Instigator / Pro
25
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#3194

# Suppose there is a monkey on a pole constantly facing a man. The man walks around the pole. Such man did not go around the monkey.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
18
Better sources
12
12
Better legibility
5
6
Better conduct
5
5

coal
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
13,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
41
1604
rating
6
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Forfeiture = loss
Insulting = -1 conduct
Everything not mentioned cannot be considered automatically existing or nonexisting until proven

Around: in a circle or in circumference
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/around

BoP is shared, Con must prove that the man did go around the monkey in such situation. Good luck.

Round 1
Pro
#1
P1: Motion is relative
P2: By the monkey always facing the man, they are technically motionless, relatively
C: Thus, the man did not walk "around" the monkey due to them being relatively motionless.

Premise 1: Motion is relative

This is a no-brainer. In fact, it is well-established in the field of physics, to the point that it is being taught in educational institutions[1]. [1] is also a good summary of relative motion.

One example is such:
• You are rowing a boat on a river, sitting on a position of the boat. There are mountains on both sides of the river. In reference to the boat, you are not moving due to you sitting on the same position of the boat. In reference to the mountains, you are moving due to your rowing motions exert force which propels you. We usually consider mountains "not moving" because we consider in reference to the rest of the ground(the same tectonic plate). However, when in reference to a different continental plate or the sun, the mountain is moving because of continental drift and earth's rotation.

Absolute motion

Absolute motion is technically impossible. When one moves or is in rest, it is always in reference of something. When two brothers are running in the same speed in the same direction, we cannot say "he is moving" without stating where in reference we are talking about. One brother is relatively motionless to the other and moving in relation to the ground that they are running on.

When one object is stopped in relation to one thing, it would be moving in relation to something else, in reality. Even if everything that we can perceive to exist is motionless in accordance to each other, one's motionlessness is still in relation to something else. In short, we describe motion always in relation to something else[2]. Absolute motion is impossible due to the lack of relation to another object. I challenge Coal, the Con of the debate, to prove that motion can, in fact, be absolute and not relative.

Premise 2: The man is relatively not rotating in relation to the monkey

According to the topic statement, the monkey is always facing the man.

Facing, as a verb, in this scenario, is defined as[3]:
4a: to stand or sit with the face toward
b: to have the front oriented toward

Thus, the monkey would be always be oriented to be towards the man, regardless of where they are in relation to the ground or the pole.

The term "Around" is defined as:
Around: in a circle or in circumference(In description)

In order to walk in a circle of the monkey(not the pole), the monkey should be backwards of the man at one point, which is impossible according to the topic statement, which negates all possibilities of the man facing the behind of the monkey. The topic statement mentions "Go around the monkey", specifying that the man's motion, concerned in this scenario, is in reference to the monkey, either walking in a circle-like fashion in relation to the monkey or not walking in a circle-like fashion in relation to the monkey. For the monkey, oriented to the man always to the front, the man is literally motionless to the monkey due to it walking in a circle, while the monkey is constantly facing him. This is no different than a motionless monkey across a motionless man for the monkey as the man is always in the same position in relation to the monkey. The man has not traversed every single angular position of the full 360 degrees around the monkey, due to the monkey always facing the man, thus limiting the man's angular position, to the monkey, to only being in front of the monkey regardless of where the man is in relation to the ground.

Unless the monkey's behind is facing the man in at least one point of the scenario presented, there is no way the man walked full circle in relation to the monkey, or around the monkey.

Thus, the man did not walk "around" the monkey due to them being relatively motionless.

Vote Pro.

Con
#2
Resolved: "Suppose there is a monkey on a pole constantly facing a man. The man walks around the pole. Such man did not go around the monkey."

PRO's Case:

• Premise 1: Motion is indeed relative.  That is correct, but defeats premise 2.
• Premise 2:  The direction in which the monkey faces is irrelevant.  The man moves relative to the monkey based on the monkey's physical position in space relative to the man, not the direction the monkey faces.
This debate is about whether a man, who walks around a pole upon which a monkey sits, walks around the monkey upon that pole at the same time.

