The Instigator
Geocentricist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gurghet
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Geocentricism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 103828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Geocentricist

Pro

For my opponent to win this debate, he has to prove Earth moves. For example, he could try to prove it spins or orbits the sun.

All I have to do is refute his arguments to win.

Good luck.
gurghet

Con

I will prove the Earth spins and orbits the Sun. I will also assume the stars as a reference point.
If you want we can assume the Earth as fixed, but then I would have to prove that the entire universe spins and that all the planets orbit the sun.
Debate Round No. 1
Geocentricist

Pro

If you use the stars as a reference point then you'll have to prove it's an objectively motionless reference point to win this debate.

Otherwise, I could just say the stars are moving and not Earth.
gurghet

Con

Saying the stars move but not the Earth is equivalent of saying the Earth moves but the stars are fixed. It’s just a frame of reference.
As an analogy, when I go to buy groceries I could say the supermarket is moving towards me and I’m not moving. It’s just a frame of reference.
So if your argument is that everything moves in the heavens except the Earth, you are effectively saying the Earth is a better frame of reference. I could say it’s weird, but it’s definitely just a matter of preferences (good luck making astronomical calculations though).
If, on the other hand, you are saying all planets and heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth, and that the Earth is the center of the universe... then we have a problem.
Debate Round No. 2
Geocentricist

Pro

If you can't prove Earth is moving then you lose this debate.
gurghet

Con

Well ok, since you didn’t decided on a frame of reference I will use the Earth as fixed frame of reference.
If you take a picture of the sky with long exposure you can see the stars trace their path. Hence the whole universe is moving while the Earth is fixed.
Debate Round No. 3
Geocentricist

Pro

Thanks for agreeing with me that Earth is fixed and doesn't move. I win! Voters please vote Pro.
gurghet

Con

It"s just a choice of frame of reference. But I"m happy that you have no problem with planets orbiting around the sun.
Debate Round No. 4
Geocentricist

Pro

I know the other planets orbit the sun, it's just Earth that doesn't.
gurghet

Con

Yes, it's just not Geocentrism, it's called having a silly and useless frame of reference.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 10 months ago
Edlvsjd
The default should be that the earth is motionless, since this is what our senses tell us.
Posted by Geocentricist 10 months ago
Geocentricist
Yeah it's still a debate, it's just my position is declared the default one. I just have to defend it to win.
Posted by NDECD1441 10 months ago
NDECD1441
Geocentricist, I understand however making a debate that one side doesnt have to prove isnt.... a debate. In future debates, I would recommend if you share the burden of proof (what you have to prove to win the debate) giving both sides something to prove. That would make a much better debate.

Hope this helps,
NDECD1441
Posted by HandCoppersmith 10 months ago
HandCoppersmith
...I apologize for the duplicate posts - something is up with the website apparently
Posted by HandCoppersmith 10 months ago
HandCoppersmith
Without a frame of reference, terms like "motion" or "fixed" are meaningless. There's no such thing as an "objectively motionless reference point" nor is there such a thing as "objectively in motion". All motion or lack thereof is relative to an observable frame of reference. It's explained quite well in Einstein's theory of general relativity.

That being said the original question said you could use the sun as a reference point or the axis of the earth to show that it spins.
Posted by HandCoppersmith 10 months ago
HandCoppersmith
Without a frame of reference, terms like "motion" or "fixed" are meaningless. There's no such thing as an "objectively motionless reference point" nor is there such a thing as "objectively in motion". All motion or lack thereof is relative to an observable frame of reference. It's explained quite well in Einstein's theory of general relativity.

That being said the original question said you could use the sun as a reference point or the axis of the earth to show that it spins.
Posted by HandCoppersmith 10 months ago
HandCoppersmith
Without a frame of reference, terms like "motion" or "fixed" are meaningless. There's no such thing as an "objectively motionless reference point" nor is there such a thing as "objectively in motion". All motion or lack thereof is relative to an observable frame of reference. It's explained quite well in Einstein's theory of general relativity.

That being said the original question said you could use the sun as a reference point or the axis of the earth to show that it spins.
Posted by HandCoppersmith 10 months ago
HandCoppersmith
Without a frame of reference, terms like "motion" or "fixed" are meaningless. There's no such thing as an "objectively motionless reference point" nor is there such a thing as "objectively in motion". All motion or lack thereof is relative to something else. It's explained quite well in Einstein's theory of general relativity.

That being said the original question said you could use the sun as a reference point or the axis of the earth to show that it spins.
Posted by Geocentricist 10 months ago
Geocentricist
Thanks for your help but actually I stipulated in the first round that all I have to do is refute his arguments. I don't have to prove anything to win.
Posted by NDECD1441 10 months ago
NDECD1441
Geocentricist, maybe I have some advice to help you. So far, your thinking is on the right track to being a debater however merely saying "If you can't prove _______, you lose" doesn't help you win. Maybe you could divide what you say into rebuttals and points. You can put the prove part in your rebuttals however you must also back up your points by actually proving the Earth DOESN'T move. That usually helps in winning a debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.