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.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Forfeiture = loss
Insulting = -1 conduct
Everything not mentioned cannot be considered automatically existing or nonexisting until proven
Around: in a circle or in circumference
BoP is shared, Con must prove that the man did go around the monkey in such situation. Good luck.
- 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.
- 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.
- A monkey is sitting on a pole.
- The monkey remains on the pole at all relevant times and does not leave.
- The man walks around the pole, upon which the monkey sits.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
Such man did not go around the monkey.
- 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).
- 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.
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.
- 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.
Overall, Con has illustrated a poor understanding of physics . . .
- 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.
RFD in comments.
Both sides agree that motion is relative. Pro argues that the monkey changes its directional orientation as the man walks around the pole. Con argues that this fact doesn't matter, because the monkey's physical position remains fixed as the man walks around the pole. As a matter of basic physics, Con is correct. His example of the moon proves this point beyond any reasonable doubt. So Con wins.
Spelling & Grammar:
Con's spelling & grammar is significantly better. Pro makes numerous errors in both spelling & grammar, and these mistakes render Pro's argument needlessly difficult-to-understand.
As Con explains in the debate, Pro repeatedly misrepresents Con's position in the debate, and Pro insults Con's understanding of physics in general, rather than limiting his analysis to Con's reasoning. Ironically, Pro's understanding of physics is wrong here, which makes the insult particularly egregious.
Pro kinda opened up the door to a loss by insisting motion is relative, whereby con immediately conceded that point and then established a relative point of reference as an x,y,z plane.
The rest of the debate was semantics and minor back and forth jabs. No outrageous conduct marks. Maybe Pro could have won if he established the monkey's face as a point of reference to motion, but I didn't see any compelling arguments as to why that would be the only case.
Though Pro's proposition was actually correct, their argument never addressed the simple but fundamental fact, that though the man went around a monkey on a pole, he never actually went around the monkey. Perhaps this was what Pro was trying to say, but their unnecessarily complicated argument left me somewhat confused. Cons argument was simpler and therefore more effective in this instance.
Pro provided sources, but I don't think that they were necessarily relevant to the simple proposition.
Spelling and grammar was comparable, and good conduct was maintained throughout.
This is close, and really could have used a third round.
Solid opening from pro. There's a lot to be said in favor of his relativistic motion argument, which essentially boils down to from the fixed perspective of the monkey the man has not walked around it (he in fact seems to be the whole world to said monkey).
Con makes a case that the physical location and therefore the physical object at it has indeed been encircled, and works out the details at length with grid examples.
Both outlooks appear valid and perhaps sound even within the scope of their perspectives.
Ultimately in considering the limited view of the monkey, or the much larger view of the world around it, the world around it is many magnitudes greater. The man knows he has walked around the monkey, even if the monkey continually faces him to deny it.
The moon was a bit of an apples to oranges comparison which I liked initially but it then seemed to get over used.
I was not overly distracted from the debate by rhetoric hyperbole (as much as were I favoring pro on arguments, I would probably mitigate that with conduct). I do suggest avoiding saying people conceded things unless pointing to a specific phrase they used which would imply such. Also it is much better to not accuse someone of not knowing physics, just because they have a different perspective (I'm sure I've been guilty of this type of thing plenty in debates).
Pro's case is extremely confusing. I do not buy that the relative motion of "going around" as needing to bypass the monkey's own perception. Coal's example of the moon rotating the earth despite us continuing to face the moon landed the coffin in the nail. Pro needed more succinct or clear explanations for why we have to take the relative motion of what the monkey sees, rather than the common sense of the absolute locations of the man and the monkey.
"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).
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.
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.
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.
“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.
But why would the monkey's perspective be greater than the man's or the world beyond?
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.
Think about it.
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.
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...
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.
Very good; any time in the next 26 days or so will be fine (before voting ends)
Still the plan
Are you going to vote here?
>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.
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.
I just think that his vote is insufficient.
@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.
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.
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)
Leave it up to the voters. If I really did something wrong, they will vote in favor of you.
Well, I've got some bad news for you . . . .
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.
我不会说中文。 太复杂了 但我没有谈论一个球，我说的是一个星球。 虽然很好的辩论。
Nice debate, didn't know why I made it only 2 rounds but thanks regardless.