The Instigator
Chrysippus
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

A Rolling Stone gathers no moss

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Chrysippus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,583 times Debate No: 19924
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Chrysippus

Pro

A Rolling Stone gathers no moss.

I am currently undergoing a series of scholarly debates over the authenticity and reliability of certain well-known proverbs. I have recently debated "Ignorance is Bliss," http://www.debate.org... and proved that it is not; and I just finished debating whether a bird in the hand is, in fact, better than two in the bush. http://www.debate.org...

Today, my lucky readers, you and I will examine whether Rolling Stones gather moss. The old saw claims they don't - but is it true?


Let's examine a few Rolling Stones and find out.


First, a definition or two, just to make sure we are all on the same page.

A Rolling Stone, of course, is a member or ex-member of the British band, "The Rolling Stones." This debate recognizes Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Chuck Leavell, and Ronnie Wood as Rolling Stones.

Moss is, obviously, "any tiny, leafy-stemmed, flowerless plant of the class Musci, reproducing by spores and growing in tufts, sods, or mats on moist ground, tree trunks, rocks, etc." http://dictionary.reference.com...


It is apparent from even a casual observation of the Rolling Stones that they do not engage in any substantial collection of these little plants. So little do tiny, flowerless plants feature in these men's lives and careers, one might suspect them of having some sort of aversion to growing on aging English rock stars.

In all fairness to the moss, it is difficult to mistake a British rock star from the 60's with a damp tree trunk (with the possible exception of Elton John). Moss has been alleged to grow on the north sides of certain British politicians, but not on musicians.

The Rolling Stones are both popular and highly public figures; Google returns 21,800,000 images of them. https://www.google.com...
The only photos of them that had moss were obviously (and badly) photoshopped, and there were very few of them, whereas there were literally millions of images of them sans moss.


Furthermore, none of the band members seem to have any real interest in botany that would inspire them to collect samples of Musci. Their interests outside ofmusic range far from the study of botany: one of them played amateur cricket, another golfed; several did drugs, one now raises horses. None of them have publicly expressed (as far as I can discover) any interest in moss, lichens, or any similar plant or fungus. The compulsion just isn't there. These people have lives (well, most of them, except the ones who are dead) that revolve around music; they have no time to concern themselves with relocating tiny bark-dwelling plants.

The conclusion is obvious. Rolling Stones gather no moss. This proverb is Confirmed.

I thank my opponent, and hand the debate over to him.

-C.
brian_eggleston

Con

I would like to thank Chrysippus for this interesting debate challenge and also for his highly amusing opening argument.

I say "amusing" because my opponent has, of course, completely misinterpreted the idiom 'a Rolling Stone gathers no Moss'. Absurdly, he asserts that the proverb refers to "any tiny, leafy-stemmed, flowerless plant of the class Musci" when everybody knows it's about British supermodels whose family name is Moss.

It is also well-known that members of the Rolling Stones, such as Ronnie Wood, frequent social gatherings where British supermodels whose family name is Moss are fellow guests. Just recently, for example, the headline of the British tabloid newspaper, The Daily Mail, announced "Kate Moss and Ronnie Wood party night away at Paul McCartney's wedding." (1) Furthermore, Ronnie Wood and the other Rolling Stones were invited to Kate Moss' own wedding. (2)

Now, when Ronnie Wood out of the Rolling Stones is planning a party himself, he might decide he needs balloons, streamers, party poppers, funny hats, games, trifles, cream cakes, blancmanges, iced buns, lemonade and, perhaps, a magician or clown, but he would also surely realise that he needs to gather some guests together.

So, no doubt he would gather celebrities from the world of fashion and pop and no such gathering would be complete without a British supermodel; the two most famous of which are Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss.

Now, given that Ronnie Wood out of the Rolling Stones is such good friends with Kate Moss, when deciding which British supermodel to gather, do you think it likely that he would conclude "yes Campbell" but "no Moss"?

Of course not! And that's why I duly affirm that the proverb 'a Rolling Stone gathers no Moss' does not stand.

Thank you.

(1) http://entertainment.stv.tv...
(2) http://www.examiner.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Pro

I thank my esteemed opponent for yet another excellent and witty round. I managed to overlook Kate Moss's relationship with Ronnie Wood when putting this debate together, and can only blame this oversight on incomplete research.

Of course, Kate and Ronnie have a history; there's no denying that they have been friends. Kate does not fit the proverb, though, as I will demonstrate.

First, although she may be called moss, she does not seem to exhibit any of the characteristics of moss:

-She is not tiny, by most human standards, nor are her stems leafy - at least, as far as we know.

-No-one has ever accused her of being a sporogenous plant; will my opponent be the first?

- And, although she may be seen in company with "tufts, sods, and matts," she cannot be said to have grown from them.

Second, while she has been friends with Ronnie, Ronnie was not the man who ended up gathering her; she married Jamie Hince instead. Hince gathered Moss; Wood did not.

Finally, and most telling, Ronnie didn't even attend the wedding. None of the Rolling Stones did, although Moss sent them all invitations. (Though if they had, it would have been an example of Moss gathering Rolling Stones, which is an ENTIRELY different proverb!)

In the article my opponent linked, Ronnie explained his absence by saying he has stopped hanging out with Moss because he is trying to stay sober. This is an example of the proverb, if anything; you can read it for yourself. A Rolling Stone gathers no Moss - whether Moss is moss or simply Moss.
http://www.examiner.com...
http://www.examiner.com...


So, to recap:

The Rolling Stones do not gather moss (plants).

(Kate) Moss is not moss, but Moss.

(Kate) Moss tried to gather the Rolling Stones, but failed.

Ronnie Wood, one of the Rolling Stones, no longer gathers with (Kate) Moss.

And Jamie Hince, not one of the Rolling Stones, ultimately gathered (Kate) Moss.


I hold this proverb to be completely accurate, and I thank Brian for another fun debate :)

-C.
brian_eggleston

Con

I thank my opponent for continuing to debate this important topic and should like to respond as follows:

Although I take my opponent's point that, in addition to Ronnie Wood out of the Rolling Stones having little or no interest in horticulture, that he has not, as yet, gathered supermodel Kate Moss either in the capacity of a guest to one of his parties or as his wife, it does not follow that he would not make an effort to do so or that, if he did, he would be unsuccessful in his attempt.

Therefore, whoever made up the proverb "a rolling Stone gathers no Moss" was clearly talking out of their arse – and was probably the same halfwit that thought up the idioms "you can't have your cake and eat it"; "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse"; "a watched pot never boils" and "what you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts".

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
Mythbusters proved this one way or the other. I believe true.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
Chrysippusbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A very humorous debate; each sides take on the resolution kept me entertained and laughing. The debate was framed so that Pro was discussing moss, which Con disregarded. Though both sides twisted the meaning of the proverb, making the change from the plant to the supermodel valid. With that, however, there was still no correlation, as Pro pointed out, of a Rolling Stone gathering Moss; rather, Moss tried gathering the stones and failed. Therefore, Pro wins.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Chrysippusbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: pro is scientifically correct, but con won the side arguments So I will keep it tied
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Chrysippusbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet the burden of proof. If moss was of the horticultural type he claims, he would have to establish that would accumulate on the surfaces of Rolling Stones that are visible in photographs, rather than in concealed corners. Lacking such proof, the case is non prima facie. Moreover, it's much more likely that Stones would want to gather supermodel type Moss than the fuzzy green type.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Chrysippusbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to frame it towards the family Moss but even with that interpretation Pro successfully proved they did not gather moss. I don't see how Moss and moss are the same thing..but regardless Pro won