In round one, my opponent will accept the debate and then pose a topic, which he or she must post which side he/she is on. In each of the following rounds, both pro and con must post (at least) 3 sources that are clearly against his/her side. For example, if my opponent is gun-control, she/he must post 3 sources, or arguments, that are anti-gun control. (And consequently, I will have to post 3 sources that are pro-gun control and point out why they are wrong) The debaters will explain precisely what the article or argument is saying that shows it is against their side. Then, theyrefutes the source to the best of their ability. The debaters may point out the credibility of the source (or logic of the argument), the bias, or contradictory information.
The voters will vote upon the following:
-How strong the original source/logic/argument was (a satirical, trolling article from the onion versus an editorial by a well-reknowned newspaper writer)
-How strong the refutation was (merely saying that the article was wrong versus actually giving evidence to refute the article).
Over the rounds, the debaters may challenge the opponent's sources, and try to analyze just how weak/strong the given and refuting sources are, and even address the opponent's arguments directly.
Good luck and have fun.
The topic will be "The Earth is Not Flat". Since I am Con, I will be arguing for this notion, since that's the opposite of what Con is, therefore what I have to prove.
I will be using sources, and logic, to show that the Earth is not flat. 9spaceking will have to show that the Earth is indeed flat, via sources and logic. I'm looking forward to a wonderful debate!
My god, the odds are against me. XD
Now before we begin let us define "flat". Dictionary.com defines this as "horizontally level; level, even, or without unevenness of surface", etc. [http://www.dictionary.com...] As such, the sources I address will have to prove that in order to be true.
This is a source known as "Smarter than that". They list 10 reasons why the earth is flat: the moon, the ships and the horizon, varying star constellations, shadows and sticks, seeing farther from higher, riding a plane, looking at other planets, existence of timezones, center of gravity, and images from space. The source is very credible, however, its arguments are flawed. Firstly, note how it completely ignores the topic of what precisely constitues "flat". Nextly, even its arguments are flawed themselves. The source first notes that the shadow of the moon of the earth is round, and that earth must be spherical. Despite such, there is nothing to suggest that a sphere cannot be horizontally level. Think about it logically: a round sphere can be so stretched apart that it seems to be mostly "flat". The source does not even address if Earth is enough to constitute for a perfect sphere, so that argument is out. Nextly, the author addresses that ships appear into a field of a vision due to a "horizon". However, once again we think about it and we question about the nature of "flatness". It IS entirely possible that there is a bump on a flat surface that prevents you from seeing the ant. But depite the bump, if it is only one ant high, then that is nothing. This argument is clearly flawed. Following this is varying star constellations, saying that Aristotle claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” However, is Aristotle trustworthy himself? As https://forbiddencomma.wordpress.com..., "Aristotle was wrong about physics. He was wrong about chemistry. He was wrong about biology. This proto-Freud was wrong about psychology. He was wrong about basic human rights. He was grievously wrong about astronomy, much to Galileo’s future sorrow." The article links to many many points where Aristotle was incorrect. It is especially the astronomy detail that proves my point: the author can't just assume that Aristotle was correct about a spherical earth. Then, the author says that the shadows would be the same if you have a flat earth. But one again, we're speaking about OVERALL. It is impossible for anything to be PERFECTLY flat to the molecular level. No such thing exists. We are presuming that the earth is overall flat. As I said before, if you have a small curve, it does not prevent a surface from being flat. The author's 5th argument is then "seeing farther from higher". However, this is a bit illogical. He displays diagrams instead of pictures, which is suspicious (is it that difficult to find a "flat terrain"?), and he provides no explanation for precisely why you cannot see further from higher up from a flat surface. His "Ride a plane" argument claims that you can see a curve, however, that STILL DOES NOT PROVE that the earth is NOT flat! He then says we can "look at other planets" is completely empty as well; his only true argument was that Galileo found that the planets orbited the other planets, repeating that the observations showed our planet is spherical, but this proves NOTHING. The author's 8th point is also mislead, because he assumes that the ONLY way for distinct timezones was if the world was spherical.... but if the earth was flat, and it had two sides, wouldn't it still be able to fulfil the dark/light theory? It would simply need to turn around an axis to alternate the two sides, wouldn't it? The author's 9th point is about the flat plane and how about gravity would pull you toward the middle of the surface. However, there is nothing to refute that "middle" of the flat surface is "down" for us. There only is a change of perspective. Finally, the author has "images from space". However, photos can be easily manipulated by photoshop. In addition, the photos are only 2-D and cannot prove anything other than the fact that the earth looks like a circle from the moon.
