The Instigator
LogicandReasoning
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheShadowCupcake
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Is our world (Universe) merely a flat plate, supported by the shell of a tortoise?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
TheShadowCupcake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 46010
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

LogicandReasoning

Con

I don't expect anyone to accept this debate. But if you do, then... Whatever.

Rules

1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

Failure to follow this (In singular form, seeing as; I ONLY LISTED 1 RULE!) rule will result in a 7-point forfeiture.

Presentation

(First 2 contentions defend the position that the Earth is a spherical model (3-dimensional).

1. During an eclipse on the moon, the shadow would have to be elongated. However, it is a circle, which can only be so if the Earth is a spherical model.



2. Scientists have discovered that the Earth is a spherical model, thus proving my stance[1].



(Next is really how the Universe is not merely a flat plate, supported by the shell of a tortoise)

3. If Earth is a spherical model, having established that it's in the Universe, how can the Universe be a flat plate? The Earth can then not fit, seeing as it's 3-dimensional?

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
TheShadowCupcake

Pro

I accept. Things remotely cosmology-related have a tendency to elicit excitement from me.

Addressing my opponent: Firstly, I'd like to summarize your argument. This is not for detrimental rhetorical reasons, I'm not going to take a cheap straw man tactic as my stratagem in this debate, this is so my argument will be more comprehensible and so that you may more easily rebut and protest should there be any discrepancy between what I believe I'm arguing and what you actually put forth for me to argue against.

Paring Preceding Period of Polemics for Perspective

My opponent's argument deduces a conclusion with the following chain of logic for their contention:
  1. The Earth is a sphere.
  2. Spheres are 3-dimensional.
  3. The Earth is in the universe.
  4. The universe is 3-dimensional.
  5. The universe is not flat.

Con presents sources to back up the fact that the Earth is, in fact and indubitably, spherical. I am willing to accept that Wikipedia is valid as a source given careful analysis of its citations.

This attacks the idea that the universe is a flat plate while leaving the turtle factor neglected entirely.

Feedback in the Face-off of the Frivolity of Flatness

The Earth is almost spherical and is therefore 3D. I am willing to accept that. I am unwilling, however, to accept that this means it cannot fit within a universe that is a flat plate. There are, in fact, several ways in which the semi-spherical Earth could be fitted within a flat universe.

"Flat plate" will now be replaced with the term "flat universe" as plate is, by definition, something flat, making "flat plate" redundant.[1] When something is flat, it has no curvature in Euclidean space.[2][3][4] Our universe can exist as a flat plane without curvature and, furthermore, does. How do we know this?

Well, to borrow a contemporary colloquialism, I'll "Explain It Like You're 5." I actually have a source here [5] that explains how we proved that the universe is flat. However, if you're not working on an astrophysics and mathematics degree, the information put forth can be quite challenging to understanding. As the old saying goes, "If you can't explain it to your grandma, you don't understand it." As such, I'll try my best to explain what was done here in the simplest terms I possibly can. (I'd like to make it noted here that this is incredibly challenging. It's unlikely that the opposition would toot my horn, so I'm simply doing it myself.)

As most people know, the universe started with the Big Bang. All the energy of our universe was in a space smaller than an atom, exhibiting extreme heat and density. The universe then expanded. The Big Bang left off some heat. Leftover energy signature, if you will. This energy, which we call Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, was measured and made into a map. In essence, this map is a picture of the entire universe. You can imagine it like a map of the ocean, if you like. On this map of the ocean, we have lumps, which we can represent with whirlpools and waves.

Now, the fastest that anything can ever go in the universe, as proved by Einstein, is c. The speed of light. Nothing's faster. This means that on the map of the universe, if something was more than c distance from something else, those two cannot have been interacting. Think about the map of the ocean again. Let's say that there is, in fact, a speed limit in the ocean for everything. Naturally occurring weather and all that. Imagine putting some ships in there, or if you're actually trying to demonstrate this for yourself in an actual bathtub, put some rubber ducks in. Once you put your favorite rubber duck in, the waves caused by the duck can only travel at a certain speed. This means that anything further than that speed over a certain amount of time (High School knowledge: d=vt) from your rubber duck cannot be affected by your rubber duck (I certainly hope you're doing this as well, it would contribute to the poor image of my mental state if I'm playing with my rubber ducks alone at this age [Citation needed]).