Envision the following in your mind's eye:

1. A monkey is sitting on a pole.
2. The monkey remains on the pole at all relevant times and does not leave.
3. The man walks around the pole, upon which the monkey sits.
4. The only thing that changed is the direction the monkey faced relative to the man; not the monkey's position relative to the pole, around which the man walked.
5. The man has "go[ne] around" or "encircled" the money.
• Why?  Because the direction the monkey faces is irrelevant:
• Place monkey, man and pole in your mind's eye on a 3-dimensional plane with an X, Y and Z axis (X, Y, Z).
• X and Y axes comprise the horizontal plane upon which the man walks; the ground.
• The horizontal plane is divided of four quadrants:
• Quadrant 1 of the horizontal plane comprises all positive values above zero for both X and Y axis: (X, Y, Z).
• Quadrant 2 of the horizontal plane comprises all negative X axis values (below zero) and all positive Y axis values (above zero): (-X, Y, Z).
• Quadrant 3 of the horizontal plane comprises all negative X values (below zero) and negative Y values (below zero) (-X, -Y, Z).
• Quadrant 4 of the horizontal plane comprises all positive X values (above zero) and negative Y values (below zero) (X, -Y, Z).
• The pole upon which the monkey sits lies at the coordinates: (0, 0, 0).
• Suppose the pole is 5 units high; placing the monkey at (0, 0, 5).
• Man is set to encircle the pole by walking around the pole at a constant radius r.
• The radius or r is the relative distance between man and monkey.
• For the sake of simplicity, suppose r is 5.
• Thus, man begins his journey around the pole at (5, 0, 0) on the horizontal plane.  As man walks counter-clockwise around the pole, he enters Quadrant 1.
• Having walked exactly 90 degrees around the pole at the constant r of 5, man departs quadrant 1 and enters Quadrant 2; crossing the Y axis at (0, 5, 0) -- all the while, 5 units away from monkey and pole.
• Having walked an additional 90 degrees around the monkey and pole (and 180 degrees from his origin at the constant r of 5), man departs quadrant 2 after crossing  the x axis at (-5, 0, 0) and enters Quadrant 3.
• Having walked a further 90 degrees around the monkey and pole (and 270 degrees from his origin at the constant r of 5), man departs Quadrant 3 after crossing the y axis at (0, -5, 0) and enters Quadrant 4.
• Having walked a further 90 degrees around the monkey and pole (and 360 degrees from his origin at the constant r of 5), man returns to his point of origin approaching Quadrant 1 at (5, 0, 0).
• During this journey, pole and monkey remained at the center of the horizontal plane (0, 0, 5).
• Therefore, in this exercise man encircled monkey and pole simultaneously.
• Whether the monkey faced the man is of no consequence.  Walking around or encircling does not require the monkey to face in one direction. After all, the man would still have encircled the pole if he faced the pole at all times or without regard to what direction he faced.
Consequently, I have won this debate.  Vote CON.

Thank you.

Round 2
Pro
#3
Opp dropped/conceded:

• Motion is relative
• Absolute motion is not possible
• The man and the monkey is moving in a way in which relatively they are not moving at all
• The man's motion is in reference to the monkey, not the pole and not the floor(according to the resolution and description)
Rebuttal: "Direction doesn't matter"

Nope, or not in this case at least. Con is confusing the monkey itself and the point on the 3D coordinate that could represent the position of the monkey(and the 3D coordinate is not in reference to the monkey). In short, the man has rotated fully around the dot representing the position of the monkey in reference to the pole, but not the monkey itself.

Let's first examine Pro's system of determining motion and where they are. The usage of an XYZ coordinate isn't representative of the issue: As it is basically a gridmark of the floor, with (0,0,0) being the bottom of the pole, which isn't moving. Note, that although the monkey is just turning in-place in the point of (0,0,5), it is still in motion, exerting force upon itself in some way, causing it to move. It is undoubtedly true that the same point, (0,0,5), can still represent where the monkey is, but after turning, perhaps the monkey isn't facing towards (5,0,5), perhaps it is facing towards (0,5,5) the point, which is undoubtedly a sign of movement.

The resolution states:
Such man did not go around the monkey.
An understanding of the English language would understand that the monkey, is the object of reference. What determines the resolution is true of false is whether the man has gone around the monkey, not the pole, not a point representing where the monkey is. It has to be a monkey, that rotates itself to face the man walking around it. The monkey, henceforth, becomes the judge of whether the man walked around it or not, or as we call it, the reference point.

The monkey's point thus would become the origin, with the direction of it facing becoming fixed to an axis(let's give it to, for the convenience of this example, the Y axis): That is plausible. Motion is relative, and in this case, the motion is relative to the monkey, not the floor or the pole. The monkey would thus be fixed in the new 3D coordinate, including where it is facing.

Now, let's assume the man is walking in a perfect circle 5 units in radius, and the monkey is always facing it.

