Freeman's Debate Tournament round 1: TUF V.S. Badger

Seeing as given the reubuttal, structure was pretty much thrown out the window, we will follow this debate through my my opponents structure. First I will go over his arguments, then go back over mine. HIS CASE The definition for sound, as insisted upon by my opponent, is what is percieved by humans. Thus we must evaluate this debate on the human perception of sound. My opponent attempts to make a clear distinction of the difference between sound, and what is happening. However, really is there a difference between the two? In order for us to be able to percieve the said sound, musn't something first "happen" such that the sound can be percieved? Really, if we look at what he is saying, whether he thinks so or not, he is arguing super-positionalism. In order for us to perceive the sound, a certan action must happen. Given that we know the action based on experience, and results, we know that a sound will emit from the falling object. But we know that we don't know the tree is really falling without our awareness. Super-positionalism. Also let's remember that were defining the words from the con from wikipedia. However, the fact remains, that there really isn't a difference between percieved sound, and what is actually happening because we know that something must first happen in order to hear the sound. Moving on. My opponent talks about sound being pursuaded by "a bleep load of human organs" (you can fill in the bleep). That's great, again we can argue what we know. We know we are arguing human perception, which again, is what we must evaluate this debate on. If organs provide a human with the ability to percieve such actions, then we know that it is still human perception of known results all the same. Andnow the last little bit my opponent enstrangles. "The happening occurs. The tree falls, generates a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid or gas. Nothing is perceived by anyone. Debate won." I appolagize, but it really isn't all that simple. What we are arguing ifa sound (according to human perception) would still occur without the human there. Without the human there, oviouly no sound can be perceived by one human. However, what we need to argue is if that sound does still occur. I understand my opponent didn't read the remainder of my argument, however, that puts him in a bad place. Because as I said in my contention 2, without a human there, we know the sound will still be percieved via camera, or recorder. No human was around to hear the noise, yet is still occured according to human perception, thus we have enough to evaluate the round on. MY CASE I'm normally not one to focus heavily on dropped arguments, but I'm afraid given the circumstances, it is almost neccesary. C1: Super-positionalism arguments are unfounded. While my opponent claims to not be arguing this, he in fact is. Super-positionalism is a claim to an action happening, or acting in freelance when not in our awareness. What he fails to realize, is that without our perception, if a tree is taking actions not relevant to the minds eye of knowledgable results, he is arguing this very thing. So if we are claiming a tree doesn't make a noise outside of our awareness he is arguing super-positionalism. Again, my contention 2 was untouched as well. C2: I have proven that outside of human awareness the happening and the noise will still take place inside human awareness via video camera or recorded. These items are lifeless, soul-less, essentially part of nature. We can look at the results of said actions without us even being there. This is a huge contention that should have been argued, but wasn't, thus basically ensuring me a win. And last, my contention 3. C3: knowledge of decay proves a once standing tree has fallen. We kno that actions provide results, thus we know that when the tree fell it made some noise. Human perception, knew the tree before it fell, continues to witness it decay and die, which proves that said sound must have happened, and that the tree did indeed fall indicting a noise. We have to drag through and exted all of my arguments made, seeing as literally none of them were argued. The voter for this round should be based on what we do know, and not what is unknown to us. We know that falling objects produce sound, and arguments against this are unfounded as I have proven. Thus I strongly urge you, the voters, to vote pro. Thankyou.