Instigator / Pro
25
1798
rating
130
debates
77.31%
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

After 6 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...

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.

RFD 1/3
"Around: in a circle or in circumference"

This. This is why Pro's case ended up going from (as zedvictor4 says in the comments section) an absolute truism to an absolute falsism.

If we look at the definition given in the description and see how things play out, what both sides fail to properly address is what 'around' means, though this is correct strategy from Con since the amiguity of 'around' is in fact the biggest hole in Pro's case which Con correctly exploits.

To go 'around' the monkey is never once specified by Pro to require the man to encircle the BODY of the monkey from ALL ANGLES, instead what Con points out is the following, in Round 1:

"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."

He also earlier points out, in the same Round:
"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.
The man has "go[ne] around" or "encircled" the money. "

I do not really buy into the Round 2 arguments from Con nor do I think it's appropriate to bombard with the sources and fresh argumentation like the moon analogy in a Round that clearly should be used for conclusion and rebuttal (without new constructive to aid said rebuttal) only.

I would somewhat even have considered docking Con for sources since he chose to use absolutely 0 in Round 1 and bombard them only to show space theory but Pro's sources are merely dictionaries and a .com not entirely reliable website and in fact both sides use their sources too generically for me to apply the point. Con's sources themselves were probably of more reliable and high quality but not with regards to when and how they were wielded inside the debate (Pro never had his own chance to debunk Con's sources so I don't consider Con's turning of Pro's source against him in Round 2 as worthy of allocating the point to Con).

RFD 2/3
This is only a small part of why I give the Conduct point to Pro.

There is a very snide, arrogant tone throughout Con's argumentation that significantly is ramped up in Round 2. Let me give you some examples where totally unnecessary adjectives and snide comments are slipped into what could have been neutrally delivered argumentation:

"That he may no longer remain in his state of confusion."
"didn't understand these BASIC concepts of"
"as Pro AMUSINGLY claimed."
These were all made after Con himself tried to convince voters to give him the Conduct vote in the same Round.

Further comment (backwards in time):
"as any lucid reading of the prior round amply demonstrates"
This in fact is an appeal to emotion that preemptively insults the capacity of any voter who would vote against Con to have lucid awareness while reading the debate, however it actually is overally an insult to the opponent since it's structured inside of a section that insists Pro is deliberately misconstruing Con's rebuttals or lack thereof, meaning he is saying overall that either Pro is deliberately doing so or is not lucid while writing his debate Round.

Pro's comment about Con's understanding of physics was not really ad hominem but I agree with Con that it was definitely unnecessary (though Con went rather hypocritical). Nothing else Con mentions about Pro seems to be directly deserving of poor conduct voting. For instance, I see falsely narrating what the opponent is doing in a debate as clever, cunning debate tactics (as long as it's not totally absurd then it's just dumb but still not bad conduct UNLESS it is done with a tone that insults and talks down to the opponent and/or judges).

I would just like to quote something from Con's Round 1 that made me laugh a bit:

"Whether the monkey faced the man is of no consequence."
Notice the last word of this sentence. ^

"Consequently, I have won this debate. Vote CON."
The first word of this sentence tells me he wrote that paragraph so fast bursting to claim victory. That is not bad conduct, it just made me notice a tone and laugh.

RFD 3/3
Now, let me just secure my RFD with a quote or two from Pro, to prove I read his case.

"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."

This is a good point and would work with a different definition of 'around', this sentence alone is a good start to securing victory with being Pro of the truism... Except, remember that 'around' is merely defined as encircling and this is where things became problematic. Since Con correctly explained that 'around the monkey' may merely be relative to an overall perspective of geometry, not to the monkey himself/herself.

In Round 2, Pro and Con both failed to do the one thing needed to absolutely secure victory: exploring the definition and application of 'around' but as I said earlier, that is correct avoidance by Con in that stage of the debate, since to even touch on what 'around' means beyond what was written in the debate's description could have caused Con to shoot himself in the foot, so to speak.

-->
@FourTrouble

If the Monkey is "constantly facing the man", then the Monkey must go around the pole simultaneously with the man, therefore the man never actually goes around the monkey, but only around the the pole. For the man to go around the monkey, the monkey would need to be stationary....Compare it to a geostationary satellite as opposed to an orbiting satellite.