This means that looking at our bathtub, we can know which things in the tub of water can be affecting each other after a certain time and which things can't. We know the full extent of the power of each rubber duck. Now, if the water is flat and we look at it, the distance would calculate correctly. If we look at it while it's curved, the distance would appear incorrect. We did the bathtub experiment on the entire universe and discovered that the universe is, in fact, flat. The Earth can be spherical in a flat universe.

Um...The Turtles?

Having proved to the opposition in this argument that the universe is flat, I will now do my best to make the argument that the universe also happens to be supported by the shell of a tortoise. I will support this argument with Chaos Theory.

Chaos Theory is the idea that everything, while chaotic, is calculated and predetermined (and therefore, not as random as it appears).[6] The entire universe through all time and space is fixed. If it is changed at all, the change must be drastic. Fluctuating energy just slightly from what it should be billions of years ago would completely change the universe as we know it today. The Earth probably would not exist, nor the Sun, nor would anything we know in the universe. The overall structure would likely be the same, but everything would be displaced drastically. Chaotic. This is because of Cause and Effect. Everything has consequences. Affecting a Cause will change the Effect. This must mean that everything in the universe is connected.

This means that everything in the universe right now would not exist if we were to simply erase a tortoise shell from time. Everything here is completely supported by a tortoise shell, any tortoise shell. There's no denying it. Without the tortoise shells, we simply would not exist, and neither would our universe.

I'd like to take this time to show my gratitude towards my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate such an exciting topic. I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal and any thoughts from anyone viewing and reading this debate.

Sources

  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  4. Working on both a mathematics and astrophysics degree (Bachelor's and Doctorate, respectively).
  5. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
  6. http://simple.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
LogicandReasoning

Con

New presentations (For neglecting the theory of the supportance of the shell of a tortoise)

4) This may be possible. However: Many things/organisms can support the Universe. All things/organisms have an equal unlikeliness of doing so.

Rebuttals

Feedback in the Face-off of the Frivolity of Flatness

"
As most people know, the universe started with the Big Bang."

The Big Bang is simply a hypothesis; There may be evidence (Like the discovery of galaxies repelling away from us) provided to SUPPORT the claim, but not to prove; It hasn't been experienced by any human being.

"

All the energy of our universe was in a space smaller than an atom, exhibiting extreme heat and density. The universe then expanded. The Big Bang left off some heat."

Yes, indeed; According to the theory, the matter was fused and condensed; Matter was very compact. However, there were so many matter fit as infinitestimally small. There was a cataclysmic explosion. All the matter was distributed outward; All directions. So, it extends to a 3-dimensional spacial extent, thus proving my stance.

"

Now, the fastest that anything can ever go in the universe, as proved by Einstein, is c. The speed of light. Nothing's faster. This means that on the map of the universe, if something was more than c distance from something else, those two cannot have been interacting. Think about the map of the ocean again. Let's say that there is, in fact, a speed limit in the ocean for everything. Naturally occurring weather and all that. Imagine putting some ships in there, or if you're actually trying to demonstrate this for yourself in an actual bathtub, put some rubber ducks in. Once you put your favorite rubber duck in, the waves caused by the duck can only travel at a certain speed. This means that anything further than that speed over a certain amount of time (High School knowledge: d=vt) from your rubber duck cannot be affected by your rubber duck (I certainly hope you're doing this as well, it would contribute to the poor image of my mental state if I'm playing with my rubber ducks alone at this age [Citation needed])."

Correct. However, in some cases, this isn't true. Say, I have a ball. I throw it. If thrown towards something, and something is more distant from it (While thrown towards), does that mean that they aren't interacting with each other? NO! What if there was a rope between both balls and were attached to both?

Also, neither can a rubber duck affect a wave IF it remains in its location. It can initiate one, but it can't end; It ends on its own. However, if you're reffering to it as movable, if either it's a wave (Initiated by rubber duck) or a thrown ball, I can pick the rubber duck up and stop both from moving towards wherever they were supposed to.

