Non-existence

[Jon Paul]

it doesn't matter in the slightest what the solipsist claims (we all know that making a claim means sod all unless it's supported by evidence),

That is a non-argument. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the realist claims.

Because in fact, the realist claims more than the solipsist.

I have no self-evidence that I have the property of conscious, only that I'm conscious.

It's immediately self-evidential that you are conscious. There is no evidence that it is a property of anything; there is only the conscious experience of it as a state, and the knowledge that it depends on the brain. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that the brain depends on consciousness, or that the brain causally necessitates consciousness.

---

These do not qualify as verifiable evidence because the same system of reasoning has been used to argue for other things that you do not believe in

The arguments all reach the conclusion of a transcendent God, who transcends the universe and everything in it, including space, time, and matter, which I do believe in, as a theist. The arguments cannot be used to support anything other than this, nor are they intended to do so. For instance, no where does the argument support the notion of FSM or pink unicorns.

So because someone believes, for no apparent reason (absolute bullshit BTW), it counts as evidence ...

No, that is not what it states. It states that a basic belief is a belief which is not inferred from any other belief, like "I think therefore I am", and a properly basic belief is a belief which is not inferred from anything else, and is self-evident and incorrigible to the person who holds it, again like, "I think therefore I am". Unless you are willing to dispute the truth of "I think therefore I am", you have no reason to dispute proper basicality.