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

First off, I would like to apologize to the viewers of this debate, that this debate has become so sloppy and un-organized. In my attempt to re-organize it, I will offer a road map. I will be going OFF case, ON case, and then voters. OFF CASE CON: We must be there to perceive the sound. Again, I will go by my opponents rather skewed definition. He defines sound in the third round, as a mechanical wave. Great, he can use this definition, it really doesn't change much. There's alot of spheal about auditory systems and how we hear sound. Again great. Wasn't this already established in round 2, with the organ argument? He basically defeats him here with this statement. "If a tree fell in the forest and there was nobody around, that mechanical wave wouldn't hit anyone's outer ear. .. " So he is admitting that the mechanical wave (or sound) is omitted, though there was no human to hear it. If this didn't win the debate for me, we have other things to fall on. We already know there will be no human around, as prescribed by the resolution. So basically this debate comes down to whether or not we can prove the sound still does occur according to human perception. He admits that the mechanical wave does occur. He has won this debate for me. Thankyou. "I looked in one dictionary and two encyclopedias. One encyclopedia said that sound is defined by the ear detecting (hearing) the vibrations in the air. This would mean the tree in the question would make no sound if no one is around. The other encyclopedia and the dictionary defined sound as the vibrations itself, whether or not someone is around to hear them. By this definition, the tree would make a sound even if no one was around" -David Rudd Cycleback Con: Super-positionalism "Wat" , isn't an argument. If you read my previous bit, you would know that I explained how you are arguing super-positionalism by saying a mechanical wave didn't occur. seeing as you admit it in this last round, you've given me the debate, so I guess it really doesn't matter any more. We forget that humans aren't the only ones who can hear sound. My opponent is basing his whole debate, on semantics around the word sound, and how it must be heard by a human to be a sound. Sound is a real thing. Sometimes soundwaves can be strong enough to physically effect something. This proves that sound is prescribed to be a metaphysical things as well as just a concept or a sense. Also animals can hear sounds, which makes it real as well. If there is no human around to hear the sound, but we know an animal is there to be scared away by the sound, it is still real. My opponent describes this very vaguely, which turns out to be costly when evaluating the round. ON CASE We can skip over arguments made on contention 1, seeing as there WEREN'T any. We can also extend those on contention 3, as that has literally been un-touched the whole debate. So this leaves us with 'arguments' on contention 2. Contention 2 He basically just says that a camera has its own auditory system. Yep again, we've successfully established the obvious. However it resolution applies. Topic says " If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? " A camera definitely applies as a "no one" seeing as it is an in-animate object. No where in the topic does it say anything about a camera perceiving the noise. Also the human still remained out of hearing range when the tree went down, yet according to the camera we know that the tree went down and made a sound. Thus we must absolutely look to the pro for this debate. "Many arguments are not caused by disagreement over the main ideas, but that the arguers unknowingly define terms differently from each other. Arguers may have different definitions of war, peace, work week, formal attire, animal, automobile, tall, stiff drink and sexy, even though they both assume they are using identical definitions. Once the parties mutually set the definitions (which they didn't do in the beginning), they are often surprised to discover how much they agree with each other. Many arguments, many conundrums, many philosophical debates exist simply because parties never thought to mutually define terms. " . http://www.cycleback.com... In short, the laws of Physics don't cease to exist because there is no human present. Voters for the debate should be as follows. I have followed all of my opponents definitions, and played this debate his way, and have still proven the answer to the obvious question. I have proven that sounds are a physical concept and well as just a sense in and of there selves. I have proven that we have no reason to believe the world is different outside of perception, and arguments saying so are un-founded. I have followed the rules of this debate, and read through all of my opponents argument. I have re-organized this debate, while my opponent has dealt in quotes and indirect arguments. Also my opponent refused to address alot of what I had written, and simply stopped reading some of my arguments as he even admits in round two. I have won this debate in every way you look at it.