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

Contention 1: Superposition arguments are illogical given human belief. http://www.youtube.com... For those of you who don't know what superposition is, please look to the video link I have provided. Superposition is a quantum mechanics/ Metaphysics term. The video is kind of corny, but it entails the main arguments someone from an opposing standpoint to the topic would hold. To get straight to the point fast forward the video to about 4:30. What this prospects says, is that basically, without human perception of a concept, all things un-perceived are veiled and mystery. So while the example in the video may be over the top, it still shows how the universe is freelance, while not under human perception. My argument to this, is that all we have IS human perception and relevant beliefs of concepts based on what we see, hear, and do. All we know is what is what we perceive, or experience. Arguments for this are unfounded, and illogical because we do not have any popular human conception to dis-place that such things would happen outside of our perception. Thus the Affirmative Constructive acts as a side constraint to the Negative Constructive, in so far as proving what, happens out side of human perception, is unfounded. For example: We humans know what the physical form of a pencil looks like. What superpositionalism says is that we know that we don't know a pencil doesn't change into a sausage when it's behind us, or out of our line of sight. This argument suggests a proposal be made with lack of evidence, given that we have no evidence that it in fact doesn't happen. However, this also is un-true, as I will prove in contention 2. http://www.spectacle.org... "If y=tree falling and x=sound generated, how would you put into an equation that x is true regardless of the medium of translation?" http://www.physicsforums.com... For a more specific and physics-oriented explanation of the concept, please look to this link. http://paws.kettering.edu... Contention 2: Human technology, IE alternative humans perception. Given the 1 AC side constraint, let's go to what we DO know. Human technology proves this statement true. Let's assume a non-living, soul-less, item, is a part of nature. So in this case, a piece of modern technology, a video camera. If we prop a video camera next to a tree that seems likely to collapse, leave for a few days, then come back to see the tree is on the ground, our first instinct is to check our footage. Indeed when viewing this footage, we find absolute evidence of the tree falling, which then enters into our perception, making the concept very real. We hear the sound, and then know, that this incident, actually happened. Next alternative humans perception. The topic excludes alternative person from the debate through the use of the word "No one" bridging to the word "around". So we know that no humans can be around to hear the sound. This implies that human perception is needed to make the sound. So if I perceive a sound will be made, based on experience of hearing this sound in the past, I know for a fact that the tree does in fact make a sound. http://www.physicsforums.com... Contention 3: Knowledge of tree decay, proves fallen. Thus a noise. We know, when a tree is up-rooted, is loses the ability to grow. We have evidence proving when an object falls, it makes a noise. So we know that if this tree fell, it made a noise. So again, if I go see this tree, leave, then come back, and it is in a different position, laying on the ground, dis-connected from stump, how do I know that it fell? I look at this fallen tree, remember it, and come back a month later. The tree has lost most of it's leaves,has fungi and other signs of decay. I know that the only way this tree could have achieved this much dis-solve, is if it had fallen, or broken from its original state of being. Given that falling objects knowingly make noises when they fall, we have to assume that the tree still made a noise, even though no humans were around to here it. http://www.lantratraining.co.uk... To conclude, Super-positionalism fails because it is founded off of information we know we don't know. How do we debate on something we simply don't know? We have to make assumptions off of previous know logic of human perception, which in turn proves that a sound will indeed be made, even if we do not hear it. Given the logic and reasoning I have provided, I strongly encourage you all to vote PRO. I look forward to seeing my opponents response. Alternative source(s): Movie, and book "Down the rabbit hole: What the bleep do we know?"