The Instigator
LogicandReasoning
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Is our world merely a flat plate, supported by a shell of a tortoise?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,721 times Debate No: 45777
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

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

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].



Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mikal

Pro

Aight lets go

Lets look at the resolution

"Is our world merely a flat plate, supported by a shell of a tortoise"

This is such a commonly accepted fact, I don't see how my adversary could actually argue against it. Let's get down to some of the things we are going to touch on.

World - the/a system of created things. [1]

Flat - having a relatively smooth or even surface (b) having a continuous horizontal surface [2]

Tortoise - any of a family (Testudinidae) of terrestrial turtles; broadly


Contention 1

Our world

First we have to accept the fact our world is flat. The first thing I want to address is that the earth is not flat. This is obvious. The world as we know consists of galaxies and formations that extend infinitely in spacial extent at least as far as we are aware. [1]

It is commonly accepted that our world (the universe is flat).

" Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."[4]

This is also the only mathematical perfect universe. A flat universe the only plausible universe that could result in total energy 0, which can give rise to quantum fluctuations. [5]

So the first part of my contentions is founded in empirical evidence. Our world/universe is flat, and that is supported with empirical and direct evidence.


Supported by a shell of a tortoise.

I mean this is the common sense part. Our universe is floating in mid air. It is not a freaking ice cube in water, we cant just drop it in space and expect it to float and maintain a set gravitational rotation on a year to year basis. It has to be supported by something.


The most logical explanation is that YAMEH is holding the world up. Whom is YAMEH? She is the hidden titan in greek mythology. Everyone thought atlas was responsible for this but they got it wrong [6]







Atlas was a myth that came from factual evidence. Yameh is responsible for the stable condition of our universe.

This is found throughout history and is also know as the world bearing turtle in most mythology[7].
I have just went a step further and spoke to her personally. I have her name and it is YAMEH.




She often trolls minecraft players too









Conclusion.

A magical turtle holds our universe up in space on her shell.


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[5] A Universe from nothing ; Doctor Lawrence Krauss.
[6] http://www.theoi.com...
[7] http://tekgnostics.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LogicandReasoning

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I also graciously accept said definitions (By opponent).

Rebuttals

Contention 1

Our world

"
First we have to accept the fact our world is flat. The first thing I want to address is that the earth is not flat. This is obvious. The world as we know consists of galaxies and formations that extend infinitely in spacial extent at least as far as we are aware."

EXACTLY! Like said, scientists have discovered that the Earth is a spherical (3-dimensional) model. So, wouldn't it be fallacious to accept the complete opposite to be factual? Not only that, but you have single-handedly admitted. I haven't read the rest yet.

Also, I won't directly quote the rest of your argument supporting the claim of a flat world, because I am not taking the mathematical stance; I'm taking the literal stance.

Supported by a shell of a tortoise

"
I mean this is the common sense part. Our universe is floating in mid air. It is not a freaking ice cube in water, we cant just drop it in space and expect it to float and maintain a set gravitational rotation on a year to year basis. It has to be supported by something."

If multiverses exist: There are no gravitational forces outside our Universe. Say, I am carrying a can of Tuna. I walk upstairs, up to the rooftop of a building. I walk to the edge. I drop my can of Tuna. The reason it did so was because of gravity; The force, emanating from the Earth's core, is gravitating us towards it.

(Without defending said premise, or if conceded to, then to conclude, the Earth DOESN'T need aything to be supported on)

Not only that, but: Without any sensual perception of said turtle which our Earth is supported on, how exactly would you have known that it's a TURTLE, rather than anything else?

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

Pro

Rebuttals

Our World

My adversary concedes this point. Therefore it is dropped and null. He agrees the universe is flat which counters his initial claim. The earth being flat does not mean our world is flat. This point is accepted, therefore I win this argument.

Supported my Yameh

Gravity pulling earth upward =/= our universe floating by itself. If you throw something in the air it drops. Our universe is floating without rhyme or reason. Earth =/= world

My adversary keeps mistaking our planet for our world. This is not true. Our world is not simply earth but everything around us and that temporally exists. This is cited and sourced during my first round argument which my adversary concedes too. He even admits


" Not only that, but you have single-handedly admitted. I haven't read the rest yet "

He literally has no idea what argument I presented and conceded that our world is actually flat. Therefore lets lay out some premises

[P1] Our world(universe) is flat
[P2] Since it is flat the first part of the resolution is in favor of me

[P1A] The universe floats without rhyme or reason
[P2A] If something is extended in mid air without moving, it is often more logical to assume there is something holding it there