• The monkey is currently at (0,0,0), fixed to the plane so that its front always faces (0,∞,0) and its back towards(0,-∞,0).
• The man starts at 5 units away from the monkey. The monkey is facing him. In reference to the monkey, the man is at (0,5,0).
• The man walks some distance counterclockwise in reference to the pole, the monkey is still facing him. In reference to the monkey, the man is at (0,5,0).
• The man walks some more distance counterclockwise in reference to the pole, the monkey is still facing him. In reference to the monkey, the man is at (0,5,0).
• The man walks all around the circle, 360 degrees around the pole. No matter where he is, he is always 5 units away from the monkey with the monkey facing him. No matter where he is, he is always at (0,5,0).
In the end, the man is always the same position in relation to the monkey, merely rotated around the pole, but not the monkey. The man is always at (0,5,0) no matter where he is(as long as he is 5 units away from the monkey, obviously). The man did not rotate around the monkey.

The monkey is not the pole. The pole may not be rotating but the monkey is(in accordance to the floor). The illusion of the man rotating around the monkey may be:
• By misinterpretation of physics. Coal used a coordinate system fixed to the floor, and not fixed to the monkey. The entire barebone of Coal's argument is based on that the the man's movements are in reference to the floor, and not the monkey. The monkey is also being viewed as a mass point, which isn't a useful concept for a rotating object like this monkey.
• By misinterpretation of the English Language. The topic statement suggests that the monkey is the object in question, judging whether if the man has moved around it. The monkey is the reference point, not any point above the floor, the floor itself nor the pole. Just the monkey.

The direction does matter. If it does not matter, we would deem a rotating merry-go-round ride motionless due to it always "occupying the same space". The truth is: That it is not. The hanging rods that support the colorful wooden horses occupy a certain space in the merry-go-round, but they are not a continuous circular barrier. As a result, There will be a time in which there is no hanging rod in the place where there was a hanging rod, when the ride is active. The same is the monkey. The eyes will no longer occupy the exact same space(in reference to the floor) as before when the man moves around.

When we are talking about simplifying the monkey's position to a single point, we are viewing the monkey as a mass point: It has mass, but no size. Obviously, a point cannot rotate, but a monkey on a pole can. Con automatically assumes that it doesn't matter where the monkey is facing, but a monkey is fundamentally different to an actual mass point: It can rotate to change its conditions(eyes' position shift, etc), but a mass point cannot. All this points to that a monkey, when rotating in place, cannot be represented by a mass point.

Then, where shall the "monkey's point" be? Any one point inside the monkey, I suppose, as long as the man walks full circle around it.

When we should treat an object as a mass point and when not to is written in physics textbooks. This one, for example, states:
For most of our work so far, we've treated objects as idealized mass points. When describing rotational motion, we must treat objects as mass distributions. An object must have extent in space in order for it to make sense to speak of rotation of the object.
The monkey is an object rotating in place and the only motions that could happen in this scenario for the monkey is rotational motion. According to physics textbooks, it is unacceptable to treat the monkey as a point like Con did in his argument. We must treat the monkey as an object that could rotate, instead of a single point.

In Conclusion:
• In this model, the motion of the man is in reference to the monkey, so the 3D coordinate should be fixed to the monkey instead of the floor.
• The monkey is the point of reference according to the topic statement, not the floor, not the pole, and not a fire truck outside my house.
• In this model, if the man is 5 units from the monkey, no matter where the man is, the monkey will always be facing it, making the man always at (0,5,0), and staying in a single point in relation to an object is not going around an object.
• Thus, according to physics, the man did not go around the monkey.
• Con treated a monkey as a mass point with no size, this is wrong.
• The monkey is only capable of rotational motion, and according to physics textbooks, things only capable of rotational motion should not be treated as mass points. The direction of any one point compared to its center matters in a rotational object like this monkey.
• Direction matters in this model.
• The monkey is always in a direction facing the man, which suggests that the man is always in front of the monkey, and not going around it.
• Overall, Con has illustrated a poor understanding of physics which leads him to use the completely wrong model, thus not proving what he is directed to prove. I have proven that the man, according to physics, did not go around the monkey. Vote Pro.

Con
#4
CON has won this debate because PRO has failed to prove that rotation around the monkey depends on the direction in which the monkey faces at any given time.

The analysis here is simple: The resolution states "Suppose there is a monkey on a pole constantly facing a man. The man walks around the pole. Such man did not go around the monkey."

In order for PRO to win, whether the man walks around the monkey must depend on the direction the monkey faces.  This he has failed to do, for reasons I discussed above and will elaborate further on below.

Relatedly, I should win the conduct point in view of PRO's bad faith, which I note below:

1. PRO's multi-front dishonesty.  I have neither dropped nor conceded a single point in PRO's case.  To drop an argument means that you did not rebut it.  I rebutted every single argument he made, in view of which PRO has deliberately misrepresented what I said in the prior round.  Further, to concede an argument means you acquiesce to the merit and implications of your opponent's case.  I did the exact opposite, as any lucid reading of the prior round amply demonstrates, in view of which PRO has deliberately misrepresented what I did in the prior round.  As such, PRO has engaged in two unique conduct violations which I have not.  Each independently justifies awarding the conduct point to me.

