The Instigator
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Freeman's Debate Tournament round 1: TUF V.S. Badger

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,868 times Debate No: 15384
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (7)

 

TUF

Pro

TOPIC: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

Getting this debate finally underway, I will be arguing pro, or inaffirmation of the topic.
This debate will be one of philosophy. I hope that both debaters, will have fun, and at the same time learn from this experience.

Rules for this debate are as follows. We shall pertain to those of Freeman's proposed set of rules of conduct, IE no semantics, non-gritty arguments, and basically staying on board with the conceptional debate ettique.

Other than that, I think given this is a philosophy debate, arguments, and sources should be freelance and creative.

Please use round 1 to accept this debate, and I will begin my opening argument in round 2.

I am quite excited to start this tournament, and look forward to many great arguments in this debate!
Good luck Badger, and I hope you (the audience) enjoys reading this debate!
badger

Con

Bate away!
Debate Round No. 1
TUF

Pro

Contention 1: Superposition arguments are illogical given human belief.



For those of you who don't know what superposition is, please look to the video link I have provided. Superposition is a quantum mechanics/ Metaphysics term. The video is kind of corny, but it entails the main arguments someone from an opposing standpoint to the topic would hold. To get straight to the point fast forward the video to about 4:30.

What this prospects says, is that basically, without human perception of a concept, all things un-perceived are veiled and mystery. So while the example in the video may be over the top, it still shows how the universe is freelance, while not under human perception.

My argument to this, is that all we have IS human perception and relevant beliefs of concepts based on what we see, hear, and do. All we know is what is what we perceive, or experience. Arguments for this are unfounded, and illogical because we do not have any popular human conception to dis-place that such things would happen outside of our perception. Thus the Affirmative Constructive acts as a side constraint to the Negative Constructive, in so far as proving what, happens out side of human perception, is unfounded.

For example: We humans know what the physical form of a pencil looks like.
What superpositionalism says is that we know that we don't know a pencil doesn't change into a sausage when it's behind us, or out of our line of sight.

This argument suggests a proposal be made with lack of evidence, given that we have no evidence that it in fact doesn't happen. However, this also is un-true, as I will prove in contention 2.

http://www.spectacle.org...

"If y=tree falling and x=sound generated, how would you put into an equation that x is true regardless of the medium of translation?"

http://www.physicsforums.com...

For a more specific and physics-oriented explanation of the concept, please look to this link.

http://paws.kettering.edu...


Contention 2: Human technology, IE alternative humans perception.

Given the 1 AC side constraint, let's go to what we DO know.

Human technology proves this statement true. Let's assume a non-living, soul-less, item, is a part of nature. So in this case, a piece of modern technology, a video camera.
If we prop a video camera next to a tree that seems likely to collapse, leave for a few days, then come back to see the tree is on the ground, our first instinct is to check our footage. Indeed when viewing this footage, we find absolute evidence of the tree falling, which then enters into our perception, making the concept very real.
We hear the sound, and then know, that this incident, actually happened.

Next alternative humans perception.
The topic excludes alternative person from the debate through the use of the word "No one" bridging to the word "around". So we know that no humans can be around to hear the sound. This implies that human perception is needed to make the sound.
So if I perceive a sound will be made, based on experience of hearing this sound in the past, I know for a fact that the tree does in fact make a sound.

http://www.physicsforums.com...

Contention 3: Knowledge of tree decay, proves fallen. Thus a noise.

We know, when a tree is up-rooted, is loses the ability to grow. We have evidence proving when an object falls, it makes a noise. So we know that if this tree fell, it made a noise. So again, if I go see this tree, leave, then come back, and it is in a different position, laying on the ground, dis-connected from stump, how do I know that it fell?

I look at this fallen tree, remember it, and come back a month later. The tree has lost most of it's leaves,has fungi and other signs of decay. I know that the only way this tree could have achieved this much dis-solve, is if it had fallen, or broken from its original state of being. Given that falling objects knowingly make noises when they fall, we have to assume that the tree still made a noise, even though no humans were around to here it.

http://www.lantratraining.co.uk...


To conclude, Super-positionalism fails because it is founded off of information we know we don't know. How do we debate on something we simply don't know?
We have to make assumptions off of previous know logic of human perception, which in turn proves that a sound will indeed be made, even if we do not hear it.

Given the logic and reasoning I have provided, I strongly encourage you all to vote PRO.


I look forward to seeing my opponents response.

