Instigator / Pro
0
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Topic
#3286
A monkey on a pole always faces a man and rotates on the pole. The man walks around the pole. The man did not walk around the monkey.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1511
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Description
Around meaning: in a circle or in circumference.
Con must prove that the man did indeed walked in a circle in respect to the monkey.
Round 1
To start, welcome DeprecatoryLogistician to this debate.
Around
Around means:
Around meaning: in a circle or in circumference.
Let's not even consider the very easy kritik that practically nothing could make a perfect circle, I, as Pro, is here to prove that with the man and the monkey and nothing else, not even anything remotely resembling a circle has been drawn by the feet of the man.
In order to walk anything even close to a circle, the man must be in all radial directions in relation to the monkey in this process at one time or another. Therefore, a man should be at least once 60 degrees off from the monkey's orientation direction, as well as 30 degrees or 90 degrees.
According to the proposition, should the man walk around the monkey actually, he must as well be able to be 180 degrees to the monkey compared to where he was at the start, meaning that he is at the back of the monkey, behind it, and the monkey is not facing the man. 90 and 270 degrees mean that the man is on the side of the monkey, which shouldn't be possible either.
In the end, only at angles approximately 0 degrees will the monkey actually face the man, and at such statuses the man will not walk a full circle in relation to the monkey if the monkey is destined to always face him no matter what.
Relative Motion
Obviously, the man could have moved around the pole in a circular fashion, after 360 degrees. However, according to the scenario presented by the topic statement, it concerns if the man walked around the monkey, which implies that the monkey is the reference frame judging whether if the man has walked around it or not. The monkey and the man rotates with the same angular speed, hence the monkey is facing the man.
Let us consider the direction the monkey faces the positive direction of the Y axis for its coordinate plane, and the man is always approximately 5 units from the pole of which the monkey resides on. The pole, assuming stationary, is (0,0) and does not rotate.
- The man starts at (0,5) on the coordinate plane motionless in respect to the stationary pole. The man is (0,5) in respect to the monkey.
- The man walks 90 degrees and ends up in (5,0). Because the monkey still faces the man, the man is still (0,5) in respect to it.
- The man walks 90 degrees more and ends up in (0,-5). For the same reasons, to the monkey, the man is at (0,5).
- The man walks 90 degrees more and ends up in (-5,0). For the same reasons, to the monkey, the man is still at (0,5).
- The man comes back to the original place, (0,5). To the monkey, the man is still at (0,5).
In the end, under ideal circumstances, the man and the monkey are relatively stationary. The man did not walk "around" in relation to the monkey.
Put it into Perspective
The man and the monkey has the same angular speed, as such, their positions are always on the same ray and they turn together. One example of this is, you guessed it, a car wheel. The axle and the rubber tire for a car wheel rotate together, and even though the car wheel has rotated a full circle in respect to, for example, the main part of the car chassis, they are relatively motionless due to them having the exact same angular velocity vectors.
In short, this is how a "wheel and axle" simple machine works. Neither do the bike tires rotate around the spokes of the bicycle wheel, for the exact same reasons. Neither does a scissor handle rotate around its respective blades, for the exact same reasons.
The "man-and-monkey" combination is technically a similar mechanism. If you believe that the man walks around the monkey, then obviously, you should also be one of the people that believes that rubber tires rotate around the respective rim spokes and the axles that gives torque to the wheels in the first place. For the same reason, if you think clacker balls do not rotate around the respective strings(For the younger crowd, this is what it looks like, and by the "respective string" I mean the segment between the finger and the clacker ball, in which a circular motion will be granted in such a combination.), then vote Pro, because neither will the man encircle the monkey, in the same physical model.
Conclusions
- By relative motion, the man is always approximately the same position as the monkey, which does not make the man "walk around" the monkey in a circle.
- The "man-and-monkey" model is like a wheel-and-axle model, and no, the wheels do not rotate around the axles due to them having the same angular speed, a.k.a. rotating the same angle in respect to its centre of rotation in the same amount of time.
- Thus, in looks of even high-school physics, the man and the monkey are relatively motionless. The man did not walk around the monkey.
I rest my case.
To start, thank you to @Intelligence_06 for debating and posing the interesting resolution of this round.
Framing
1. Con only needs to prove that there is a posibility that the man did not walk around the monkey
The resolution makes the definitive statement that "the man did not walk around the monkey." Any ballot cast for Pro makes the assertion that there is a 100% chance that the man did not walk around the monkey. Thus if voters belive there is even the slightest chance in the truth of the resolution they must vote Con.
