A colored, rolling wheel displays Doppler-shifted light

[RJBeery]

I'd like to debate the topic listed in the title with Tach. I will argue that it is true and he will argue that it is false. I'm unfamiliar with formal debates but here's my suggestions:

1. A neutral arbiter is chosen. Arbiter's role is to give both sides someone to make appeals to, determine when and if the debate topic has been changed by a party, whether responses are sound and valid, and eventually to decide which debater is victorious. One reason I think an arbiter is important in this debate is due to the fact that Tach and I speak very different languages: he prefers speaking purely in mathematical formalisms, and while I'll do my best to frame things mathematically, the battlefield is unnaturally restricted if no other logic is permissible.
   
2. 10 posts each side, maximum. I suspect it won't go past 2 each but you never know. Also, I would say the arbiter can interject at any point and declare a winner, at which point the debate is over.
   
3. Time limits for replying should be roughly 24 hours or less but can be fluid. If one party needs a couple of days off, so be it, just let others know. Four days with no posts whatsoever is a forfeiture.
   
4. The loser will acknowledge as a fact in a post at the end of this thread whatever the arbiter determines to be reality regarding the debate topic, based upon arguments made in the debate by each side, after a decision is made.

I could start any time, Tach. If you accept the terms perhaps I'll post my first volley tomorrow. Regarding an arbiter, I was thinking you could choose someone from the following pool: AlphaNumeric, Prometheus, BenTheMan, Hercules Rockefeller, Fraggle Rocker. The first three I have a provably contentious history with (which I thought you might demand). The last two are guys that I have NO history with but seem to have well-reasoned posts.

Good? Any other rules we need to cover?

[Tach]

I'd like to debate the topic listed in the title with Tach. I will argue that it is true and he will argue that it is false. I'm unfamiliar with formal debates but here's my suggestions:

1. A neutral arbiter is chosen. Arbiter's role is to give both sides someone to make appeals to, determine when and if the debate topic has been changed by a party, whether responses are sound and valid, and eventually to decide which debater is victorious. One reason I think an arbiter is important in this debate is due to the fact that Tach and I speak very different languages: he prefers speaking purely in mathematical formalisms, and while I'll do my best to frame things mathematically, the battlefield is unnaturally restricted if no other logic is permissible.
   
2. 10 posts each side, maximum. I suspect it won't go past 2 each but you never know. Also, I would say the arbiter can interject at any point and declare a winner, at which point the debate is over.
   
3. Time limits for replying should be roughly 24 hours or less but can be fluid. If one party needs a couple of days off, so be it, just let others know. Four days with no posts whatsoever is a forfeiture.
   
4. The loser will acknowledge as a fact in a post at the end of this thread whatever the arbiter determines to be reality regarding the debate topic, based upon arguments made in the debate by each side, after a decision is made.

I could start any time, Tach. If you accept the terms perhaps I'll post my first volley tomorrow. Regarding an arbiter, I was thinking you could choose someone from the following pool: AlphaNumeric, Prometheus, BenTheMan, Hercules Rockefeller, Fraggle Rocker. The first three I have a provably contentious history with (which I thought you might demand). The last two are guys that I have NO history with but seem to have well-reasoned posts.

Good? Any other rules we need to cover?

1. No "arbiter"
2. 2 posts each, plus one conclusion, you go first
3. The claims must be supported by math, prose without math is not acceptable.
4 The correct title is "There is no Doppler shift off a matte wheel rolling between a source and the receiver. "

[RJBeery]

1. Fine, but I think it would be in both of our best interests to have one
2. 2 posts each with me going first isn't acceptable. Make it 5
3. I will do my best
4. Fine, with a small addendum: "There is no Doppler shift off a matte wheel rolling between a source and the receiver, ever".

With your proposed wording I shall obviously be arguing in the negative.

[RJBeery]

...I was hoping you might hear back from you quickly, Tach. I have a limited window of time to devote to this, and unless we are succinct about the positions we are debating I fear we won't get anywhere. Against my better judgment, I guess I'll open the debate thread and see where this goes.

[Tach]

1. Fine, but I think it would be in both of our best interests to have one
2. 2 posts each with me going first isn't acceptable. Make it 5
3. I will do my best
4. Fine, with a small addendum: "There is no Doppler shift off a matte wheel rolling between a source and the receiver, ever".

With your proposed wording I shall obviously be arguing in the negative.

Sorry, I have been skiing all day, I am not the type that spends all his day on the internet.
The wheel rolls between. the source and the receiver, it doesn't roll past either of them.

[RJBeery]

This is fine. I've started my first post but I, too, am busy with life. I should almost certainly have the first post done sometime today so keep an eye out...

[RJBeery]

My volley has been sent.

[James R]

Since the debate has started and both participants are contributing, I assume we have agreement on the rules. Distilled from above, they are:

• 6 posts in total from each debater - 5 debate posts + 1 concluding post.
• Ideally, replies should be within 24 hours, but this is flexible.
• 4 days without a post means that the debater who failed to post has forfeited.
• Claims must be supported by math. Prose without math is not acceptable.
• Topic is: "There is no Doppler shift off a matte wheel rolling between a source the receiver, ever."
• Tach for the affirmative, RJBeery for the negative.

Debate thread
Discussion thread