Alternative source(s):
Movie, and book "Down the rabbit hole: What the bleep do we know?"


badger

Con

Ok then. I suppose i should mention that my opponent agreed in the setting up of this debate to define sound as "what we humans perceive" and i suppose that's fairly immensely important :)

But i suppose that definition's even a bit vague. I'll attempt to clarify:

Sound as in our perception of something happening. What we hear as in our heads (if you get me? surely..) rather than the something happening.

That's a fair clarification isn't it and should make sense to everyone right?

We're pretty much defining sound as it is by the last bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations."

only it's just human organs of hearing in our case. and in particular the organs where the sound is finally heard, processed, liked, disliked and that kinda thing.

I'm just gonna make my argument right now. It's not from super-positionalism. It's amm fairly simple given the definition..

TUF, my friend, what you hear, that sensation, is as far as you may well be concerned the end result of probably a sh1t load of organs working together to perceive some happening, if you get me? Just make sure to have a look in the direction it's coming from and get out of the way if anything's coming at you from there :)

let's look at it without us:

The happening occurs. The tree falls, generates a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid or gas. ;)

...that's it!

Nothing is perceived by anyone. Debate won :)

The question, as i'm addressing it, is very much the same question as if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to see it will anyone see it? simple question, simple answer.

Now onto something else.

My argument runs parallel to my opponent's..though i didn't really read all of it. I saw the problem straight away and just did my own thing. I suppose we should've drawn out much finer definitions but we didn't and here you have it..

In other words, i'm not going to argue for what my opponent wants me to. Super-positionalism or whatever it is. I wouldn't even attempt to. My mind's twisted enough from the drugs as is.

So there you have it voters. We've both been arguing for completely different things, and both for what were pretty much auto-wins. Who deserves it?

Here was our conversation in setting it up:

TUF:


Things I would like to debate.

1. Utilitarianism. Pro
2. If a tree falls in the forrest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise? Pro
3. It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. Pro
4. The united states is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue it's military objectives. Con
5. Should juveniles be subject to adult prisons? Con
6. Iran is more of a threat to the united states than North Korea. Pro/Con

7. In a democratic society, felons ought to have the right to vote.
8. Counter-insurgency is the death-knell for winning the war in afghanistan.

If you don't like any on my list, please post a list of you own and I'll choose one. I like any philosophical debates, or fun debates.

badger:

i'll go con on 2.. though we'll have to discuss definitions..

TUF:

Alright cool we can discuss them in the debate. Tell me when your ready for me to send a challenge.

badger:
by sound you mean what we humans perceive?

TUF:

correct


Sh1t happens?


Debate Round No. 2
TUF

Pro

Seeing as given the reubuttal, structure was pretty much thrown out the window, we will follow this debate through my my opponents structure. First I will go over his arguments, then go back over mine.

HIS CASE

The definition for sound, as insisted upon by my opponent, is what is percieved by humans.

Thus we must evaluate this debate on the human perception of sound.

My opponent attempts to make a clear distinction of the difference between sound, and what is happening. However, really is there a difference between the two? In order for us to be able to percieve the said sound, musn't something first "happen" such that the sound can be percieved?

Really, if we look at what he is saying, whether he thinks so or not, he is arguing super-positionalism. In order for us to perceive the sound, a certan action must happen. Given that we know the action based on experience, and results, we know that a sound will emit from the falling object. But we know that we don't know the tree is really falling without our awareness. Super-positionalism.

Also let's remember that were defining the words from the con from wikipedia. However, the fact remains, that there really isn't a difference between percieved sound, and what is actually happening because we know that something must first happen in order to hear the sound.

Moving on.

My opponent talks about sound being pursuaded by "a bleep load of human organs" (you can fill in the bleep). That's great, again we can argue what we know. We know we are arguing human perception, which again, is what we must evaluate this debate on. If organs provide a human with the ability to percieve such actions, then we know that it is still human perception of known results all the same.

Andnow the last little bit my opponent enstrangles.

"The happening occurs. The tree falls, generates a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid or gas. Nothing is perceived by anyone. Debate won."

I appolagize, but it really isn't all that simple. What we are arguing ifa sound (according to human perception) would still occur without the human there. Without the human there, oviouly no sound can be perceived by one human. However, what we need to argue is if that sound does still occur.

I understand my opponent didn't read the remainder of my argument, however, that puts him in a bad place. Because as I said in my contention 2, without a human there, we know the sound will still be percieved via camera, or recorder. No human was around to hear the noise, yet is still occured according to human perception, thus we have enough to evaluate the round on.

MY CASE

I'm normally not one to focus heavily on dropped arguments, but I'm afraid given the circumstances, it is almost neccesary.

