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
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

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

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:

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Pro setup a non classical relativistic approach to movement, indicating that objects can be moved relative to an observer of the observer is moved. I would like to have seen relativity cited more specifically, but this is just preference.

The unstoppable force point is a little laboured with his reference to reactive force, but it’s enoufh for the initial burden.

Con offers little in response, amounting to a semantic trick. If there isn’t a counter to stop the force, or force to move the object: they are technically unstoppable or unloveable. Even if this is true it doesn’t render them unstoppable. Can’t be stopped is not the same as wont be stopped.

In cons final round - it’s not even clear what the justification is - and due to it being cinal round can’t be challenged.

As a result, pros opening is unrefuted. Arguments to pro.

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 does a good job here by defining terms up front. I would have liked to have seen Newtonian Physics defined as well. I buy that no objects are immovable in an ever-moving universe better than I do the argument against unstoppable forces. Equal reaction does not imply an equally unstoppable force is generated. Gravity is an unstoppable force.

Con might have called tautology and made a convincing case. Con might simply named one unstoppable force or immovable object. Certainly, Pro's summary of Newton's Third Law is vulnerable to critique. But Con forfeits in the first round and offers the flimsiest of efforts in the second: even if everything is movable or stoppable eventually not everything is moving or unstopped now. Of course, everything is unmovably immobilized when stripped of time but in Newtonian Physics, time is a constant.

Arguments to Pro

Conduct to Pro for Con's double forfeit.