Interpreting the resolution
First consider the word on. According to merriam webster, the word can have three meanings.
1. touching and being supported by the top surface of (something)
2. to a position that is supported by (something)
3. —used to indicate the part or object by which someone or something is supported
Looking at all of the defentions we can see how they all have one thing in common. They indicate that something is on top of something else. In this case the monkey is on top of the pole.
In the first defenition we can see this because it is reffering to the monkey being supported by the top surface of the pole, for which to be true the monkey would need to be on top of the pole.
In the second defenition we can see that this is also possible because something can be supported from below as we saw with the defenition, so it is entirely possible for the monkey to be physically on top of the pole and be supported.
In the final defenition the same logic applies. Someone or something (in this case a monkey) can be supported from below, so the defenition corrobarates the idea that the monkey may be on top of the pole.
Additionally there is no reason that the monkey can not be on top of the pole. The resolution does not give any information as to the orieantation of the monkey, other than saying it faces the man, and that it is on the pole. This means that there is no mechanism given by the resolution that can definitively proove that the monkey is not on top of the pole. There is also no epistimological supremacy to any possible posistion of the monkey, so we must consider that all posistions that are possible to be defined as on the pole, could indeed be where the monkey is.
Implications of the interpratation and framework
If the monkey is on top of the pole (which it may be according to all defenitions of the word 'on'), and if Con only has to proove that there is a posibility that the resolution is wrong (as prooven by the fact that the resolution is a definitive statement), Con wins. This is because if the monkey is on top of the pole, it can simply look down, and be facing the man. As the man walks, the monkey rotates. The man is walking around a stationary object that is simply rotating.
Circle K
My oppenent conceeded in the last speech that the resolution is untrue.
practically nothing could make a perfect circle
The role of the ballot is the decide on the truth of the resolution, and voters should not accept assertions that the resolution makes to be true. For example, if there was a resolution saying that a bakery should use magical flour to make better bread, a perfectly reasonable response would be to say magical flour does not exist. This example may be extreme, but the same idea still applies. The defenition given by Pro of around clearly states that the man must walk in a circle, but circles do not exist as conceeded by Pro.
The impact of this is that the resolution is untrue. If there is not such thing as a circle (as Pro conceeds), the man can not walk around the monkey. This is because pro defined around to mean a circle.
The alternative is to drop the defenition of the word around. I agree to do this if Pro would like to change it.
Round 2
REBUTTALS
First consider the word on. According to merriam webster, the word can have three meanings.1. touching and being supported by the top surface of (something)2. to a position that is supported by (something)3. —used to indicate the part or object by which someone or something is supported
Well, a monkey can grasp the pole hard enough that the static friction's magnitude is equivalent with the gravity it feels, so it is supported by the pole. In that case, the monkey is still "on" the pole, even though it is not on the top, according to definition 2, which exists.
In fact, when I search "monkey on tree" on the internet, there are very obviously images that shows monkey grasping the side of a tree branch, instead of being on top of one.
[1]The web result, as a whole
[2]Such an image that was achieved by searching such a phrase
[3]In case if you think I am rigging it, here is one that is actually on the top of a branch
The first definition, while existing, is not the only definition that the term could have. In fact, determining whether if something is on another thing, we look at the union of the three sets, not the intersection.
Thus, this point loses ground.
Even if the monkey can only sit on the top of a pole(which I imagine would be uncomfortable for it), the monkey still serves as something akin to an auto-tracking camera, just sitting on top of the pole instead of grasping the pole. What is "on" literally changes nothing and Con fails to refute anything as a result as of now.
Additionally there is no reason that the monkey can not be on top of the pole. The resolution does not give any information as to the orieantation of the monkey, other than saying it faces the man, and that it is on the pole. This means that there is no mechanism given by the resolution that can definitively proove that the monkey is not on top of the pole. There is also no epistimological supremacy to any possible posistion of the monkey, so we must consider that all posistions that are possible to be defined as on the pole, could indeed be where the monkey is.
Exactly. Right now, we can determine that any place that the monkey could grasp the pole while maintaining full mobility to look at the man to be "on the pole", satisfying the resolution. I have presented my reasoning why.
This is because if the monkey is on top of the pole, it can simply look down, and be facing the man. As the man walks, the monkey rotates. The man is walking around a stationary object that is simply rotating.