"

This means that looking at our bathtub, we can know which things in the tub of water can be affecting each other after a certain time and which things can't. We know the full extent of the power of each rubber duck. Now, if the water is flat and we look at it, the distance would calculate correctly. If we look at it while it's curved, the distance would appear incorrect. We did the bathtub experiment on the entire universe and discovered that the universe is, in fact, flat. The Earth can be spherical in a flat universe."

If the water was indeed, flat, and we place a ball on the water, ONLY a portion of the ball is fit. However, like said, from a SCIENTIFIC STANCE, not even matter is flat; It is 3-dimensional (Spherical), however is very miniscule (Microscopically small). And so, a ball can't fit into it (Maybe a portion of it, but not the entire). However, having established that the Earth AS A WHOLE is inside the Universe (Which you should've accepted before even accepting the challenge), it can't be a flat plate.

Um... The Turtles?

"

Having proved to the opposition in this argument that the universe is flat, I will now do my best to make the argument that the universe also happens to be supported by the shell of a tortoise. I will support this argument with Chaos Theory.

Chaos Theory is the idea that everything, while chaotic, is calculated and predetermined (and therefore, not as random as it appears).[6] The entire universe through all time and space is fixed. If it is changed at all, the change must be drastic. Fluctuating energy just slightly from what it should be billions of years ago would completely change the universe as we know it today. The Earth probably would not exist, nor the Sun, nor would anything we know in the universe. The overall structure would likely be the same, but everything would be displaced drastically. Chaotic. This is because of Cause and Effect. Everything has consequences. Affecting a Cause will change the Effect. This must mean that everything in the universe is connected.

This means that everything in the universe right now would not exist if we were to simply erase a tortoise shell from time. Everything here is completely supported by a tortoise shell, any tortoise shell. There's no denying it. Without the tortoise shells, we simply would not exist, and neither would our universe."

Without having proven that our Universe is supported by the shell of a tortoise, you can't say that different events would be occuing than what's occuring now without them. Simply put.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.


Sources

(No sources cited; None needed)









TheShadowCupcake

Pro

I don't believe I've made my argument clear enough (As I mentioned earlier, simplifying the universe is no simply task). There were a variety of things that my opponent said which I found to be far from accurate representations of the truth.

Copious Corrects of Callous Claims and Comments

This will be not be addressed in the order of which it is transcribed, but rather the order of which these catch my attention.

"4) This may be possible. However: Many things/organisms can support the Universe. All things/organisms have an equal unlikeliness of doing so."

I have taken the liberty of sizing up Con's text slightly in the sake of functioning eyesight. To summarize, I made the argument that anything in the universe is supportive of the universe as a whole due to Chaos Theory, to which my opponent rebutted that that means that anything could support the universe, and as it could be anything, it's not necessarily a tortoise shell. "...equal unlikeliness..." Entirely synonymous with "equal likeliness." A sign that my opposition carefully worded this to ensure that you, the reader, would not fall victim to assuming that my contention was likely, a rhetorical defusing of my rhetorical bomb that should not go unheeded in voting.

However, the instigator is incorrect. My contention isn't so much that anything could support the universe, but rather, everything supports the universe, all as a whole. That is what Chaos Theory is. The rebuttal indicates a poor understanding of the theory, which is my own fault. I will make a second attempt at explaining it later in this post.

"Say, I have a ball. I throw it. If thrown towards something, and something is more distant from it (While thrown towards), does that mean that they aren't interacting with each other? NO! What if there was a rope between both balls and were attached to both?"

A continuation of this metaphor proportionate to the situation it's being compared to: Say that there is, yes, a rope that could entangle both balls. To keep with gravity, imagine that this rope can grow. Anything the rope touches gets tied to the ball. Actually, instead of a rope, let's say it's a snake. The snake, once in contact with another ball, will eat it, swallowing it down its body and towards the other ball. The snake grows very quickly.