[P3A} Yameh Is holding it there








In addition to this we can find evidence of the world turtle throughout history. Tribes and people have often noted that the earth is logically held in place by Yameh [1]


" In several cultures of the world, there is the concept of a gigantic turtle that holds up the Earth. Versions of the mtyh are found in India, China and North America, the last of which is known as "Turtle Island" to some tribes as a reference to the belief that the continent was resting on the back of a gigantic turtle. The European reduction of the myth is the island-beast, a creature so large that sailors take it to be an island and land upon it. When the creature submerges, the sailors are doomed. the Bestiary name for the Island-beast is Aspidochelone or snake-turtle but in some myths such as St. Brendan's voyage, it is called a "Whale" [2]

The tale itself was adopted and turned even into a modern myth, and thought that continents were held in place. This all originates from the fact, that our earth is actually held by a turtle named Yameh. [3]


She can even talk to people, such as myself and have messengers. This is even shown in later technology, with headsets called turtlebeaches. They often increase hearing in online games and got the title from yameh herself.







[1] http://www.native-science.net...
[2] http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com...
[3] http://historymatters.gmu.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
LogicandReasoning

Con

Rebuttals

Our world

"
My adversary concedes this point."

NO, I DIDN'T! You only read a word (And "a" in singular form because you probably only read ONE word). "EXACTLY!". I said so because it proved MY point! I'll repeat: Like said, scientists have discovered that the Earth is a spherical (3-dimensional) model. So, wouldn't it be fallacious to accept the complete opposite to be factual? Not only that, but you have single-handedly admitted. I haven't read the rest yet.

Supported my Yameh

"
Gravity pulling earth upward =/= our universe floating by itself. If you throw something in the air it drops. Our universe is floating without rhyme or reason. Earth =/= world"

*sigh*

According to the laws of Inertia, something at rest remains at rest and anything in motion remains in motion until an external force acts upon it. So, I'll repeat: Say, I am carrying a can of Tuna. I walk upstairs, up to the rooftop of a building. I walk to the edge. I drop my can of Tuna. The reason it did so was because of gravity; The force, emanating from the Earth's core, is gravitating us towards it. If there weren't any external forces, it wouldn't move; It would simply remain in its location (Hence, the law of Inertia).

"
My adversary keeps mistaking our planet for our world. This is not true. Our world is not simply earth but everything around us and that temporally exists. This is cited and sourced during my first round argument which my adversary concedes too."

I have absolutely NO IDEA how you came up with that; I NEVER CONCEDED! I typed in that YOU SINGLE-HANDEDLY ADMITTED! How is that concession!?

Also, fine. I'll refer to Earth as planet, instead of world. You knew what I meant, but from your concern of academy...

"
" Not only that, but you have single-handedly admitted. I haven't read the rest yet "

He literally has no idea what argument I presented and conceded that our world is actually flat. Therefore lets lay out some premises"

Oh, really? Here, let me directly quote one of your sayings:

"
The first thing I want to address is that the earth is not flat. This is obvious. The world as we know consists of galaxies and formations that extend infinitely in spacial extent"

"[P1] Our world(universe) is flat
[P2] Since it is flat the first part of the resolution is in favor of me

[P1A] The universe floats without rhyme or reason
[P2A] If something is extended in mid air without moving, it is often more logical to assume there is something holding it there

[P3A} Yameh Is holding it there"

You know what? I'll actually refute these premises.

Rebuttal of [P1]

Like said, I'm taking the LITERAL stance. So, our Universe is consisted of various objects that extend to a spacial extent.

Rebuttal of [P2]

I have rebutted this, thus not favoring you in the debate.

Rebuttal of [P1A]

It is for a reason;
According to the laws of Inertia, something at rest remains at rest and anything in motion remains in motion until an external force acts upon it. So, I'll also repeat: Say, I am carrying a can of Tuna. I walk upstairs, up to the rooftop of a building. I walk to the edge. I drop my can of Tuna. The reason it did so was because of gravity; The force, emanating from the Earth's core, is gravitating us towards it. If there weren't any external forces, it wouldn't move; It would simply remain in its location (Hence, the law of Inertia).

Rebuttal of [P2A]

I have already rebutted this. So, if in boundaries of any gravitational pull, then it's more logical to assume that something supports its, letting it remain in its location. However, if not, then no.

Rebuttal of [P3A]

Already rebutted... Also, without ANY SENSUAL PERCEPTION of the supporting turtle, how would you know exactly if a TURTLE is doing so, rather than anything else that's invisible?

