is the PSR is true. Premise two, the PSR, if false, is self-defeating. Conclusion, the PSR is true, necessarily true, and its negation entails a contradiction.

Well, first of all, that's not even part of the argument. I'm making a claim about the PSR. The question, is the PSR necessarily true, has not yet been answered. And so, I think that you just lost a turn, and that we should move on to a different argument instead, because I think that you're already losing. If you haven't even addressed my essential claim but have instead moved to a vastly different topic that is both modally and constitutionally and myriologically irrelevant to the claim that I have actually been defending this whole time, which you've refused to even give an argument against, and which explains why you might have pivoted to a very different topic. The speaker is making their case.

So I think the answer to that question remains undetermined, but I do think that there are reasons for supporting the topic. But I myself don't think that I'm a fan of the topic as it currently stands. I would probably reform the topic, but I think that that is outside of the scope of the debate. Nevertheless, my point still stands, and I think that as long as your view does not entail modal collapse, then your view entails modal contingency and is therefore a brute commitment with no logically necessary foundation. Thank you.