Now, let's also say that the snake is not intially touching the second ball, but is attached to the first. Also, the snake is growing in all directions. If, in my opponent's metaphor, my opponent throws the ball, the only way that the second ball would get touched by the snake would be if the snake was gaining on the second ball without stopping.

Now, back to the other metaphor, the map. Say you can see the map of the universe at certain times. We can look at the universe very far back, many years ago, probably before you were born (very few people were born at and before the creation of the Universe [Citation needed]). We can look at instants in time. Frozen bits. We're stopping time and observing what's happening. This means that when we look at the snakes, they're all stopped. The interaction can't happen yet.

This is how we determined what was a lump of matter in the universe and what wasn't, what size those lumps could be, and how those sizes determined that the universe is flat.

"The Big Bang is simply a hypothesis; There may be evidence (Like the discovery of galaxies repelling away from us) provided to SUPPORT the claim, but not to prove; It hasn't been experienced by any human being."

This is a very misleading description of the Big Bang Theory and science in general, but this is not to be too far to the detriment of my opponent's ethical appeal. Many people are unaware of the definition of "theory" or "hypothesis." Or, for that matter, "law" and "belief" and "fact." "It's just a theory" is a grossly common phrase, and theory seems to have entirely different denotative value in conversation and in the field of science. In conversation, "theory" is interchangeable with "hypothesis." Someone sees a pattern that may or may not actually be there, says it out loud to have it validated by peers as something that makes sense, looks intelligent for thinking up something clever. If it's wrong, one simply says "Oh, well, it was just a theory."

However, both are very distinctive. I'll define each of those aforementioned terms here, for the future of the scientific knowledge of all my readers.

A law is a natural effect of something else natural, verified through repeated experimentation. It does not offer an explanation of the link as a theory does, but regards the connection. For instance: Gravity has tons of laws. If there is mass, there is gravity. If there is gravity, there is force. We have measured the force and have tons of formulas and equations for it. Why gravity is linked to mass or why it exists or what it is, however, is an enigma.

A belief is something that someone considers true when that something is merely a premise put forth without any evidence. For instance: Someone is on fire. This makes them unhappy as fire can evoke pain in some people. It rains and the fire goes away. The person believes that it rained because someone knew they were unhappy and made it rain to make the person happy again. This cannot be experimented with, it is not repeatable, it is not a hypothesis. Merely a belief.

A fact is a truth verified through repeated experimentation. A fact is not final. For instance: Say you look at a chair and see that it is red. You repeat the experiment. Your hypothesis is that if you see the chair, you will interpret it as red each time. Every time you look at it, it's red. You then take it as a fact that that chair is red. If ever, evidence challenges that, that chair is no longer red. Until then, the chair must be accepted as red.

A hypothesis is an observation that is testable and repeatable for experimentation. For instance: Someone is playing a game. This person swears at the game. The brother, next door, hears the profanity and hypothesizes that video games cause an increase in likelihood for swearing. This is testable and repeatable as there are plenty of people and video games and swear words at the disposable of the hypothetical, as well as people available as a control group.

Finally, the big one, a Theory is an explanation of a phenomenon concluded, despite attempts made to disprove, with complements of proof from experimentation. Much like a fact.

The Big Bang Theory is not a hypothesis, dear reader (Fun fact: Dear reader uses only 4 letters). It is a theory. It is taken as true because of the overwhelming evidence. We have the radiation from the Big Bang, and we've no other reasonable explanation! My opponent says that no human being has ever experienced it and it is therefore not proven, but you could very well make that same argument for the chair.

That red chair was never really experienced as red, was it? Colors are you brain's ambiguous metaphors for radiation from various objects. That red that you see from that chair isn't really red. It's radiation that your brain needs to make sense of without complicating things so you can move on quickly, so it simplifies it into a neat little metaphor for you. Red. You're not truly experiencing what it really is.

Of course, you'll still accept that chair as red. When we look at images of remnants of the Big Bang, we see false colors. Not really what it looked like. That would be too complicated. We simplify it. It's a neat little metaphor. The fact that the Big Bang happened is just as factual as the fact that a red chair is red and that blue water is blue. Supporting and proving a claim are synonymous. Epistemologically speaking, you can't ever "prove" anything, but that would render this whole argument a stalemate as nothing would ever be considered "true" or "false" so this debate would get nowhere. This is not an epistemological debate. This is cosmology. The Big Bang happened and that's how the Universe started just like there's hair on my head.

