Instigator / Pro
14
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#751

There Are No Immovable Objects or Unstoppable Forces in Newtonian Physics

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

K_Michael
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

All in the title.
I only have one rule. Only accept my debates if you actually believe the opposite position.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit.
The only one to substantiate their point was the instigator while the contender was staking making claims with no explanation. This is why the instigator made the more convincing argument. I can't fill in the gaps of the contender's argument. It is up to the contender to explain his side which the instigator was perfectly capable of doing.

>Reason for Mod Action: I get the temptation to, in a round of this length, not survey the main arguments specifically, but that urge does not negate the voter's responsibility to do so. The voter does engage in weighing to the extent the seem to find one side's arguments better warranted and thus of greater weight. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by simply stating what the main (counter)arguments were in the debate, inasmuch as Con did make some arguments. This is an easy fix.
************************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Con ff a round, this is poor conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************

-->
@K_Michael

My point, precisely.

-->
@oromagi

I wouldn't say that gravity is an unstoppable force, depending on your definition of stopped.

-->
@oromagi

Thanks for the feedback.

-->
@RationalMadman

Please go through with a debate that you've started.

-->
@K_Michael

I agree with this. It can only be hypothetically true and even hypothetically it has flaws. If the force is truly unstoppable, then when something collides with it, it shouldn't lose any force at all because it's unstoppable, but physics suggest that it will lose some force, therefore, with enough objects, you could eventually stop it.

Now you could say it's only unstoppable until it collides with something, but that seems like a cheap technicality.

The universe is an ever-expanding (ergo, moving) object, according to science. Science also speculates that gravity will eventually result in the "Big Crunch," necessarily stopping and then reversing the force of the universe's expansion. Hardly unstoppable or immovable.

id speculate the universe its self is both an immovable object (in its entirety) and an unstoppable force.