C1: Super-positionalism arguments are unfounded.

While my opponent claims to not be arguing this, he in fact is. Super-positionalism is a claim to an action happening, or acting in freelance when not in our awareness. What he fails to realize, is that without our perception, if a tree is taking actions not relevant to the minds eye of knowledgable results, he is arguing this very thing. So if we are claiming a tree doesn't make a noise outside of our awareness he is arguing super-positionalism.

Again, my contention 2 was untouched as well.

C2: I have proven that outside of human awareness the happening and the noise will still take place inside human awareness via video camera or recorded. These items are lifeless, soul-less, essentially part of nature. We can look at the results of said actions without us even being there.

This is a huge contention that should have been argued, but wasn't, thus basically ensuring me a win.

And last, my contention 3.
C3: knowledge of decay proves a once standing tree has fallen. We kno that actions provide results, thus we know that when the tree fell it made some noise. Human perception, knew the tree before it fell, continues to witness it decay and die, which proves that said sound must have happened, and that the tree did indeed fall indicting a noise.

We have to drag through and exted all of my arguments made, seeing as literally none of them were argued.

The voter for this round should be based on what we do know, and not what is unknown to us.
We know that falling objects produce sound, and arguments against this are unfounded as I have proven.
Thus I strongly urge you, the voters, to vote pro.
Thankyou.
badger

Con

" However, really is there a difference between the two? In order for us to be able to percieve the said sound, musn't something first "happen" such that the sound can be percieved?"

Yes there is a difference between the two. Right, think of that mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a soid, liquid ot gas. It hits the outer ear, right, then this:http://en.wikipedia.org... it says there that it's down around the primary auditory cortex that's responsible for the sensation of basic characteristics of sound such as pitch and rhythm. I dunno? and there was a whole load of conversions down along that line. Those wouldn't happen if you weren't there. If a tree fell in the forest and there was nobody around, that mechanical wave wouldn't hit anyone's outer ear and be put through the rest of the auditory system, processed as what we hear close enough to the end, or the end? So yeah.. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org... speaks for itself

"Super-positionalism..."

Wat?

"However, the fact remains, that there really isn't a difference between percieved sound, and what is actually happening because we know that something must first happen in order to hear the sound."


Yes there is. See my first responce there about the "Wat?" one. So nobody around, no sound :P had to say it lol.


"My opponent talks about sound being pursuaded by "a bleep load of human organs" (you can fill in the bleep). That's great, again we can argue what we know. We know we are arguing human perception, which again, is what we must evaluate this debate on. If organs provide a human with the ability to percieve such actions, then we know that it is still human perception of known results all the same."


Yes it is human perception...

"Because as I said in my contention 2, without a human there, we know the sound will still be percieved via camera, or recorder."


Ok.. the camera or recorder or whatever has it's own auditory system and memory.. then what? We defined sound as what we perceive. Somebody listens to it? That's that somebody being around to hear it. They're hearing the tree falling because they're around to hear it. It's heard even more indirectly again, but certainly as a result of being around.

"The rest of what he said"


If the tree fell it would cause those mechanical waves, sure, but in the absense of anyone to hear it, there would be no sound as we have defined it. There would be no human perception.
Debate Round No. 3
TUF

Pro

First off, I would like to apologize to the viewers of this debate, that this debate has become so sloppy and un-organized.
In my attempt to re-organize it, I will offer a road map. I will be going OFF case, ON case, and then voters.

OFF CASE

CON: We must be there to perceive the sound.

Again, I will go by my opponents rather skewed definition. He defines sound in the third round, as a mechanical wave. Great, he can use this definition, it really doesn't change much.

There's alot of spheal about auditory systems and how we hear sound. Again great. Wasn't this already established in round 2, with the organ argument?
He basically defeats him here with this statement.

"If a tree fell in the forest and there was nobody around, that mechanical wave wouldn't hit anyone's outer ear..."

So he is admitting that the mechanical wave (or sound) is omitted, though there was no human to hear it. If this didn't win the debate for me, we have other things to fall on.
We already know there will be no human around, as prescribed by the resolution.

So basically this debate comes down to whether or not we can prove the sound still does occur according to human perception. He admits that the mechanical wave does occur.

He has won this debate for me.
Thankyou.

"I looked in one dictionary and two encyclopedias. One encyclopedia said that sound is defined by the ear detecting (hearing) the vibrations in the air. This would mean the tree in the question would make no sound if no one is around. The other encyclopedia and the dictionary defined sound as the vibrations itself, whether or not someone is around to hear them. By this definition, the tree would make a sound even if no one was around"

-David Rudd Cycleback

Con: Super-positionalism

"Wat" , isn't an argument.
If you read my previous bit, you would know that I explained how you are arguing super-positionalism by saying a mechanical wave didn't occur. seeing as you admit it in this last round, you've given me the debate, so I guess it really doesn't matter any more.

