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

My opponent against insist that I was the one to bring this point into this debate, but this is false dichotomy. As I've explained earlier (note: my explanation has not been rebutted to this round), his case automatically makes the assumption that the human perspective is correct; that existence IS as we perceive it to be. Therefore, the burden of proof belongs to him. Thus, I do not need to provide conclusive evidence to the contrary. As for mooting the point of debate, my opponent has provided no rebuttal to my response concerning this in the previous round. You are therefore warranted to extend the point I previously made. And just for clarification, my point was that there are many purposes for debate and that my even if my case did moot all of those purposes, that it would in no way fulfill my opponent's job (which is to disprove my case) (thus my accusation of red herring). My opponent attempts to better establish his point by listing a laundry list of debates where my case could effectively be used to attain victory. First, one could very well prevent my case from even being used by establishing that the debate will be worked under the assumption that existence is very well as we perceive it (keep in mind that I had insinuated this in the previous round when I had pointed out an alternate version of this resolution). Second, my opponent suggest that no valid arguments can be provided to counter my stance, but this is false as debates concerning Objective/Subjective reality have been running strong for centuries. Although there are arguments that can be used to discredit my stance, I will not provide them as that is my opponent's job. There is also the fact that my opponent himself doesn't actually support this notion as he goes to provide arguments that actually attempt to negate this stance below. My opponent again insists that my exploitation of his assumption doesn't actually refute his stance, but as he long as he cannot meet my criteria (which is to provide conclusive evidence that his perspective is true), it effectively negates his stance. My opponent commits the strawman fallacy by claiming that I am arguing that we do not exist. If you (the audience) reread the debate, you'll notice that there isn't one instance where I suggest or support this notion; just because I advocate that there is no conclusive evidence for the human perspective being correct, it does not mean that I am advocating that we (as well as what we observe) don't exist. For clarification purposes, I'm upholding the stance that our perspective being correct is possible. As one might conclude, concluding that something is definite and concluding that something is possible are two different conclusions. My opponent then insists that whether or not trees don't exist, that they do exist when it comes to humans, but I've already exploited the falsity of this argument. According to my opponent's logic, the images presented in hallucinations and dreams can be argued to exist. This is in spite of the fact that we humans uphold that such images aren't actually a part of reality. My opponent suggested that I never contradicted that trees make a sound, but this is false as this falls under my argument of him having to conclusively prove that trees and sound actually exist in the first place. My opponent again attempts to shift the burden of proof through claiming that I have not provided evidence that we do not exist, but as I've already suggested, there has not been one point of this debate where I've insinuated that we don't exist. As I've clarified above, I support the notion that our perception of reality being correct is possible. That said, the primary concern here is whether or not my opponent provides evidence since he was the one to initiate the claim. My opponent then claims that we will never be able to prove our perception to be correct, but this is yet another claim which he provides no evidence for; this is baseless conjecture. Furthermore, we humans only grow more and more knowledgeable throughout the centuries. We've gone from being ignorant of the earth's spherical shape to having an exceptional understanding of the earth's origin. So far, it would seem that our capacity for knowledge is limitless. Nevertheless, this is just more of my opponent's attempt to shift the burden of proof onto my case. About my opponent's analogy, it is an interesting analogy, but it is just another analogy that commits the fallacy of false analogy. Bob and Jill have no reason to care about whether or not ice cream exists or whether or not they exist. Not only that, but just because they couldn't prove their perceptions, it doesn't mean they would have to sit around and debate about the matter rather than enjoying their lives. Here on this website? Our purpose is to debate. As I've pointed out earlier, the primary functions of this sport is to find the truth and/or convince an audience of our positions. Since my opponent has provided no reason for Bob or Jill to be obligated to fulfilling the above debate criteria, this analogy is therefore a false analogy. About Politicians, their only real obligations are to persuade/aid their audience. They typically do this through means of deception, as finding the truth is hardly a necessary goal for them. My opponent changes his argument by insisting that the concept (or idea) behind the word sound still exist. As V says in V for Vendetta, ideas are bullet proof. This is a powerful statement as ideas truly are impervious and exist without question. As fascinating as it is, there are one main problem with my opponent's new advocacy. Problem: My opponent overlooks the fact that all ideas must be taken into account. For instance, there are some who have the idea that a tree falling in a forest won't produce a sound if no animals are around to hear it. Basically, one idea is just as good as another. It's how these ideas are utilized that unbalances them. My opponent concedes to my point that matrix sound is merely a substitution of actual sound, but still urges that sound as known in the matrix still exist. My opponent has made a grave error in conceding as my argument directly contradicts his. Sound "as known in the matrix" is not sound as it does not uphold my opponents definition of sound; my opponent suggest that sound requires the impact of two objects, but no objects are colliding inside the matrix since every action only occurs within the human minds. What makes use of the matrix so detrimental to my opponent's case is that all of it is admittedly a DECEPTIVE (or in other words, admittedly false) ploy by the machines. Not only that, but as I had insinuated with my dream analogy, one can argue that things exist merely through witnessing these things, even if they occur in an admittedly false reality. My opponent resorts to some trickery by stating that we are debating the idea behind the words, thus his position is completely justified. Although the first part is true, that is not all we are debating. Ideas need weight in order to lose their equivalency to other ideas. This weight is something classified as evidence. In this case, the evidence my opponent needs is the evidence that suggest the actions in his resolution to actually be occurring. So the question comes back to "What conclusive evidence is there to support my opponent's ideas? " Concerning the dream analogy, his main point is that the ideas presented within my dreams still stand, but this does not address my point; whether or they these ideas occurred is besides the point. The question is: Do they uphold the standards of the real world merely because I have perceived and understood them? Closing statements: My opponent has provided no conclusive evidence for his ideas, thus gives you no real reason to support them. Without the proper evidence, ideas cannot properly distinguish themselves from any other ideas.