"
In addition to this we can find evidence of the world turtle throughout history. Tribes and people have often noted that the earth is logically held in place by Yameh [1]"

This is, by far, one of the most fallacious arguments I have ever read; Just because professionals believe in something, doesn't mean that it's instantaneously true.

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

Pro

Our World

My adversary acknowledges my point about the universe being flat. I have stated and shown that this , along with agreeing to the fact that the earth is round

Again correlation does not entail causation. This is also a non sequitur to the actual premise I presented. The earth being round, does not mean our world is round. Our world is flat, because our world is the universe. My adversary agrees to this point.


I said this

" First we have to accept the fact our world is flat. The first thing I want to address is that the earth is not flat. This is obvious. The world as we know consists of galaxies and formations that extend infinitely in spacial extent at least as far as we are aware"


He responds with

" EXACTLY! Like said, scientists have discovered that the Earth is a spherical (3-dimensional) model. So, wouldn't it be fallacious to accept the complete opposite to be factual? Not only that, but you have single-handedly admitted. I haven't read the rest yet. "


He is agreeing with the point I am making. The earth is round but our world is flat.

Concession - the admitting of a point claimed in argument [1]

He is not just acknowledging it, but also agreed it with. That by definition is a concession of a point made

lets review the resolution

"Is our world merely a flat"


Lets recap

This is the first part of the resolution, and the part that my adversary tried to defend with the earth being round. I refuted this with the fact that the world is the universe and is in fact flat. My adversary agrees to this because I admitted the earth was round. The earth being round does not entail that our world is flat. As I have explained numerous times. His agreement of this point is a concession by definition.



Supported by the shell of a tortoise

" I have absolutely NO IDEA how you came up with that; I NEVER CONCEDED! I typed in that YOU SINGLE-HANDEDLY ADMITTED! How is that concession!?"

I have explained this countless times


"According to the laws of Inertia, something at rest remains at rest and anything in motion remains in motion until an external force acts upon it. So, I'll repeat: Say, I am carrying a can of Tuna. I walk upstairs, up to the rooftop of a building. I walk to the edge. I drop my can of Tuna. The reason it did so was because of gravity; The force, emanating from the Earth's core, is gravitating us towards it. If there weren't any external forces, it wouldn't move; It would simply remain in its location (Hence, the law of Inertia)"

Tuna has nothing to do with the universe floating in space. Fish =/= floating. This is not harry potter. Also gravity operates within the universe, not outside of it. So using an internal for as an external explanation is incoherent.


In response to P1 rebutal

A literal stance does not change the resolution. The world is not always the earth. I have explained this multiple times

In response to P2

No you have not, you conceded the point.


Response to P1A

I don't like fish, and have explained this ten times. My adversary is using rules that exist within the universe to try and explain stuff outside of it. Simply saying it "operates this way", is the same thing as trying to explain what physical laws and properties existed prior to the big bang. We are operating under the laws we no know. Automatically assuming that gravivity is holding the inverse in place does not mean its the case. It also does not appeal to occams razor.

Simplest explanation.







In response to P2A










In response to P3A












Closing

My adversary has conceded the fact the universe is flat, and that it is our world. This is as close to empirical as it gets. See sources citing in my prior rounds to defend the universe being flat.

He also tries to explain the universe floating in the air by saying gravity holds it up. Gravity holds things within the universe up and operates within the universe itself. My adversary has the burden of proof to show that gravity actually exists outside the universe and is holding it up externally.

I have shown a much more logical conclusion.

YAMEH IS REAL










[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
LogicandReasoning

Con

Rebuttals

Our world

"
The earth being round, does not mean our world is round. Our world is flat, because our world is the universe."

WHAT!!?? This is very fallacious.

Say, we have this 3-dimensional object inside something (In this case, the Earth (Spherical) in the Universe).


s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

Wherever that 3-dimensional object is (Earth, which is a spherical object), it CAN NOT be inside something completely flat; Earth extends around to a SPACIAL EXTENT, and a contradiction entails to assume that a 3-dimensional object can be inside something completely flat (And we're reffering to something 2-DIMENSIONAL HERE!).

"
I said this

" First we have to accept the fact our world is flat. The first thing I want to address is that the earth is not flat. This is obvious. The world as we know consists of galaxies and formations that extend infinitely in spacial extent at least as far as we are aware"


He responds with

" EXACTLY! Like said, scientists have discovered that the Earth is a spherical (3-dimensional) model. So, wouldn't it be fallacious to accept the complete opposite to be factual? Not only that, but you have single-handedly admitted. I haven't read the rest yet. "


He is agreeing with the point I am making. The earth is round but our world is flat."

