Arguments between Two Philosophers

Let us set ground rules for this debate. First knowledge is real. Second what we experience with our senses are real. Both are fixed and unchanging
Correct
A. Then there is the issue that both cannot be true.
P. Correct
A. Then disproving these theories is what must be done.
P. Correct
A. Knowledge is real because we learn from knowledge
P. What we experience with our senses must be real because we can see, taste or, feel it.
A. For this debate we must pick a form to represent both our sides, a chair will do.
P. I agree
A. Knowledge from form is what we learn about the usefulness of the chair.
P We know what the chair is for because deduction and senses tell us to use the chair for sitting correct.
A. Correct
P. Then there is no knowledge needed because the form dictates what it is used for.
A. The chair is never changing and knowledge of this helps us realize what the form is for
P. Agreed
A. If this is the case then the need for senses is not valid, because we use the knowledge of sitting to determine that the chair is real.
P. I disagree. The only way to know that we use the chair to sit in is by the senses. Look at it this way if we could not see the chair then is it a chair, we have to feel the form to verify it is a chair and we need to sit in it.
A. Your point is valid but there is not a need to see the chair, we only need the knowledge that the chair is in the room, from that pint we sit in it.
P. Having the knowledge of how to use the chair does not make the chair real, the senses tell us the chair is real; there is no knowledge needed to recognize its existence
A. There is knowledge of form that allows us to know what to do with the chair, without it how would we know what to do with it.
P. When we see the chair and its form there is no knowledge needed because we can see the form of it and it determines what to do with it, and that is to sit in it.
A. Sitting is not the only thing you can do with a chair, as senses control the rational; thought, knowledge controls the probabilities of the char, such as standing on it.
P. The chair is always changing with the needs of the person and the senses tell us that this chair may be to small or to large for a person.
A. Knowledge of size is needed to have a perfect fitting chair, even though the senses are need to tell us this, only knowledge will allow us to see past the physical and look at the actual form of the chair. We must have knowledge for this.
P. I can see where your point is valid but I still believe that the only way to tell if a form is real is by ascertaining the needs of the individual trying to sit in the chair. The senses are needed for this assessment.
A. I can also set in motion another idea that I believe will be a little harder to disprove. Lets look at a non physical item such a beauty.
P I disagree beauty is as physical as the chair.
A. Knowledge of beauty and what is beautiful, is needed to determine beauty.
P. I disagree there is form in beauty and what is needed is the senses to realize that beauty, whether this be touch or sight.
A. Beauty is only the idea and knowledge is needed to determine the scale of what beauty is and what is not.
P. There are many different meanings of beauty and it is in the eyes of the beholder, this is where senses are the most important and that all beauty is determined by what we see, there is no knowledge needed, because as individuals we determine what is beautiful.
A. As knowledge is needed to determine to the individual what their version of beauty is the senses are only needed to use the knowledge that the individual has as the determining factor.
M. I see both sides of this argument, but to me there are more senses needed than knowledge because we determine how the individual and the persons perception distinguish the chair and beauty. There is no knowledge needed in either case.