2. PRO's insults and unsportsman like conduct.  Presumably because PRO has realized he has lost the debate, he resorted to insults and unsportsman-like conduct.  For example, PRO characterizes my alleged "understanding of physics" as "poor" in the following statement:

Overall, Con has illustrated a poor understanding of physics . . .
Irony notwithstanding, this insulting and unsportsman like behavior is beneath the dignity of the exercise in which we are currently engaged.  Insulting your opponent is unnecessary, rude and offensive.  I have not insulted him, despite his lack of understanding with respect to concepts so basic that any minimally adequate middle-school student of physical science and pre-algebra would readily ascertain.

Now, the merits of PRO's mistaken argument.

• PRO has confused perception for relative motion:  PRO has confused the monkey's perception of the man's movement, with the man's movement relative to the monkey.
• According to PRO's sources, it turns out that the laws of physics do not depend on the subjective perception of monkeys.
• PRO's source uses the words "relative motion," but it seems he doesn't understand the difference between an objective frame of reference and subjective perception.
• PRO, in R1, provided an example of relative motion in which a person in a boat moves relative to mountains by boating up a river, but not in relation to the boat.
• Notably, nothing about that hypothetical depended on the man's subjective perception of movement; but his relative position, in relation to a boat and mountains.
• Here, I have explained that this debate is about the man's movement relative to the monkey at a the fixed point in space in which the monkey is located.  It is undisputed that the monkey's physical position did not change.  So, the man cannot have walked around the pole upon which the monkey sits without also walking around the monkey.
• It might be helpful to explain this in terms of the moon orbiting (read: encircling) the earth.   Even though we perceive the moon as never rotating, the moon is still rotating.
• Due to a phenomena called tidal locking, we can never see the dark side of the moon from earth.  The result is that the same face or side of the moon always faces the earth.  The moon does encircle the earth, but it rotates at the same speed that it rotates around the Earth which is why the same face is always visible and the dark side of the moon is never visible.
• The moon completes one full rotation on its axis in the time it takes to orbit the Earth. That means the same side is always facing the earth, even though the moon rotates.
• And there is no question whatsoever that the moon orbits the earth, even though the same side always faces the earth.
• PRO has confused types of motion:  The monkey's rotary motion doesn't mean that the man isn't encircling it.
• The monkey's rotatory motion (i.e., spinning on the z-axis in my explanation above) doesn't mean that the man isn't engaged in circular motion (encircling the monkey a full 360 degrees by movement about/upon a horizontal plane comprising an X and Y axis, at the constant distance/radius), relative to the monkey.  See generally, how the moon orbits the earth yet spins on an axis at the same time.
• Rotatory motion is spinning on an axis, like the moon or earth spinning on their axes.
• Rotatory motion is different from circular motion, so it's not the same thin.
• Circular motion, is the motion of an object on a circular path, like a car on a track or the moon revolving around the earth.
• This debate is about the man, engaged in circular motion relative to the monkey and pole; the monkey's rotatory motion makes no difference to that circular path whatsoever.  So, direction doesn't matter.
• All that the monkey did was spin on an axis (the z axis) while the man was engaged in circular motion around the monkey, like the moon revolving around the earth.
• The fact that the monkey happened to face in a certain direction relative to the man does not mean that the man didn't encircle the monkey and pole upon which the monkey is sitting.
• So, such a man who walks around the pole upon which the monkey sits very much walks around the monkey. And the monkey is never "the judge of whether the man walked around it or not," as PRO amusingly claimed.
• In the explanation I provided above, the man is absolutely not "always in the same position in relation to the monkey" as PRO incorrectly claims, for the same reason the moon is absolutely not in the same position in relation to the earth, as it completes its orbit.  Notably as well, the fact that the earth happens to spin on an axis doesn't change the fact that the moon still very much orbits the earth.
• So all of that means the following:
• PRO doesn't understand the concept of relative motion;
• PRO incorrectly assumed that the monkey's rotatory motion meant the man wasn't engaged in circular motion; and
• PRO assumed the monkey's subjective perception of the man somehow determined the man's encircling the monkey.
• CON obviously wins, unless you believe the moon doesn't revolve around the earth.
Overall, PRO didn't understand these basic concepts of physical science, which led to his misunderstanding the concept of motion and its various forms, thus causing him to believe that a man engaged in circular motion about a monkey could somehow not be engaged in circular motion about the monkey because the monkey looked at him all the while.

But hopefully the links I provided and this explanation will prove an educational experience for him, that he may no longer remain in his state of confusion.