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

Ok then. I suppose i should mention that my opponent agreed in the setting up of this debate to define sound as "what we humans perceive" and i suppose that's fairly immensely important :) But i suppose that definition's even a bit vague. I'll attempt to clarify: Sound as in our perception of something happening. What we hear as in our heads (if you get me? surely..) rather than the something happening. That's a fair clarification isn't it and should make sense to everyone right? We're pretty much defining sound as it is by the last bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org... "or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations." only it's just human organs of hearing in our case. and in particular the organs where the sound is finally heard, processed, liked, disliked and that kinda thing. I'm just gonna make my argument right now. It's not from super-positionalism. It's amm fairly simple given the definition.. TUF, my friend, what you hear, that sensation, is as far as you may well be concerned the end result of probably a sh1t load of organs working together to perceive some happening, if you get me? Just make sure to have a look in the direction it's coming from and get out of the way if anything's coming at you from there :) let's look at it without us: The happening occurs. The tree falls, generates a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid or gas. ;) ...that's it! Nothing is perceived by anyone. Debate won :) The question, as i'm addressing it, is very much the same question as if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to see it will anyone see it? simple question, simple answer. Now onto something else. My argument runs parallel to my opponent's..though i didn't really read all of it. I saw the problem straight away and just did my own thing. I suppose we should've drawn out much finer definitions but we didn't and here you have it.. In other words, i'm not going to argue for what my opponent wants me to. Super-positionalism or whatever it is. I wouldn't even attempt to. My mind's twisted enough from the drugs as is. So there you have it voters. We've both been arguing for completely different things, and both for what were pretty much auto-wins. Who deserves it? Here was our conversation in setting it up: TUF: Things I would like to debate. 1. Utilitarianism. Pro 2. If a tree falls in the forrest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise? Pro 3. It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. Pro 4. The united states is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue it's military objectives. Con 5. Should juveniles be subject to adult prisons? Con 6. Iran is more of a threat to the united states than North Korea. Pro/Con 7. In a democratic society, felons ought to have the right to vote. 8. Counter-insurgency is the death-knell for winning the war in afghanistan. If you don't like any on my list, please post a list of you own and I'll choose one. I like any philosophical debates, or fun debates. badger: i'll go con on 2.. though we'll have to discuss definitions.. TUF: Alright cool we can discuss them in the debate. Tell me when your ready for me to send a challenge. badger: by sound you mean what we humans perceive? TUF: correct Sh1t happens?