Did you ignore me? You only read "EXACTLY!". But, I also reply that scientists have discovered that Earth is a spherical model (Meaning 3-dimensional). So, it would be COMPLETELY fallacious to have established that fact, but STILL ASSUME that the Earth is FLAT!

Supported by the shell of a tortoise

"
" I have absolutely NO IDEA how you came up with that; I NEVER CONCEDED! I typed in that YOU SINGLE-HANDEDLY ADMITTED! How is that concession!?"

I have explained this countless times"

Well, please directly quote the explanation next round; I reread, but haven't encountered one.

"
"According to the laws of Inertia, something at rest remains at rest and anything in motion remains in motion until an external force acts upon it. So, I'll repeat: Say, I am carrying a can of Tuna. I walk upstairs, up to the rooftop of a building. I walk to the edge. I drop my can of Tuna. The reason it did so was because of gravity; The force, emanating from the Earth's core, is gravitating us towards it. If there weren't any external forces, it wouldn't move; It would simply remain in its location (Hence, the law of Inertia)"

Tuna has nothing to do with the universe floating in space. Fish =/= floating. This is not harry potter. Also gravity operates within the universe, not outside of it. So using an internal for as an external explanation is incoherent."

Tuna DEFINITELY doesn't. However, the example, involving a can of Tuna, that I brought up, was contextual, leading to my conclusion. I'll repeat AGAIN: Say, I am carrying a can of Tuna. I walk upstairs, up to the rooftop of a building. I walk to the edge. I drop my can of Tuna. The reason it did so was because of gravity; The force, emanating from the Earth's core, is gravitating us towards it. If there weren't any external forces, it wouldn't move; It would simply remain in its location (Hence, the law of Inertia).

Gravity definitely operates WITHIN the Universe. But it can also operate outside. There aren't any missing/additional particles outside that can corrupt the function of gravity.

"

In response to P1 rebutal

A literal stance does not change the resolution."

Yes, it does. From a LITERAL stance, it's based on observation; If discovered that said object is 3-dimensional, then it's concluded: IT'S THREE DIMENSIONAL!

"

In response to P2

No you have not, you conceded the point. "

No I didn't concede the point! I ARGUED (Or at least attempted to do so, in YOUR CASE)!

"
Response to P1A

I don't like fish, and have explained this ten times. My adversary is using rules that exist within the universe to try and explain stuff outside of it. Simply saying it "operates this way", is the same thing as trying to explain what physical laws and properties existed prior to the big bang. We are operating under the laws we no know. Automatically assuming that gravivity is holding the inverse in place does not mean its the case. It also does not appeal to occams razor."

ALL scientific laws must also apply to the Big Bang theory; If the Big Bang theory regards ANY SCIENCE, it must accept said laws. They all existed forever, even prior to the Big Bang! Without gravity OUTSIDE of our Universe, nothing will gravitate the Universe toward the direction of where said gravitational pull is.

Also, if you believe that WE KNOW NOTHING about the outside, thus not being able to explain validly, then why are YOU trying to do so?

I'll leave the rest out, seeing as either my opponent AGAIN, believes that I (And I stress the "I") conceded, or HE concedes.

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

Pro

Our World

My adversary claims I committed a fallacious statement. Lets review

The universe is our world. Conceded point that my adversary has accepted

Next question, is our universe flat?




There are 3 possible curvatures to the universe. Positive, Negative and flat.





All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines

never meeting (flat or Euclidean)
must cross (spherical)
always divergent (hyperbolic) [1]





Flat is defined as never meeting, not psychically flat. My adversary tried posting an image of a ciruclar object extruding out of a flat surface due to a circual shape not being able to exist within a flat shape. He is basically arguing this

Universe = -------

earth = 0

so --------------O---------------- therefor a circular object can not exist within a flat one. This argument can be dismissed and thrown out. Flat again is defined as never touching, so yes earth can exist within a flat universe. Actually it is the only universe it can exist within until further knowledge is presented. If we existed in positive curvature or negative curvature, the big bang essentially would happen again when the point or origins met. Essentially the universe would recollapse upon itself.




He also says this

" Did you ignore me? You only read "EXACTLY!". But, I also reply that scientists have discovered that Earth is a spherical model (Meaning 3-dimensional). So, it would be COMPLETELY fallacious to have established that fact, but STILL ASSUME that the Earth is FLAT!"