The man and the monkey, as explained last round, have the same angular speed. Thus, they are relatively motionless due to the man always being in front of the monkey when the monkey is the reference frame according to the resolution, not the pole it resides on or the floor that puts the pole. Neither that the angular speed argument nor the reference frame argument was refuted whatsoever.
The impact of this is that the resolution is untrue. If there is not such thing as a circle (as Pro conceeds), the man can not walk around the monkey. This is because pro defined around to mean a circle.The alternative is to drop the defenition of the word around. I agree to do this if Pro would like to change it.
I simply drop this argument because I didn't even expect it to be treated as an argument. I change the condition to that as long as the man is at every radial position in respect to the monkey at at least one given possible time, Con wins. This means that even if the man walks around the monkey in an elliptical shape, it would still count.
But I don't need to use whatever this is to win. Again, the man and the monkey are relatively at rest, especially radially. The man, the monkey's frontal position and the centre will always be in line and they move as if it were a "wheel-and-axle" system. This point went unrefuted as of now.
Let's imagine a space lab. It is on earth orbit and it rotates slowly(itself) to create weak centripetal force, which means that the environment inside is near zero-G. A camera containing unknown pictures floats in the centre by the astronauts in the space lab, in which they are all relatively at rest with the space lab itself. OK, isn't this problem just like the one discussed in this debate? The camera, if the force felt by it changes not, paints the same picture every time it could take. According to Con, the space lab is rotating around the camera.
Still no? OK, let's imagine a floating drone helicopter. The Earth rotates in of itself and a helicopter floats dozens of feet above the ground and only takes off and nothing else, you get the point. Since the helicopter is rotating around the centre of the world(the core), according to Pro, the helicopter would be literally revolving around the earth. However, due to common sense and understandings of physics, we can simply tell that in neither cases, the rotation between the designated objects occur.
This is because they have the exact same angular speed and can be seen as relatively radially motionless. Remind again this point has not been brought up yet by Con.
The man rotates around the position of the monkey as a point, if the floor is a reference frame. However, due to that the resolution would mean that the monkey is the reference frame, the two are motionless in respect to each other and nobody moved around anybody else.
I rest my case. Extend last round conclusions because all of them still stand.
ON
Pro says that because definition 2 technically allows the monkey to grasp the side of the pole and be supported. First off according to Merriam Webster the only applicable definition of ‘of’ support here means “to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for.” The monkey would be supporting itself via friction using its own grip strength, and this means that the pole is not supporting the monkey, but the monkey is holding itself up. Definition 2 of on does not allow for the monkey to be on top.
Next,if voters didn’t buy that last point they should consider reasonability. All definitions of the word on allow for the monkey to be on the top face of the pole, but 2-3 do not allow the monkey to be on the side of the pole. Additionally the first definition that would widely be considered to be the most reasonable one does not allow for the monkey to be on the side of the pole, so that definition should be weighed above the rest.
If voters believe none of what I’ve said up to this point then just consider the framework. In my constructive my sole contention on framing was that the resolution was definitive, so I just needed to prove the possibility that it was false. Pro admits that the definitions all allow for the monkey to be on top, so this should be viewed as a concession of the debate.
Finally Con performs a search on Bing to prove his point by showing how monkeys position themselves on trees. If we actually search Google for the more relevant question which is “monkey on pole” we will see that the vast majority of monkeys are on the top of poles. If the monkey is on the top of the pole, or there is even a possibility it could be that means the definitive resolution is untrue.
Relative Motion
Con is complicating this issue unnecessarily by bringing up various ways in which the monkey is not moving, but this can be completely ignored because there is no reason that relative motion is the only factor that should be considered. Instead, the resolution makes a definitive statement, so if Con can prove that the monkey walked around the man in any way that means Con should win. You will notice that the BoP is on Con in this situation, not Pro. I can bring up ways as well that the monkey is not walking around the man. For example, the monkey is not walking on its hands around the man. The only difference with these two claims is that one has a fancy name, but fundamentally they are the same because both points still allow other points about the resolution to remain true.
This all means that the fact that the man could be walking around the monkey's center of mass relative to the pole or anything else should be considered. Until Pro can sufficiently prove that relative motion is the only form of motion that can be considered in this debate, and not simply just suggests that the resolution may imply it to some degree, then voters have to consider other scenarios as well.