I will now refute a second, shorter source.
This source teases B.O.B. by seemingly refuting a scientific proof, then essentially repeating most of the arguments made by the previous article. (To see my refutations, please reexamine them above). I will note readdress those other arguments, however, I WILL address the scientific evidence. Note that the article only lists ONE man who tried to prove the earth was flat and noted ONE refutation. What kind of argument is that? (The author also states: "Often, Flat Earth believers point out that the Earth could be both flat and round, but when one remembers that the Earth is also spinning, that logic falls apart." --But never explains just why the earth cannot be flat and round and spinning!) There are far more articles that prove the earth is flat. The English Mechanic is a famous one: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...; the key point being that "... the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon.
My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd." The article claims that the crux of what was wrong with the first scientist was that "As sunlight travels to the Earth’s surface, it’s refracted by the planet’s atmosphere, which causes the bulk of light moving horizontally to bend downward at an angle matching the exact curvature of the Earth. This phenomenon can cause one to perceive the Earth as being flat. " However, note that he never states what WOULD have sunlight looked like HAD the earth been flat, which is clearly bias (as he does not provide evidence here for why the other scientist was correct, rather, only for why the flat scientist was wrong). As such, we cannot fully trust this source of information.
Sorry I'm posting this argument with 1 hour remaining, but I'd better do so now. Let's get into this.
Point 1; Laws of Gravity:
We all know what gravity is. It is the pull that an object exerts on a much smaller, less dense object (ex: The giant Earth is pulling much smaller people towards its center). No matter where you are, you're being pulled towards Earth's center. Which brings me to my main point: The earth has a diameter of 7,926 miles, or 12,756 kilometers (From the equator). This is pretty big. Are you going to tell me that the planet itself can stay a flat disk if the diameter is that much? Note that the Earth's mass is 5.9722 x 10^24 kilograms. How can a flat disk that heavy not collapse on top of itself?
Therefore, the notion that the Earth is flat is ridiculous! [Source for Earth's size: http://www.space.com...]
[Don't believe gravity exists, for some reason? Jump. Explain why you fell back down to the Earth.]
Point 2: Satellite images
[Sources: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com... , https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com... ]
I think these two are enough. If you need more pictures, for some reason, just go to Google Images.
As you can see, these two photos of Earth are from different angles, taken by satellite. Assuming we're taking photos of a flat disk, you'd probably see it as an oval from most angles. Here, the Earth has 2 photos taken of it, from 2 different areas. If you're suggesting the Earth is flat, then why is it that we're seeing a circular Earth in both images? Only a spherical shape can appear circular from multiple angles.
Thus, the notion that the Earth is flat is ridiculous!
Point 3: Time zones
It's afternoon by the time I'm posting this. Probably 12:00 somewhere else. 2:00 elsewhere. How can this be? If the Earth were a flat disk, the the sun would only be shining on one side of the Earth, meaning America's time would be the same as Europe, but opposite of China, or even day would never end! This is not the case, however.
Up there is a site that lists the different times in various countries. Again, this is not possible with a flat disk. Just try it with paper and a flashlight. Try to get time zones.
Pro's objection to this source is most likely a conspiracy; he'll claim the source is lying. If he does choose to take this path, he must show that A: It is indeed lying, and B: A motive for lying.
I have enough characters to start a rebuttal, so I'll go ahead and do so.
Point 1: Disproving the Earth is Round
My opponent first attempts to refute a source. Let's see how successful it is.
"Firstly, note how it completely ignores the topic of what precisely constitutes "flat"." And by flat, you mean "horizontally level; level, even, or without unevenness of surface". The source does contain numerous examples of even, flat surface vs rounded surfaces. I don't see what Pro is talking about. Please go into more detail.