"
There was a cataclysmic explosion. All the matter was distributed outward; All directions. So, it extends to a 3-dimensional spacial extent, thus proving my stance."

That's actually not what the theory entails, but most people believe it is. It's a remarkable exemplification of the Coconut effect. If described any other way, most people would scoff in disbelief. This is how it's taught to most people as it's easy to understand. The layman understands that an explosion would push things away and that the universe is big. In fact, there are even occasionally astrophysicists that get it wrong, so if you, like my opponent, too find yourself lacking in knowledge of what the Big Bang Theory is, do not be embarrassed or alarmed. Even us professionals and to-be-professionals get it wrong. The Big Bang Theory, to say the least, is complicated, much like how explaining car mechanics to a 5-year old is "complicated."

The average person believes the Big Bang Theory goes as my opponent believes it to be. There was a lot of stuff put in a small little space somewhere out there in space and an explosion happened that scattered energy and matter all across the empty space of the Universe. This is absolutely not the case.

Artists and dramatists like to draw it up like this. Explosions are cool. However, the Big Bang did not happen at any one point in space, but rather, the entire Universe. The entirety of our cosmos was in an infinitesimally small space. It then expanded to what it is now. It did not expand in all dimensions, the expansion of the Universe was flat, something I managed to prove in the previous round, I believe.

Now, I've run out of space for the rest of my Round. If my opponent will allow, I'll simply post the rest of it elsewhere and link to it in my next Round, or some other workaround to prevent a loss in amount of space available for my next Round. Otherwise, I'll simply post the rest of it there.
Debate Round No. 2
LogicandReasoning

Con

Rebuttals

Copious Corrects of Callous Claims and Comments

"However, the instigator is incorrect. My contention isn't so much that anything could support the universe, but rather, everything supports the universe, all as a whole. That is what Chaos Theory is. The rebuttal indicates a poor understanding of the theory, which is my own fault. I will make a second attempt at explaining it later in this post."

EXACTLY! So, you instead, say that without the shell of the tortoise supporting our Universe, different events (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!) would be occuring, rather than saying WITH IT! In order to be able to say so, you have to provide evidence to AT LEAST support your claim and show likeliness (Said tortoise (According to the theory) is invisible; Not visible), and enough for us to believe.

By "supporting the Universe by the shell of a tortoise", I meant that the shell of a tortoise AND a tortoise is carrying the Universe. This is a complete and utter misunderstanding.

"
"Say, I have a ball. I throw it. If thrown towards something, and something is more distant from it (While thrown towards), does that mean that they aren't interacting with each other? NO! What if there was a rope between both balls and were attached to both?"

A continuation of this metaphor proportionate to the situation it's being compared to: Say that there is, yes, a rope that could entangle both balls. To keep with gravity, imagine that this rope can grow. Anything the rope touches gets tied to the ball. Actually, instead of a rope, let's say it's a snake. The snake, once in contact with another ball, will eat it, swallowing it down its body and towards the other ball. The snake grows very quickly.

Now, let's also say that the snake is not intially touching the second ball, but is attached to the first."

If the second ball was swallowed by the snake, how can it not be in initial contact with the snake; The first ball is entangled with the snake. So, when the snake swallowed it, it has a narrow body in which, the ball goes through. It will, at one point, be stored in the tip of the snake. However, otherwise (If not swallowed, but simply attached to the ball), nevermind.

"
Also, the snake is growing in all directions. If, in my opponent's metaphor, my opponent throws the ball, the only way that the second ball would get touched by the snake would be if the snake was gaining on the second ball without stopping.