Around
Pro accepted my K on the nature of circles, and dropped the provided definition. This means that the definition of around is open for debate. What we are going to see is that in the vicinity of means close to or around according to Merriam Webster. Pro tries to define around as an "elliptical shape", but I am unaware of any defenition that actually states this. Conversationally people also use my defenition to refer to proximity. You can imagine someone saying I left my keys around the house, but not I hate geometry because of arounds.
This means that the man just has to be walking somewhere near a pole with a monkey on it, and that the monkey is looking at the man. This definition is not only possible, but also far more probable. There is really no reason for this man to be walking in circles of the pole, but it is extremely easy to imagine a man walking past the monkey enclosure at the zoo, and a monkey on a pole watching the man. If there is even a small possibility of this being true it disproves the definitive resolution.
Round 3
Rebuttal: Definitions
Con changing the requirements related to the term "around" was not a rational act. Here is why.
Initially, both I and Con agreed that the requirement of the man walking a full circle was too ridiculous, and Con is OK with that I change the conditions.
The alternative is to drop the defenition of the word around. I agree to do this if Pro would like to change it.[R1 CON]
I did.
I change the condition to that as long as the man is at every radial position in respect to the monkey at at least one given possible time, Con wins.[R2 PRO]
Therefore, the shift of the definition and the requirements centered around the term "around" to "near" would be violating the spirit of debate at worst and amount to nothing at best, because I have already changed the requirements under Con's supposed agreement. Neither did Con propose that this new condition was irrational: Con straight up ignored it, as if he missed a whole section.
Majority of Definitions
OK, again, ignore whether the monkey is on top of the pole or merely grasping the pole on the side, the monkey serves as an auto-tracking camera. No matter the camera is mounted on the tippy top of the pole or attached on the side, if it can still track and face a specific subject, it works as intended. Now, here is the problem: Pro simply rejected my criticism for the definition of "on", simply because more rows of definitions favor his interpretation.
All definitions of the word on allow for the monkey to be on the top face of the pole, but 2-3 do not allow the monkey to be on the side of the pole.[CON R2]
Now, look at the MW page for the term "around"[a].
Definitions 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 4a, and 5 all indicate that were the man walking 'around' the monkey, the radial position of the man must change in accordance with the monkey. That is impossible as by definition, they have the same angular speed at any given moment. With all applicable definitions(including the very first), obviously, the definition of "around" favors my interpretation in this debate, not Con's in R2. As a result, Con ought to drop his interpretation of the term by his logic through the discussion of the term "on".
Verdict: Currently, "Around" still means "to be in every radial direction at one moment at least" both by my anticipated shift and the majority of definitions defining so, more than that defines "around" as "near", etc.
Unfortunately, as defined so, it is literally impossible for the man to be anywhere else other than at 0 degrees to the reference frame that is the monkey, thus "around" is not achievable.
Con has not contended on such a fact related to relative motion, and merely responded with an argument centered around an ineffective definition change. I therefore extend all the main points.
Conclusions
- the majority of definitions support that the man must have changed in radial positions drastically in order to "walk around the monkey", and this is not possible.
- Con dropped the "relative motion" argument.
- Con did not contend on the fact that the monkey is the reference frame.
- I have changed the conditions for the term "around" in agreement with Con.
- Con's new definition shift is ineffective as a result.
- Due to relative motion, the man did not walk around the monkey.
- Vote Pro.
Thank you for reading.
Definitional debate of on
The only rebuttal that Pro gives is on my point that there are more definitions of on. But this point is now made irrelevant by the fact that Pro dropped my points on definition two — the only definition in contention still. This means that voters should not just assume that 2/3 definitions support my claim, but that 3/3 definitions support my claim.
Also, Pro drops my point here that the resolution is definite, and as such I only need to prove that there is a possibility for the monkey to be on top of the pole, and I do not need to prove that this is a certainty for it to be considered. Here I have proven that all definitions are flowed to Con, but even if Pro brings definition 2 back up I am still going to win because I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is possible that the monkey is physically on top of the pole.
Relative Motion and FW
My sole claim on framing is that the resolution is definite, so Con only needs to prove that there is a possibility that the man did not walk around the monkey. This has been my position since the first round and it has gone completely unchallenged, and also since framing is an a priori issue Pro cannot bring it up in the last speech. This is because framing is the mechanism through which impacts are weighed, if we change this framework in later rounds it voids the previous rounds. This harms debate because it does not give us adequate time to debate an issue under the given framework. Finally, changing it in the last round would also harm fairness. This is because Pro spends the entire round going after points that are true under the framework, and Con can simply change it to whatever benefits them the most.
