Newton vs Einstein

My opponent's conduct is very poor, and the voters need to be extremely aware of this. He gets carried away with ad hominem attacks and insults. I have not "ruined" the debate; I have merely challenged the framework of it and will proceed to return to the framework debate.Please, do not weigh contentions on "who was better than the other person". This is a silly framework that is ambiguous. What does better mean? My opponent tries to define it, but it's just too broad and too vague. I suggested at the very beginning of the debate that we consider which man was more influential, and we are sticking to that framework, especially since my opponent agreed to it in the previous round and yet for some reason wants to take it back now. The arguments about piano playing and all this other nonsense are non-topical, so voters should ignore these arguments without me even needing to refute them.I just asked to change the name of the debate, because "Newton v. Einstein" is very vague and unprofessional. Furthermore, with that title, it seems as though the Pro is arguing to Newton while Con is promoting Einstein, but it is the opposite of this. I am just trying to make sure that this debate is professional and objective and clear, but my opponent is having a very hard time trying to keep it that way.Ok, now with all of the technical and semantic details cleared out, I can finally re-refute my opponent's contentions. He did not refute ANY of my contentions. For example, he did not counter my impacts of Newton's laws, Newton's numerical method of root-finding, Newtonian solids, or anything in between. He will have one more chance (round) to refute these impacts, but so far I have demonstrated why these impacts collectively go much further (i.e. were much more influential) than just special and general relativity, which are really the only things that Einstein can claim to fame.So, my opponent chooses to bring up audacity again. I already explained why Newton is more audacious than Einstein. So, this argument no longer holds, especially since the one sentence that my opponent provided this round does nothing to support this argument. Even if Einstein were more audacious than Newton, this does not explain why Einstein had a greater influence than Newton and therefore should not be considered by voters.For the "possession of other talents" section, again my opponent fails to interpret the framework. Even if Einstein was able to play the piano or whatever, this has absolutely no impact on society today and therefore does not tie back to the framework. It is therefore an irrelevant argument. My opponent must remember to be topical and provide reasons only why Einstein was more influential. He is failed to do this so far and is quickly running out of chances to do so.Same for philanthropy. It is non-topical.It seems as though this debate has become less of a content debate and more of a framework debate, which is the unfortunate truth. Voters can ask themselves: "Does the fact that Einstein played piano but Newton didn't, make Einstein a more influential man? Is piano-playing what I should remember Einstein by?" No, this has nothing to do with which man had a greater influence on society. Hopefully, the rest of the debate can be more about content, because the framework for the rest of the debate is "which man had a greater influence on [present-day] society?" The rest of my opponent's case is simply a condescending science lessno about how the GPS and light work. Albert Einstein was not responsible for any of these impacts. The first global positioning system on the economic market was released decades after the publication of Einstein's essays in 1905. Nuclear plants have nothing to do with Einstein's arguments, so it is bafflilng to me why the opponent thinks that he can attribute scientific discoveries to Einsteni. Television agian has nothing to do with Einstein. If you are not convinced by this, I have posted some articles that underline the history of these developments. Rarely do they even mention Albert Einstein. I will also show in the evidence section how Isaac Newton was directly responsible for much of the mathematical and scientific knowledge that we have available today: GRAVITY, FORCE, CALCULUS, ALGEBRA, and everything in between. Newton's impacts are much more tangible, relevant, and most importantly much more influential to present-day society than Einstein's were.My opponent tires to describe Einstein Field Equations as finally one mathematical influence that Albert Einstein had. While these equations are technically mathematical, they are not really rooted in mathematics; they didn't help mathematics go any further or become any deeper, they simply were an algebraic way to describe the theory of general relativity. Then, my opponent can argue that these equations demonstrate Einstein's discovery of general relativity. Yes, they do, but this is a narrow and esoteric field of knowledge that simply does not demonstrate anywhere near the amount of impact that Isaac Newton's laws of motion, for example, have had.Contrary to what my opponent whats voters to believe, I did counter all of my opponent's contentions, not only in this round but also in the round before. I will spend the rest of this round highlighting Newton's achievements and then substantiating them with irrefutable evidence.We proceed to return to the topical arguments I made in the previous round. Remember that evidence is provided for all of them at the bottom of this section:1. Albert Einstein did not discover the photoelectric effect; Heinrich Hertz did.2. Isaac Newton developed laws of motion that are taught to almost every middle school and high school student. They are influential because they explain why an apple can fall on a man's head, or why a heavy box barely moves when one applies a force to it. These are tangible and extremely relevant impacts that should be considered by the voters.3. Newton's theory of gravitation explain why the planets orbit the Sun, rather than vice versa. This is important for astronomy, physics, and space exploration, wide fields which in turn lend themselves to a huge number of other applications.4. Gottfried Leibniz assisted Isaac Newton in paving the way for differential and integral calculus that economists, engineers, physicists, chemists, and everyone in between takes advantage of each day. Without calculus, we would not be able to mathematically interpret the notion of "change".5. Isaac Newton lived and discovered hundreds of years before Albert Einstein did. This means that a huge number of scientists after Newton used Newton's work to facilitate their own discoveries. Furthermore, this should not be a handicap. Even if Einstein developed "deeper" science than Newton, this is only because Einstein had more knowledge available to him.6. Newton is responsible for the theory of color, the law of cooling, ray optics, the speed of sound, and Newtonian fluids. Each of these impacts are hugely influential and must individually be refuted by my opponent in the next round.7. Newton is responsible for a huge amount of mathematics, not just physics. This includes Newton's method, the binomial theorem, and a wide variety of other, useful mathematical techniques.My opponent now has the burden of justifying his own contentions, tying them back to the framework (greater inflience), and successfully refuting my contentions, none of which he has done this far. If he is unable to achieve all three of these burdens within the next 72 hours, you should immediately vote Con.Pro Newton:http://www.biography.com...https://www.newton.ac.uk...http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk...https://books.google.com...Anti Einstein:http://www.famousscientists.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...