Now, back to the other metaphor, the map. Say you can see the map of the universe at certain times. We can look at the universe very far back, many years ago, probably before you were born (very few people were born at and before the creation of the Universe [Citation needed]). We can look at instants in time. Frozen bits. We're stopping time and observing what's happening. This means that when we look at the snakes, they're all stopped. The interaction can't happen yet.
"

The snake doesn't ALWAYS have to GAIN up to said ball I threw in order to get in initial contact; If I throw the ball DIRECTLY TOWARDS the snake, it'll simply touch. However, if it has to, to swallow the ball, BUT even before, time ends passage, then yes, indeed; They won't interact. However, this doesn't anyhow refute me. If light, for any apparent reason, is currently holding something, and begins to travel through a medium (If a wave), whatever it is currently holding on will exceed its speed ALONE. However, that's not going to affect it anyhow.

""The Big Bang is simply a hypothesis; There may be evidence (Like the discovery of galaxies repelling away from us) provided to SUPPORT the claim, but not to prove; It hasn't been experienced by any human being."

This is a very misleading description of the Big Bang Theory and science in general, but this is not to be too far to the detriment of my opponent's ethical appeal. Many people are unaware of the definition of "theory" or "hypothesis." Or, for that matter, "law" and "belief" and "fact." "It's just a theory" is a grossly common phrase, and theory seems to have entirely different denotative value in conversation and in the field of science. In conversation, "theory" is interchangeable with "hypothesis." Someone sees a pattern that may or may not actually be there, says it out loud to have it validated by peers as something that makes sense, looks intelligent for thinking up something clever. If it's wrong, one simply says "Oh, well, it was just a theory."

However, both are very distinctive. I'll define each of those aforementioned terms here, for the future of the scientific knowledge of all my readers.

A law is a natural effect of something else natural, verified through repeated experimentation. It does not offer an explanation of the link as a theory does, but regards the connection. For instance: Gravity has tons of laws. If there is mass, there is gravity. If there is gravity, there is force. We have measured the force and have tons of formulas and equations for it. Why gravity is linked to mass or why it exists or what it is, however, is an enigma.

A belief is something that someone considers true when that something is merely a premise put forth without any evidence. For instance: Someone is on fire. This makes them unhappy as fire can evoke pain in some people. It rains and the fire goes away. The person believes that it rained because someone knew they were unhappy and made it rain to make the person happy again. This cannot be experimented with, it is not repeatable, it is not a hypothesis. Merely a belief.

A fact is a truth verified through repeated experimentation. A fact is not final. For instance: Say you look at a chair and see that it is red. You repeat the experiment. Your hypothesis is that if you see the chair, you will interpret it as red each time. Every time you look at it, it's red. You then take it as a fact that that chair is red. If ever, evidence challenges that, that chair is no longer red. Until then, the chair must be accepted as red.

A hypothesis is an observation that is testable and repeatable for experimentation. For instance: Someone is playing a game. This person swears at the game. The brother, next door, hears the profanity and hypothesizes that video games cause an increase in likelihood for swearing. This is testable and repeatable as there are plenty of people and video games and swear words at the disposable of the hypothetical, as well as people available as a control group.

Finally, the big one, a Theory is an explanation of a phenomenon concluded, despite attempts made to disprove, with complements of proof from experimentation. Much like a fact.
"

A'ight; The Big Bang is simply a THEORY.

"
That red chair was never really experienced as red, was it? Colors are you brain's ambiguous metaphors for radiation from various objects. That red that you see from that chair isn't really red. It's radiation that your brain needs to make sense of without complicating things so you can move on quickly, so it simplifies it into a neat little metaphor for you. Red. You're not truly experiencing what it really is.

Of course, you'll still accept that chair as red. When we look at images of remnants of the Big Bang, we see false colors. Not really what it looked like. That would be too complicated. We simplify it. It's a neat little metaphor. The fact that the Big Bang happened is just as factual as the fact that a red chair is red and that blue water is blue. Supporting and proving a claim are synonymous. Epistemologically speaking, you can't ever "prove" anything, but that would render this whole argument a stalemate as nothing would ever be considered "true" or "false" so this debate would get nowhere. This is not an epistemological debate. This is cosmology. The Big Bang happened and that's how the Universe started just like there's hair on my head."