The reason I brought up the framework here is because Con accused me of dropping relative motion. I obviously did drop this point, but that is because I am saying that it does not matter. I do not disagree that the man is not moving relatively to the monkey because this is objectively true. Rather, my point was that the man is moving around the monkey's center of mass, and this is a form of movement around the monkey. Therefore, the resolution “the man did not walk around the monkey” is objectively false. This point went completely dropped.
I also give reasons why judges should consider all forms of movement, not just one. I give the example of a handstand — the man did not walk on his hands around the monkey. This can be true, but the man can still have walked around the monkey. At the end of the day, it does not matter how the man walks around the monkey because walking around a monkey is walking around a monkey no matter how it is done.
Conclusion
You should for Con because I prove the resolution objectively false. Pro has yet to given a single rebuttal to the center of mass point, and rather has constructed a fictitious scenario where the man did not walk around the monkey — that is where we only consider relative motion. It does not matter how the man walks around the monkey, he is still walking around the monkey.
We can see that the man is indeed walking around the monkey. Pro essentially concedes this point where they refer to the monkey as an “auto-tracking camera.” If the monkey is tracking something, then something has to be revolving around its center of mass. Whether Pro admits this concession or not is irrelevant because by common sense we know that if a monkey standing on a pole rotates to look at a man that is walking around that pole, the man is also walking around the monkey because the monkey and the pole are in the same position. Yes, relatively this may be false, but the man is still walking around the monkey's center of mass.
Round 4
REBUTTALS
Rather, my point was that the man is moving around the monkey's center of mass, and this is a form of movement around the monkey. Therefore, the resolution “the man did not walk around the monkey” is objectively false.
I believe this point can be refuted by arguments made as early as the first round, due to the fact that I have established that the reference frame being the monkey is directly implied(and the only that is implied by the topic statement) due to that "monkey" is the object of the sentence, and "man" is the subject. The monkey is what determines whether the man has gone around it or not, either the man had gone around it, or the man had not. Due to English, it is clear that this issue is within a reference frame in which the monkey is at rest. At such reference frames, due to relative motion and physics, the man did not go around the monkey.
However, according to the scenario presented by the topic statement, it concerns if the man walked around the monkey, which implies that the monkey is the reference frame judging whether if the man has walked around it or not. The monkey and the man rotates with the same angular speed, hence the monkey is facing the man. [PRO R1]
If the centre of mass of the monkey is what we are looking for, then, for obvious reasons, the topic statement would no longer be as it has written. It would be written something like "According to the floor as the reference frame, the man has (not) gone around the monkey." The fact that there is no specification on reference frames would mean that it automatically concerns if the man has gone around, according to the monkey, meaning the monkey is the reference frame.
Con has yet to refute the fact that the monkey being the reference frame is the objectively correct interpretation. Con merely presented alternative interpretations which are not suggested by the topic at all, since it contradicts how regular English works. The interpretation which places the monkey in a coordinate plane always at rest to the monkey itself therefore would be the correct interpretation, since this is the only one directly suggested by the topic statement.
As a result, even if the man has gone around the monkey considering from an external frame of reference, the man still has not gone around the monkey according to the topic itself. The centre of mass does not work, as even if considered with centre of mass, the man is only ever at one direction in respect to the centre of mass of the monkey: If you have to say that the man has gone around the monkey's centre of mass, then you are considering it from another frame of reference, which has been ruled out by the topic statement.
And yes, I have brought up this since the very first round, so unless Con can disprove the relative motion argument, which Con arguably cannot anymore, Pro stands still.
It does not matter how the man walks around the monkey, he is still walking around the monkey.
It does not matter how the man is not walking around the monkey. Even if it is moving around the pole, it is not moving around the monkey.
If the monkey is tracking something, then something has to be revolving around its center of mass.
Disagree. Due to the relative motion a working auto-tracking camera or an auto-tracking monkey must do in order to work, the object it is trying to track must be within the same radial position with the camera lens in respect of the camera. That is how and why the thing it is trying to track always appears in the shot image or video of the camera. When it is the tracking, the tracker and the tracked is always in a single radial line and the two are relatively motionless, radially, at least, well. The tracked can move forwards and backwards in respect to the camera lens, but moving left and right in the image is only marginal and due to imperfection, which can be ignored in an ideal system. And yes, unless the monkey or the auto-tracking camera fails, the tracked(in this case, the man) cannot ever be behind it.
Yes, relatively this may be false, but the man is still walking around the monkey's center of mass.