-->
@Barney

“Go around the monkey” implies that the judge of whether the man has gone around or not is the monkey, and the syntax would mean that according to the monkey, either the man walked around or not.

The same applies to the sentence “a man who stayed in Eiffel Tower the entire day has gone around the planet earth”. The earth is the reference of the motion of said man.

-->
@Intelligence_06

But why would the monkey's perspective be greater than the man's or the world beyond?

-->
@zedvictor4

You're saying the man can't go around the monkey because the monkey is on the pole? If the monkey were on the ground, it would have been possible to go around?

I don't understand the distinction, please clarify.

Idk why I am back, but saying the man has gone around the monkey is like saying a man just sitting in the same house has gone around the earth. The relative positions of the man from the monkey’s perspective is the same.

-->
@FourTrouble

There is a simple difference between going around a monkey on a pole, and going around a monkey.

If the monkey is constantly facing the man, then the man cannot go around the monkey.

The man can only go around the monkey on the pole.

Bugger all to do with physics.

-->
@coal
@zedvictor4
@Intelligence_06

Pro's position is objectively wrong, and Con's example of the moon going around Earth clearly proves the point.

How can zedvictor4 say the proposition is irrefutable? No idea. Basic physics (and common sense) tells us this: For the monkey to remain motionless relative to the man, the monkey would also have to move in the x & y axis. In other words, the monkey has to move in a circle just as the man moves in a circle, thus remaining motionless in relation to the man.

Changing direction isn't the same as moving in a circle. Changing direction doesn't stop the man from walking around a fixed point. This is basic physics...

-->
@Intelligence_06

In my opinion....Debate is as about a persons ability to present a coherent and persuasive argument...... In this instance, even though the proposition should have been irrefutable, you failed to make it so. Your evidence and explanation was counterproductive.

-->
@whiteflame

Very good; any time in the next 26 days or so will be fine (before voting ends)

-->
@coal

Still the plan

-->
@whiteflame

Are you going to vote here?

-->
@coal
@Intelligence_06
@gugigor

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab

>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter could stand to be more detailed, but it is sufficient in that it addresses the core arguments from both sides. Voters are allowed to state that they do not understand certain points as part of their RFDs, even if the debater(s) feel that these arguments are comprehensible.
**************************************************

-->
@Intelligence_06
@gugigor

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

-->
@zedvictor4

Not understanding my argument should never be a reason of why my argument doesn’t work unless it is a legibility issue under the S&G. I don’t understand Nobel-prize papers, doesn’t mean they are all nonsense.

-->
@coal

I just think that his vote is insufficient.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@gugigor

@Intelligence_06, It isn't nice to be mean to people who vote on your debates.

@gugigor, thank you for voting

-->

Well, just for the moon facing earth we cannot just conclude a round earth. But other things can possibly lead us to conclude that the earth isn’t in fact flat.

-->
@gugigor

Also, if you think my case is confusing, don’t even vote on it. If my argument was SO HARD TO READ that YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT, then at least put the vote on S&G, just because an argument is confusing doesn’t mean it isn’t right. My arguments sound like tweets compared to actual famous works of philosophy when it comes to difficulty of understanding.

-->
@gugigor

That is not common sense. Absolute position is a flawed concept according to physics. Please reconsider.

Ironically Pro has a point but he won't realise his point should lead to concluding flat earth theory (not on its own but definitely buuld skepticism to the absurdity of the moon always facing Earth vs the model)

-->
@coal

Leave it up to the voters. If I really did something wrong, they will vote in favor of you.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Well, I've got some bad news for you . . . .

-->
@coal

Just a reminder, unless I have been lied to all this time, the moon-earth model isn't representative of the man-monkey model. In the moon-earth model, the moon, as the one revolving outside, always faces the earth; and in the man-monkey model, the monkey, as the one rotating inside, always faces the man.

One is inside and one is outside. That is the main difference.

-->
@coal

Nice debate, didn't know why I made it only 2 rounds but thanks regardless.

-->
@Intelligence_06

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6513-hall-of-fame-upcoming?page=1&post_number=13

-->
@fauxlaw

interested?