There is a rainbow. Its colors (Or at least how we interpret them) were experimented by with a prism; When light is emmitted towards a transparent prism, it disperses white light into its component colors (Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet) and refracts them. Direction depends on the angle the light emanates. A rain droplet is prism-like. So, having established those colors, an object, depending on its molecular structure, reflect one (Or even more! However, if more, they are combined), and absorb the rest. But then, yellow can be red. We don't know. So, yes indeed.

But the same applies for the Big Bang; there are numerous evidence provided to support the claim of a Big Bang (Like the fact that scientists have discovered that the galaxies repel away from us), however, it's never completely proven; No one has experienced the particular event.

"


"
There was a cataclysmic explosion. All the matter was distributed outward; All directions. So, it extends to a 3-dimensional spacial extent, thus proving my stance."

That's actually not what the theory entails"

A'ight; The theory indeed, doesn't entail that there was a cataclysmic explosion, but it simply distributed what it stored, whilst the Universe expanding. I simply wanted to substitute "expanded" with "cataclysmic explosion", although they are distinctive from each other.

"

It did not expand in all dimensions, the expansion of the Universe was flat, something I managed to prove in the previous round, I believe."

Really? Because people have encountered galaxies in all directions (From their setting); Up, down, backward, forward, left, and right). And according to the Big Bang theory, when it stored all the galaxies, etc., and it was VERY compact, they then, were distributed, and the Universe expanded, and is still expanding now, meaning that that's where these galaxies emanated from. If the Universe is indeed, flat, the only galaxies we can encounter would be horizontal to the Earth.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
TheShadowCupcake

Pro

Before I paste the rest of my argument, I'd like to make a request: Please do something about your font. I've had 10 laser eye surgeries since your last argument and I have to keep calling over Superman to use his microscopic vision to read this for me, abandoning his post. Your font size really hurts my eyes and has killed about 50 people in Metropolis so far. Thank you.
The rest of my previous round:
"If the water was indeed, flat, and we place a ball on the water, ONLY a portion of the ball is fit. However, like said, from a SCIENTIFIC STANCE, not even matter is flat; It is 3-dimensional (Spherical), however is very miniscule (Microscopically small). And so, a ball can't fit into it (Maybe a portion of it, but not the entire). However, having established that the Earth AS A WHOLE is inside the Universe (Which you should've accepted before even accepting the challenge), it can't be a flat plate."

Well, this metaphor has certainly been taken beyond its limits. When physicists refer to the Universe as flat, they are not saying it is 2D. The expansion of our universe has no curvature, making it flat. The Earth as a whole is, yes, inside the Universe, and I've accepted this premise from Con. This does not contradict the idea of the universe as a flat plate in any way.

"Without having proven that our Universe is supported by the shell of a tortoise, you can't say that different events would be occuing than what's occuring now without them. Simply put."

I must confess that while my opponent claims that this is simply put, it took me a while for my circuits to process this statement. In the case that others have experienced the same thing, I'll reiterate.

My opponent says that my argument says that I can't talk as if a Universe without a tortoise shell supporting it would be an alteration from our Universe without proving first that our Universe is supported by a tortoise shell. However, the opposition misunderstands. This is my proof. I'm saying that our Universe not being supported by a tortoise shell is
impossible.

Chaos's Count As Case

Explaining Chaos Theory as simple as possible. I hope this will increase understanding. Chaos Theory works on the idea that everything has a cause. Every outcome. Everything. This is true, right? Can something happen without natural forces being the root cause? Do you see objects moving without cause? No. It all has a cause.

So, this means that with enough factors as causes, changing absolutely anything would completely change everything. How does this prove that our universe is supported by a tortoise shell?

Well, our universe exists. This is because tortoise shells exist. How do we know? We know because changing anything, even the slightest movement of a proton, would cause our universe to not exist. This means that all tortoise shells support the universe. They are a reason our universe exists, just as everything else in the universe is a reason that our universe exists. Being that they are a reason, they are also supporting our universe.

That was all. I did not edit this in any way. Now, moving onto Round 3.

ROUND 3 *DING DING DING*

Please duly note that the beginning of my opponent's Round 3 was answered in Round 2, but the answers were not yet posted. As they are now, I do not find it necessary to answer my opponent's first part. If my opponent disagrees and would like me to respond anyway, I hope this is voiced for me to comply.


