Western Logic is arbitrary and useless, and cannot lead to true knowledge

The burden of proof is on my opponent to show three things:1) Western logic is arbitrary2) Western logic is useless3) Western logic cannot lead to true knowledgeUnless my opponent proves all three, he should not win the debate. First I will offer my contentions, then attack my opponent's. Pro Argument 1: Western logic is not arbitraryWestern logic is based on a system of reasoning, support and rationality. A quick check of the dictionary (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) reveals that arbitrary means "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion. " Logic is not, however, contingent upon my discretion. It is contingent on a system of rules (as my opponent appears to admit), without any regard for my individual will or judgement. Therefore it does not fit the definition of arbitrary. Pro Argument 2: Western logic is useful at explaining our worldTo be useless, western logic must not have any use or application. The fact of the matter is that millions of people use western logic every day to help explain past and present phenomena, as well as predict the future. Logic, like math, is therefore a useful abstraction to help people make sense of the world. As such, it has a use. Some examples of important professions that use logic all the time include mathematicians, scientists, programmers, lawyers, and philosophers (. http://www.dummies.com...).Pro Argument 3: It is possible that western logic leads to the truthIt is possible that the truth can be perceived by us, be that truth that nothing exists or any other ridiculous assertion. It is also possible that we perceive something that we can perceive. It is therefore possible that what we perceive is the truth is in fact true. Since my opponent believes western logic is based on perception, he must agree that western logic could possibly lead to true knowledge. Con Argument 1: Logic describes perception, which may not be realOh my god, you've just found the silver bullet that will destroy all my arguments. All you need to prove now is why perception is definitely false, as opposed to why it might be false. I agree that it is possible western logic might not lead to the truth, but you are yet to show why western logic cannot possibly lead to the truth. Con Argument 2: No reduced part makes whole, thus nothing existsCongratulations, you've proven my point. You used western logic to perceive what you're convinced is the truth - that nothing exists. This proves three things. First it shows that logic is not arbitrary, because a process was used to arrive at your conclusion. Second it shows that logic is not useless, because the insight that nothing exists has profound metaphysical implications. Third it proves western logic can lead to true knowledge, since you are so sure this is true. Con Argument 3: Logic is based on assumptions which might not be trueWhile it is true that the assumptions might not be true, it is wrong to assume they are false. Western logic's assumptions might be true, and it might not be. I don't know. Now you need to show why uncertainty regarding the validity of the assumptions means an abstraction can never work. I submit that it will work provided that our assumptions are correct - which you can neither prove nor disprove. My opponent has not met his burden of proof. I'm proud to negate.