Though experiments are important.

I nice fast response from alyfish126, this is looking to be a good debate.Firstly, in order to try and stop this conversation becoming a semantic wrestling match, I will try and explicitly clarify all pertinent terms from multiple sources.A falling tree can make noiseNoise: A sound of any kind [1][4]. A sound that someone or something makes [2]. A sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance [2][3][4].Given that I believe it would be too simple to defend the first primary definition, I will instead support the more specific definition of "A loud or unpleasant sound". Given that pro and I both agree that sound is simple the physical result of pressure waves in a liquid medium, we already agree that a falling tree produces sound. This means that on this surface level, we already have good grounds for concluding this aspect of the debate, as a sound of any kind is indeed a dictionary accepted definition of noise. However, to go further, I will argue that a tree falling is generally a loud noise, fulfilling other contextual uses of the word noise. To argue this subjective point of "loudness", I present direct evidence in the form of video presentations and allow readers to come to their own conclusion. Please see reference [5]. For a quantified relationship, I present this study done by Martin Melchior [6], which showed that a falling tree can can reach loudness of 100 dB of noise, which, according to this chart from the NIDCD (https://www.nidcd.nih.gov...) [10] is sufficient to warrant hearing protection, and analogous to a circular saw.Thus, a falling tree can definitely make loud sound, which means a falling tree makes a noise.It would be morally right to flick the train switchThis is a difficult question, as whether or not the action is right depends upon which moral framework you base your morality. We can begin by examining two popular frameworks: utilitarianism [7], consequentialism [8]. Assuming all people in the provided scenario are equal and have positive utility (which makes this argument also consistent with Kant's categorical imperative [9]), we can see that flicking the switch to save five people at the cost of one person provides a greater benefit to potential utility than letting five people die and one person live. Under consequentialism, the consequence of this action, over inaction, is the lives of four human beings. If we go further afield to intentionalism (where actions are judged to be right or wrong by their intent), someone flicking the switch, believing it will save the group of five, can also be viewed as morally right.To allay the common emotive response that actively participating in the scenario (instead of actively refusing to participate, which I would argue is the same thing) is what makes the individual responsible for the outcome, we can see this is an insufficient defense simply by extending the scenario. If you had to flick a switch which would change a nuclear missile from striking New York and killing millions to striking Antarctica and wiping out the research post there, would anyone hesitate to press that switch?The egg comes before the chickenThis argument is simple, and derives from the theory of evolution. Given the original question is about a chicken - a particular species - we know that at some point in the past there were no chickens. Given that a line of speciation has to be drawn somewhere, it must be true that officially a non-chicken lays down a chicken egg - even though there is essentially no genetic difference between parent and offspring. This official line is identical to how we might say a child becomes an adult at 18 years of age. There is no appreciable difference in maturity the hour before and after the clock strikes midnight, but the line has been passed.From this, we can safely say that a non-chicken gave rise to the first chicken. As that chicken began in egg form, the chicken egg came before the chicken (where chicken in this context and in the context of the original question represents an adult of its species).ConclusionSolid arguments have been presented for all three positions. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[5] [6] http://www.neatorama.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] https://www.nidcd.nih.gov...