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

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

coal
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

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.

Conduct:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Conduct:
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).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.