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

Awesome, okay i'll start this round my conceding a point to you. I am indeed debating this round from a human perspective, as I am a human and have no other perspective to which I can debate this claim from. With that out of the way let us continue with the human perspective debate. So my first point is thus. My opponent is the one who has brought this point into the debate. Like he mentioned most debates never incorporate this point within them because like he says most debates automatically assume that the world is how we see it. Or that reality does indeed exist. So for starters I am going to expand on why this moots the point of debate. 1st and foremost my opponent could attack every single resolution EVER this way, let me pull up the list of the 10 voting period debates right now and show you. I will list each of the 10 topics and what my opponents hypothetical response to each could be under his logic. 1. "Intelligent Design is not a Science" Does science even exist as we know it? 2. "Pop Tarts > Toaster Strudel" Do Pop tarts even exist? 3. "Affirmative action is right and necessary" Does affirmative action exist? 4. "Environmental sustainability and the Economy" Does the environment exist? 5. "Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul should drop out for America's sake" Can my opponent prove to me that America is actually real? 6. "A woman cannot be president" Is this world even real? 7. "Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions." Does our reality even exist? Perhaps we are in the matrix? 8. "We should to war with Iran" Can you prove this world + Iran exist? 9. "Should the U.S. Government Substantially Increase its help to Sub-Sahran Africa" Can't prove the world exists? Thats to bad, guess we have to vote Con. 10. "I know that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the church found in the Bible." You can't prove any of that, I win. As we can see this defeats the purpose of all of the debates. While my opponent does ask a very thought provoking question it should be its own debate. If my opponent did not want to come here and debate whether a tree falling in forest makes sound or not but rather if reality actually exists as we know it he should have declined my offer and created his own debate. It is a thought provoking question, but we should consider it its own debate, as it does not actually refute my resolution, which is from a human perspective. As my opponent stated: Logical-Master: "my opponent is advocating that reality exist as we perceive it to be. " Which brings me to my second point on this matter. That being, my opponent redefines my resolution by saying that it is from a human perspective (an underlying assumption), which I have conceded to and then argues that we do not exist. However even if we do not exist, if everything is made up, the resolution is still from a human perspective. So to humans the tree, its sound (notice my opponent never contradicted my argument about how the tree makes sound in round 2) and the forest all exist. Which brings me to my third point. Even if you as a voter want to believe my opponent and discard the last two point I made; keep in mind that while I cannot prove that we exist as we see our existence neither can my opponent. Thus it once against moots the point of debate. We can debate our existence for all eternity but never come up with the answer. There will always be the possibility that we do not exist. What we, and you as voters need to keep in mind at this point, is that my opponent cannot prove we and the world as we see it does not exist. Therefor for the sake of debate, it is essential that we assume that the world and us do exist. If we did not make this assumption here is how real life would proceed: Bob: Hey Jill, how are you? Jill: Not bad, want to go get some ice cream? Bob: Does ice cream even exist? Do we exist? Actually they probably wouldn't even get to that point. For at the point that Bob spotted Jill in the first place he would probably ask himself if she really existed. Without this assumption we destroy the ability to make any decisions at all. Politicians would sit around the world contemplating whether or not we exist so that they could make decisions. At this point i'm going to pretend that whether we exist or not is pertinent to this debate and show how, even if we don't exist as we think we do my resolution still works. Lets take a look at the resolution: "Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound." So let us consider the words in this resolution for a minute. The words here are not words. Words themselves do not exist in the real world, they are simply categorizing agents that man has created to define and communicate thoughts. Trees, forests, animals, sounds are all thoughts. Thoughts can be re-defined renamed etc, but they still describe the same thing. For instance if we translate my resolution into Spanish, just because the words are all different it doesn't mean that suddenly the resolution has changed or describes something new. From here I go back to the Matrix analogy. My opponent describes the hypothetical in which perhaps we are living inside the matrix thus sound does not really exist. However I once again find myself arguing that the concept, the idea behind the word (which is what we are debating, as debating words would be meaningless) would still remain even if we found out we lived in the matrix. Sound now as I described above is the transfer of energy upon the impact of two objects. Should we suddenly find ourselves to be in the matrix sound would instead become a computer program. My opponent correctly argues that this would a substitution of real world sound HOWEVER sound as known in the matrix still exists. We may re-word "sound" as perhaps "matrix-sound" and we may re-define "matrix-sound" as a series of computer programs. But the idea still exists. For an example of what I mean, with my resolution in mind. My resolution is: "Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound." so at some point should we find out that we are living the in matrix my resolution would be redefined along with every word: "Resolved: If a matrix-tree falls in the matrix-forest and no matrix-animal is there to hear it, it does make a matrix-sound. so now you may ask, "Why would the words all change?" Simply because we are still debating the ideas behind the words. When I make this resolution, supposing that we are in the matrix and I have no way of knowing this, then my resolution refers to all of these objects within the matrix. As these objects, if we take their true definitions under the matrix, would all be defined as a computer program. Therefor should we live in the matrix or any other such concept, my resolution deals with the matrix. Next onto my opponents dream concept. He speaks of bigfoot and bugs bunny punching him in a dream while roller blading on Saturn's rings and then asks if he should redefine bigsfoot, bugs bunny, and Saturn. My answer... First you need to realize that these are all ideas as defined by the chemical process in your brain. Then as not to confuse these ideas with the similar ideas you know outside of your dream you may want to re-word them as dream versions. However once again the ideas still stand and can be referenced if need be. Thats what words are, reference points. The ideas, even if dreams, are still ideas. Having said all of the above I would still like my opponent to prove in his rebuttal that existence is not as we perceive it. Otherwise he has no argument.