We forget that humans aren't the only ones who can hear sound. My opponent is basing his whole debate, on semantics around the word sound, and how it must be heard by a human to be a sound. Sound is a real thing. Sometimes soundwaves can be strong enough to physically effect something.

This proves that sound is prescribed to be a metaphysical things as well as just a concept or a sense.

Also animals can hear sounds, which makes it real as well. If there is no human around to hear the sound, but we know an animal is there to be scared away by the sound, it is still real. My opponent describes this very vaguely, which turns out to be costly when evaluating the round.

ON CASE

We can skip over arguments made on contention 1, seeing as there WEREN'T any.

We can also extend those on contention 3, as that has literally been un-touched the whole debate.

So this leaves us with 'arguments' on contention 2.

Contention 2

He basically just says that a camera has its own auditory system.
Yep again, we've successfully established the obvious.
However it resolution applies.

Topic says " If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"

A camera definitely applies as a "no one" seeing as it is an in-animate object. No where in the topic does it say anything about a camera perceiving the noise.

Also the human still remained out of hearing range when the tree went down, yet according to the camera we know that the tree went down and made a sound.

Thus we must absolutely look to the pro for this debate.


"Many arguments are not caused by disagreement over the main ideas, but that the arguers unknowingly define terms differently from each other. Arguers may have different definitions of war, peace, work week, formal attire, animal, automobile, tall, stiff drink and sexy, even though they both assume they are using identical definitions. Once the parties mutually set the definitions (which they didn't do in the beginning), they are often surprised to discover how much they agree with each other. Many arguments, many conundrums, many philosophical debates exist simply because parties never thought to mutually define terms. "

http://www.cycleback.com...

In short, the laws of Physics don't cease to exist because there is no human present.

Voters for the debate should be as follows.

I have followed all of my opponents definitions, and played this debate his way, and have still proven the answer to the obvious question.

I have proven that sounds are a physical concept and well as just a sense in and of there selves.

I have proven that we have no reason to believe the world is different outside of perception, and arguments saying so are un-founded.

I have followed the rules of this debate, and read through all of my opponents argument.

I have re-organized this debate, while my opponent has dealt in quotes and indirect arguments.

Also my opponent refused to address alot of what I had written, and simply stopped reading some of my arguments as he even admits in round two.

I have won this debate in every way you look at it.
Given this, I strongly urge you (the voters) to vote pro.
badger

Con

Vote, I suppose.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
Oh good luck with that one haha
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
i suppose that should've been fairly obvious :) i call roylatham for the next one anyway!
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
Double elimination means you have to lose twice to be dropped from the tournament :)
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
it's a double elimination? so.. what does that mean? no worries tuf.. cheers for the debate :)
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
You aren't gone from the tournament, its double elimination. And sorry im not trying to be a dick, It just sounds like your trying farm votes.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
i actually really don't care tuf :) not one bit.. i'm actually kinda happy i'm gone from this tournament. i'm just voicing my opinion.. can i not do that?
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
Lol yeah badger will take vote from people who dont read the debate anyday! This guy makes me laugh. Badger, its one debate, you lost, you forfeited, please just get over it.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
i loo forward to when you can :)
Posted by Jinx 6 years ago
Jinx
Can't vote yet, still have to take part in two more debates.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
either way i've been raped anyway.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no opinion either way; I withdraw my vote.
Vote Placed by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments. 7 points per tournament rules.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The reasonable definition of "sound" is the vibration of the air, rather than the perception of the vibration. This is a tournament debate requiring all 7 points to the person judged the winner.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have defined sound in terms of the mechanical wave and not in terms of human perception, but that is my own opinion. In the debate, the definition of sound clearly required that the sound be perceived by a human. 7 points to winner as per tournament rules. Edit: Apparently, Con conceded that sound IS a mechanical wave and dropped the perception definition, but I missed this when voting. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Re-evaluation: the Rd. 4 Off analysis turned the definition debate against badger. Since the pressure is omitted the fundamentals for sound are being produced. At that point, I vote Pro since the mechanics of sound remain constant.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: See my full RFD here: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/10725/3/
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
TUFbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to have to give this debate to badger. By defining sound as human perception, the Con position becomes tautology. I accept his argument that if someone hears the fall through camera, he is technically "around to hear it."