Commencing Cold Counterarguments

"Really? Because people have encountered galaxies in all directions (From their setting); Up, down, backward, forward, left, and right)."

Three dimensions. I was referring to four (Something I neglected, which must have made it difficult for others to understand what I was saying, and I apologize for that. This is a cognitive bias known as the Curse of Knowledge Bias, where someone forgets to explain certain things because they already know it, causing them to forget that those that they are speaking to may not know it.[1]), as that would be required to give the universe curvature. Again, I'd like to remind everyone of what it means to be flat, as defined in the first round.

"[Having] no curvature in Euclidean space."

The definition had 3 sources and, to my memory (correct me if I'm needing to be corrected), it has not been challenged. I fail to understand why the universe having three dimensions disproves that the universe is flat, but my opponent persists with this argument.

"There is a...yellow can be red. We don't know."

This is the very thing I specifically warned not to do. We have now entered the realm of epistemological skepticism. By arguing that we cannot know anything, this whole argument is rendered moot. My opponent must argue that the universe is not a flat plate supported by a tortoise shell while I must argue the opposite, but none of this is possible once the "nothing can be known" card is pulled out.

I hope my opponent retracts the argument, as I hope my opponent understands that the argument leads to all of the other arguments put forth being meaningless.

Sources
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
LogicandReasoning

Con

LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.
TheShadowCupcake

Pro

I believe that I've successfully rebutted all my opponent's points while depending my own so far. If my opponent does not believe this to be the case, I'd like Con to call attention to this the next, and final, round.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicandReasoning

Con

LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.
TheShadowCupcake

Pro

TheShadowCupcake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
Oh my god, I hate when people vote solely on Rounds forfeited.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Lol
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
You too, Pro! :D
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
I've accepted and have made a response. Can't wait for you to reply! :) I also hope you're having a nice weekend!
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
"We went through this in the debate. A concession is acknowledging the definition. At one point you agreed to the earth is round but acknowledged my argument about the universe. That is conceding a point."

I acknowledged the definitions (Although ignored). However, the definitions aren't semantical; Having established that the Earth is a spherical model (3-dimensional)(You've accepted), how can it fit in the Universe, seeing as it's flat? From a scientific stance, matter IS NOT EVEN 2-dimensional yet, which makes 2-dimensionality VERY NEARLY impossible.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
We went through this in the debate. A concession is acknowledging the definition. At one point you agreed to the earth is round but acknowledged my argument about the universe. That is conceding a point.

Once you did not lay out any definition for me to accept, the debate was open for me to steer how I wanted. Once you chose to allow that to pass, the debate was mine to win. It was more of a case with a faulty outline and you allowing me to run a muk with it

And I am not doing that again lol. That was just practice for my trolling competition comping up in they Olympics.

Plus I felt really bad about doing that. Want you to take on some newer people and get use to the site before I have a hand at you again. Always good to let people get use to site etiquette and rules. It is really fair and fun. Just adjust a little, and I will take you up on something in the future.
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
No, I did not.

1. I accepted your definitions. However, they aren't semantical; There was this debate where you had to accept the instigator's definitions. The debate is about "If there is noone to experience the sound of a tree's collapse, is there a sound?" And his definition of sound was "Something we experience". If noone experienced it, there is no sound; No experience. TURR TURRURR

2. I simply ignored your definitions.

However, if you can, we can continue the debate here.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
You lost because you conceded to everything I posted in my first round. Once you accept my rules, the debate is over.
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
Mikal, the reason why you even won was because:

1. Some of the voters were stupid f*cks. Because you entertained them, I deserved to have the "CONVINCING ARGUMENTS" points deducted from me? Seriously? Entertainment isn't a principle that judges the level of persuasion.

(Based on #1, I can assume that most voted for YOU because, oh! You won so many debates! They are so desperate on treating you like you're superior to any other f*cking human being!)

2. I was ignoring your definitions. Next time, I'll read carefully.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I already beat him lol

http://www.debate.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
LogicandReasoningTheShadowCupcakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: More rounds forfeited by Con.