"a round sphere can be so stretched apart that it seems to be mostly "flat"." If you're referring to the Earth, how it is being stretched out? If you're talking about the shadow, it's always 2D.
"The source does not even address if Earth is enough to constitute for a perfect sphere, so that argument is out." Whether the Earth is a perfect sphere is irrelevant all Pro needs to do is show that the Earth is Flat, and I have to only show that it isn't flat. Just bringing that up.
"Neatly, the author addresses that ships appear into a field of a vision due to a "horizon". However, once again we think about it and we question about the nature of "flatness". Yes, let's question the nature of flatness... which is paper.
Let's do an experiment. Our ship can be whatever small object you choose. Paper will be the ocean. Let's set both of these on a table. Much like paper, the ocean has no bumps. Both are flat; not uneven. Are you to tell me some bump is going to not let me see my pencil on a flat, uneven piece of paper? Ridiculous!
"Aristotle claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” However, is Aristotle trustworthy himself?" So what if an uncivilized philosopher was wrong about a bunch of things we know plenty of with science? Does being wrong plenty times discredit the validity of a different argument? No, that's just bias.
"Then, the author says that the shadows would be the same if you have a flat earth. But one again, we're speaking about OVERALL." Yep. We're talking about a flat disk. No unevenness."
"It is impossible for anything to be PERFECTLY flat to the molecular level. No such thing exists." Perfectly flat, sure. But we can take a few centimeters difference and call it "flat", shall we?
"if you have a small curve, it does not prevent a surface from being flat." Okay, what are you getting at? The Earth is HUGE, so a difference in 500 feet isn't that much of a difference in curvature. 1,000 km? Now that's a curve!
"He displays diagrams instead of pictures, which is suspicious (is it that difficult to find a "flat terrain"?)" Right down to the molecular level! No such thing exists! Although a photo is more reliable, do you expect me to go to an area like the diagram shows? 1: Where am I supposed to find a flat disk to stand on? 2: Most people probably won't go that far. Diagram is the easiest way to obtain a flat, uncurved, plain.
He then goes on to say that the author doesn't show that the Earth isn't flat. How similar is a regular circle compared to a giant sphere? I see the giant curve, the Earth can't be flat. Axis doesn't do anything with day/night, which is what time zones is all about. I already discussed gravity. Pro needs to prove that the images were photoshopped.
Point 2: Fusion.net
"note that he never states what WOULD have sunlight looked like HAD the earth been flat, which is clearly bias" I'll have to concede this point. A comparison would have been nice, so let's do it for them! Light is curving via the atmosphere, as the source says. There is little to no curvature with a flat Earth. Straight/lightly curved lines vs more curved lines. The source does prove that light curves quite a bit.
Point 3: More refutation!
"The moon, he noted, was also a sphere, so it would follow that the Earth is round as well." This is completely illogical. The sun is a star, so is therefore also earth? There is no logic behind this." Point taken. But there's so much more evidence to deal with. Overwhelming, in fact!
"just two people doesn't seem like overwhelming to me." The source never exactly states "overwhelming". Plus, there's much more evidence suggesting the Earth is spherical in shape, other than 2 ancient Greek philosophers from before we got space ships and satellites.
Observation: So, accordin to the rules, we refute sources, instead of using them to strengthen our arguments. So I guess that is a thing, but what sites would I refute, really? I'm not going to look. Instead, I'll just post my contructive argument. Good luck to Pro, I'm going to take a break.
The entire point of the sources was so that my opponent would not have chosen a truism argument such as the one he chose in this debate(or near-impossible-to-argue-against argument). If my opponent could not have found 3 sources AGAINST his side, that means that his side was too biased, too true, too impossible to argue against. I said that we would only argue against the sources in round 2, but I didn't say I allowed my opponent to NOT post any sources against his position within round two. My opponent has broken the rules posted and has not posted any sources against him. I will be more clear next time I post this topic.
We may tie the debate if you wish. I don't want to argue about this since you didn't follow the rules (but admittedly the rules were confusing)
Good debate, and let the judges decide what to do.
Let's just make it a tie since you were confused and it's our first time anyhow.