No, the coordinate plane rotates with the monkey, which in turn rotates with the man as well. Thus, the man is always in the same position to the monkey, despite the centre of mass for the monkey does not change in position even in respect to the floor or even a garden hose outside somewhere.
The man did not go around the monkey's centre of mass, according to the monkey.
Let us consider the direction the monkey faces the positive direction of the Y axis for its coordinate plane, and the man is always approximately 5 units from the pole of which the monkey resides on. The pole, assuming stationary, is (0,0) and does not rotate.
- The man starts at (0,5) on the coordinate plane motionless in respect to the stationary pole. The man is (0,5) in respect to the monkey.
- The man walks 90 degrees and ends up in (5,0). Because the monkey still faces the man, the man is still (0,5) in respect to it.
- The man walks 90 degrees more and ends up in (0,-5). For the same reasons, to the monkey, the man is at (0,5).
- The man walks 90 degrees more and ends up in (-5,0). For the same reasons, to the monkey, the man is still at (0,5).
- The man comes back to the original place, (0,5). To the monkey, the man is still at (0,5).
[PRO R1]
Because the man rotates with the monkey, within the reference frame that we are to consider(that is, the monkey is stationary due to it being the object or "judge" of the condition of the topic), the man did not go around the centre of mass of the monkey, thus proving Con false.
CONCLUSIONS
- Pro did not take account in the nature of language used in this debate, in which, it is directly suggested that the monkey is the reference frame(or in one where the monkey is at rest), and it is the only one that is being suggested, thus making it the reference frame for this debate.
- I have mentioned this in the first round.
- Due to relative motion, the man did not go around the monkey's centre of mass due to the monkey is turning in accordance with the position of the man. The monkey's centre of mass stays in a coordinate plane where the monkey is at rest and thus turns with the entire body of the monkey and the man, making the man always in one position of the monkey's centre of mass.
- As such, due to relative motion, the "centre of mass" argument is false. Con is wrong about this.
- Examples illustrating this can be traced back to the first argument.
As such, I have proven that the man had not gone around the monkey due to relative motion. Vote Pro!
Resolution is definitive
You should vote for con in this debate because Pro fails to address my claim on the resolution being definitive, and this voids all of their points. Pro keeps saying the monkey is the reference frame under the resolution with absolutely no warrant to back this up other than saying the monkey is the subject of the sentence. I said that we should consider all forms of walking around the monkey, not just one where the monkey is the reference point. Again, the resolution is definitive, so it does not matter how the man is walking around the monkey — if he does it in any way the resolution must be false.
Pro says that you should reject my alternative interpretation of the resolution, but this is completely unwarranted.
Con merely presented alternative interpretations which are not suggested by the topic at all, since it contradicts how regular English works. The interpretation which places the monkey in a coordinate plane always at rest to the monkey itself therefore would be the correct interpretation, since this is the only one directly suggested by the topic statement.
Pro can say this is how English works, but has still yet to explain how this implies that the monkey should be the point of reference. Saying that it is the subject of the sentence does not explain how it must be the reference frame, and this is why you should accept my interpretation. The man did not walk around the monkey is definitely a definitive statement, and there is no question about that, but it in know way implies that the monkey is the point of reference.
Relativity is irrelevant
No, the coordinate plane rotates with the monkey, which in turn rotates with the man as well. Thus, the man is always in the same position to the monkey, despite the centre of mass for the monkey does not change in position even in respect to the floor or even a garden hose outside somewhere.
This is obviously true if we are talking about physics relative to the monkey, and I have already conceded that the monkey is not moving relative to the man, but my point is on objectively moving. In objective space the coordinate plane never moves which is the entire reason it is objective space.
Summary
You should vote for Con because I prove how the man is walking around the monkey in an objective manner. I have proven that the resolution is definitive, and if you do not buy this then read the resolution for yourself. Because the resolution is definitive it does not matter how the monkey walks around the man, if he does it then the resolution is not correct. You should weigh my points on the resolution being definitive and including all forms of movement over my opponents claims which clearly conflate grammar and physical reality without providing an actual warrant to prove this claim. There is no link between what the subject of a sentence is, and what the point of reference in a physical reality is which is why you are going to weigh my point over Pros, and as such vote for Con.
Depends how you define 'around'
Glancing at this; but there's not enough time left for me to give a fair and proper evaluation.
Previous debate on this topic:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/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
Stahhhhppp iiittttt. For real though. Whoever told you this is wrong.