Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound.

My opponent states that my exploitation of his topic's assumption doesn't matter. This is false. Reality being as we perceive it to be is an assumption made in most topics. However, like all assumptions, there is nothing to support it with. Usually, overlooking the common human assumption (that reality is as we know it to be) is socially acceptable within these debates, but since this topic concerns an occurrence of nature which is believed as being scientific "fact", I figured that one of the best counters against such a resolution would be to question it's so-called "factuality." So if he intends to argue that a sound is produced in a forest when a tree falls, he is obligated to prove that sound and trees are more than delusions or ideas and that they actually exist beyond our human perspective.. He claims that I would be assuming that he is arguing existence as we perceive it to be. This is no assumption. The fact of the matter is that his knowledge is based on the existence which he perceives to exist, thus, it is the only "existence" which he is referring to. My opponent reiterates that I am the one making the assumption. This is incorrect. He clearly dictated that my assumption would be what position he is arguing from. I've shown that he is arguing from the position that reality exist as we perceive it, so his challenge suffers in that it is shifting the burden of proof. Besides, I'll clarify this in the following part of my rebuttal. Yraelz: [If we cannot debate a topic from human perception what perception can we then debate a topic from? ] The above statement is my opponent's downfall as he has just conceded that human perception is the only perception at which a topic can be debated on. This negates his above claim that I'm merely assuming what position he is arguing from. As for my argument mooting the point of debate, this is hardly the case. Debate has many purposes. The primary purposes involve finding the truth and persuading an audience. Often times, audience persuasion is being pulled off through means of deception. One example of deception would be what I had exposed in round 1: The assumption that existence is as we perceive it to be. As I've noted earlier, that assumption is consistently overlooked in debates as well as life in general. At any rate, whether or not this truly negates the purpose of debate, this observation which I've insinuated has negated his argument and that's all that is relevant for the purposes of this debate. Therefore, his claim that it moots the purpose of debate is an example of red herring as it in no way refutes the fact that the resolution is assuming that human perception is correct. My opponent reiterates that I moot the point of debate and that I am the one who has to provide conclusive evidence. I believe that holding to the fact that my opponent is shifting the burden of proof will suffice here (as I've noted above). And again, the "mooting debate part" is an example of red herring. My opponent suggest that sound "as we know it" exist. People classified with certain mental disorders claim the existence of many things due to what they think they are seeing or hearing. There are many cases where individuals come to believe that their dreams are real while unknowingly dreaming. Surely my opponent doesn't intend to claim that just because we believe our senses are able to detect something, that this something MUST exist as we perceive it? If so, it would be his burden to prove that his mind is not leading him to delusion as it does many others. With that variable being taken into account, it is impossible for him to conclude what we "know" (as in what we have conclusive evidence for). Thus, I can only conclude that my opponent defines know as "what we believe and perceive." As for suggesting that we are debating this resolution from a human perspective, this line was not presented in the resolution and he presented no clarification of it being defined that way in round 1. The statement "In terms of what humans believe, if a tree falls in a forest and animals aren't around to hear it, it produces a sound" is not equivalent to stating "If a tree falls in a forest and animals aren't around to hear it, it produces a sound." One statement concedes to not having conclusive evidence whereas the other does not. In response to my opponent's conclusion, he is arguing from a position which the pro doesn't allow (as I've clarified above). Through stating "In our world AS WE KNOW IT", he is conceding to the con as he is acknowledging that he has no conclusive evidence to suggest that existence IS as we know it. Therefore, this alone is legitimate grounds to vote against his case. With this said, I am not obligated to address his two scenarios, but for the sake of pacifying, I will anyway. Re Scenario 1: Due to the last three terms, this does not link with the resolution as it is a concession. Furthermore, merely adding in "from this perspective" to justify his arguments is erroneous not just for the reasons I've already listed. For instance, through the addition of those terms, I can get away with the following statement: According to my perspective, flying monkeys exist 100 billion light years away from earth. To disprove that statement, one would have to prove that this isn't my true perspective; the center of attention on such an ordeal would be what constitutes as my perspective rather than the flying monkeys existing 100 billion light years away. Re Scenario 2: My opponent yet again resorts to the fallacy of red herring. There being a cause for all that is happening has nothing to do with whether or not sound/trees/etc truly exist. As for his matrix example, it suffers from one gaping flaw: Inside the matrix, the trees ,the sounds, and the animals are not trees, sounds, and animals. As he unfortunately (for his case) points out, they are computer programs. To suggest that they are only re-defining sound is misleading. Rather, they are being substituted by their realistic counterparts. In the film, sound occurs both in the real world AND inside the matrix, so it therefore cannot be defined as being a computer program Substitution is not the equivalent to redefining. For instance, lets say I have a dream about big foot and Bugs Bunny sucker punching me while I'm rollerblading along Saturn's rings. When I wake up and find out that I have been dreaming, do I henceforth "redefine" big foot, bugs bunny, and rollerblading along Saturn's rings as a chemical process within my brain? Of course not. I come to the conclusion that they were substituted instead. By my opponent's logic, we can come to the conclusion that Big Foot, bugs bunny, and the concept of rollerblading along Saturn's rings exist. My opponent's sun analogy is an example of false analogy. In the matrix film, the process of sound is given a counterpart (computer programs that manipulate the human brain into believing that sound is occurring) whereas the sun never really served as a counterpart (according to our perspective of course), hence the reason my opponent can advocate that it is being redefined. However, if we relate the sun to the sun inside the matrix, it is henceforth not being redefined by the evil artificial intelligence computers, but is rather being substituted with computer programs for the purpose of deluding humans. I believe I have given sufficient grounds for you (the audience) to vote against my opponent's case and now await his final rebuttal. Your move. =D