If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound

Observations 1. In the beginning of Round 2, Pro graciously seemed to have no disputes for the definitions for the word "sound". I've explained in Round 2, the reasons for providing extra definitions for "Sound". Now Pro is accusing me that I've seem to concede in this debate, however, it is totally untrue. 2. Next Pro states that," the greater half of this debate have been conceded" by me in-fact it is the other way around, which I leave readers and voters to decide. 3. Pro seems to have lot of confusion between "Real" world and "Dream" (non-existing) world. 4. Pro's Sources in Round 2, [1] I agree,[2] Broken,[3] Unrelated In Round 3, [1] Broken,[2] Broken,[3] Broken,[4] Broken,[5] Not sure how it is related Rebuttals "It becomes clear that my opponent simply does not understand the arguments I have presented". - Pro If I did not understood your statements then how was I able to refute. The point is that we only experience mental phenomena. Physical trees, are not mental phenomena. Thus, we do not experience physical trees. - Pro I've already said,"Trees exist in this physical world",Billions of living creatures experienced physical trees. It's just like saying, No living creatures ever saw a tree neither experienced, How can we believe that. "Trees" are the sole reason many living beings including human beings exist as trees supply oxygen. [1] Of course, there still is a sense in which we experience "trees." However, the trees we experience in our mind, only exist there, and do not exist in physical reality. - Pro Okay, If trees we experience in our mind and exists only in our mind, "How are we visually experiencing it and able to sense all its properties. Therefore "trees" are real and does exist in physical reality. But note, that each of these factors is an internal mental phenomena.- Pro Again, I'd like to say that,"Human Brain visualises any object and stores the information", Thus if we see again the same object, "Brain interprets the message and thus we are able to recognise certain object in macro seconds. This I do expect as "internal mental phenomena" and refuse to accept that it is only "internal mental phenomena" what we are experiencing it. This is interesting. How can something internal, and of a mental nature, have anything in common with something physical and non-mental? They are of a different nature, and cannot be compared. In fact, the physical world, being in its true nature, imperceptible, cannot be compared, precisely because it is imperceptible! - Pro I think I made it clear how internal and of a mental nature is related to physical nature in above statements.What we experience is stored in mind and when necessary we recall and take actions which are necessary. Though many experiences may just be imagination and disregarding all dreams, all physical nature we experience we store in mind. Every person whose brain functioning is normal, who experience physical nature and know what exactly it is. This is how I mean by Internal mind constructs. Notice that my opponent has not even defined what "tree" is in a physical sense.- Pro This shows serious lack of study of my arguments in previous round by Pro. I made it clear and even provide a source[3]. This I defined in physical sense not anything else. All he has done is define tree in a mental sense, thus proving my point. "Tree" in a physical sense, cannot be exactly the same as "tree" in a mental sense, precisely because they are entirely different things. - Pro All I explained and currently explaining is only in "Physical sense" what we experience in real not anything else. However, this is a bare assertion fallacy. (2) Simply because my opponent claims it is the case, it does not follow that it is the case. Simply dismissing other possibilities is not even an argument in the first place. - Pro The assertion of fallacy is being made by Pro not me. However, I'll leave this for readers and voters to decide. The interaction problem My opponent just says there is interaction problem but failed to explain what exactly the interaction problem is and finally states the solution for the interaction problem. However there are many kinds of interaction. For example:Biological interaction, Fundamental interaction, Human-Computer interaction etc. And as for as the best of my knowledge there are no interaction problem at all whatever problem Pro states, he finally came up with his own solution.[2] [3] Next my opponent tries to refute my contentions, however he did not encountered any of them. He again came up with his own problems and conclusion which are definitely not mine as stated by me in Round 2. My opponent must show that the production of physical sound is the only possible thing that could cause these effects. Since he has not even provided a non-mental definition of the word "sound" we cannot accept the first argument. - Pro I've actually showed in Round 2, that in the event of tree fall in a forest, "vibrations" are produced and thus "Sound" is produced due to the fall. Even if there are no humans present at the event of tree fall we just cannot deny the assumption that there are other animals,birds,insects etc may be present during the tree fall which had zero impact due to the tree fall."Vibrations" are produced - This can be confirmed as any object falling on the ground is known to cause "vibration". Straw-man My opponent also straw-mans me. I am not claiming that there is no reality at all. I am claiming that there is no mind-independent physical reality, in the philosophical sense. - Pro Though this debate category itself is in Philosophy and Pro is trying hard to argue by the mixture of Philosophy, Science, Illusion, Physical reality, however it should be considered that,"Trees","Sound","Forest" are real and exist in "Physical" reality.[4] Conclusion My opponent clearly failed to present his BOP regarding his resolution,"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound". Instead he took this debate off topic by denying the existence of "Physical" world thus denying the occurrence of "Sound" and physical presence of "Tree" itself. Neither he covered my arguments nor refuted them specifically. My contentions were ignored completely On the other hand I refuted most of Pro's arguments and I believe, I satisfied my part of "BOP". Thus with the help of my contentions and refutations, I clearly disproved the resolution, If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound" and therefore clearly explained,"If a tree falls in a forest, and even if there are no humans to hear it or measure it, it does make a sound". Sources [1] http://www.bugwood.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.dubberly.com... [4] http://www.calmdownmind.com...