Total votes: 2
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.
In R1, Pro argues that spanking/paddling should be permitted because (1) status quo discipline sucks, and (2) it's a “reasonable alternative” that “works.” Con argues that spanking/paddling sucks because (1) it shifts focus away from "why," (2) it encourages masochists & sadists, (3) it hurts vulnerable students, and (4) it lacks consent.
In R2, Pro rebuts (1) implementation solves most of Con's concerns, and (2) empirical literature shows that students benefit from spanking/paddling. Con rebuts (1) past was worse than status quo, and (2) spanking harms outweigh effectiveness (this isn't Con's language, but the most charitable reading of his argument that I could come up with).
In R3, Pro concludes that spanking/paddling should be allowed because it benefits students in some cases, at least compared with status quo. Con concludes that spanking/paddling sucks because it causes bad memories, normalizes violence, hurts the vulnerable, and lacks taxpayer consent.
Con never disputes (1) the status quo sucks, (2) spanking/paddling "works," or (3) better discipline leads to better outcomes. Instead, Con focuses on proving harms. But proving harm doesn't show that a future with spanking/paddling is worse than the status quo. Comparison matters. Con didn't offer any alternative to the status quo, so he needed to show that spanking/paddling makes matters worse than they already are.
Con briefly asserts that a past with spanking/paddling was worse than status quo. But Con didn't offer any evidentiary support or analytic development on this point, leaving only his baseless assertion. I was left with a clear sense at the end of this debate that spanking/paddling could improve the status quo in some cases, and therefore that it should be allowed. Thus, Pro wins.