I have no idea how you keep missing the point I am making, but earth being spherical is a non sequitur to the actual resolution. Our world is not earth, therefore this is mute. Earth is round, Our world is flat. Very simple


Supported by a tortoise

" Well, please directly quote the explanation next round; I reread, but haven't encountered one. "

Please re read the entire couple of paragraphs I spent explaining what a concession is. When you admit the earth is round but our universe is flat. Or at least choose not to respond to that, or even drop the point. That is acknowledging or agreeing to a point. Aka concession.

Tuna

My adversary is back on this fish argument sadly.

The universe itself has also been defined as the totality of existence [2]. It is also accepted that

" The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius. Scientific observation of the Universe has led to inferences of its earlier stages. These observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history " [3]

There are two key phrases to watch. Most of its history, and observable universe. The observable universe is all we know about, taking what we know and applying it to stuff that is outside of our scope is incorrect and definition not direct or empirical. There are physical and metaphysical laws that could operate differently outside of the observable universe.



In repose to p1 rebuttal

The earth is not the world

in response to p2

see argument about concession.



In response to P1A

We have no idea what laws existed prior to the big bang. The universe was not even functioning properly at that point. Against his is applying what we know now, to a situation where we 0 ideas about. The only thing we know for sure is that according to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. A lot more to do with heat, energy, and expansion. We can only take logical steps to assume how the big bang happened.



P2A -P3A = dropped but followed from P1A



Closing

Lets recap

My adversary has conceded the earth is round, but also that our world is flat. Thus awarding me that argument.


(1)

My adversary also likes







He then relates tuna to the foundation of the universe



We must then ask our self this

What is a better explanation for how earth exists

Is it







or






Just to wrap this up

Turtles own tuna






According to Occams Razor the most valid explanation is that a turtle is holding the world up and her name is YAMEH




[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
[2] ^ "Universe". Webster's New World College Dictionary, Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2010.
[3] ^ Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Dimensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-0-387-77637-8. Retrieved 2011-05-01.

Debate Round No. 4
LogicandReasoning

Con

Rebuttals

Our world

"
There are 3 possible curvatures to the universe. Positive, Negative and flat.





All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines

never meeting (flat or Euclidean)
must cross (spherical)
always divergent (hyperbolic) [1]





Flat is defined as never meeting, not psychically flat. My adversary tried posting an image of a ciruclar object extruding out of a flat surface due to a circual shape not being able to exist within a flat shape. He is basically arguing this

Universe = -------

earth = 0

so --------------O---------------- therefor a circular object can not exist within a flat one. This argument can be dismissed and thrown out. Flat again is defined as never touching, so yes earth can exist within a flat universe. Actually it is the only universe it can exist within until further knowledge is presented. If we existed in positive curvature or negative curvature, the big bang essentially would happen again when the point or origins met. Essentially the universe would recollapse upon itself. "

Universe = --------

Earth = O

You say that the Universe is a flat plate. Taking the scientific stance, if something is flat, it is 2-dimensional (Which hasn't yet been discovered). However, not even mass is flat yet! And when you say that the Universe is a flat plate, and the Earth is WITHIN (Meaning, inside) it (Whether it's negative or flat curvature)(The Earth was discovered to the a spherical model (3-dimensional, then)), it's absurd to think about. If either ABOVE OR BELOW it, then it ISN'T in the Universe; It is outside. However, having established that it's WITHIN (Which you accept), it is, to conclude, absurd to even think that the Universe is a flat plate.

"

He also says this

" Did you ignore me? You only read "EXACTLY!". But, I also reply that scientists have discovered that Earth is a spherical model (Meaning 3-dimensional). So, it would be COMPLETELY fallacious to have established that fact, but STILL ASSUME that the Earth is FLAT!"


I have no idea how you keep missing the point I am making, but earth being spherical is a non sequitur to the actual resolution. Our world is not earth, therefore this is mute. Earth is round, Our world is flat. Very simple "

Apologies. It IS a non sequitir.

Supported by the shell of a tortoise

"
" Well, please directly quote the explanation next round; I reread, but haven't encountered one. "

Please re read the entire couple of paragraphs I spent explaining what a concession is. When you admit the earth is round but our universe is flat. Or at least choose not to respond to that, or even drop the point. That is acknowledging or agreeing to a point. Aka concession."

NOW, YOU'RE IGNORING! Reread YOUR paragraphs that you claim explain how I conceded? I HAVEN'T ENCOUNTERED ONE, AS SAID IN YOUR DIRECT QUOTATION!

I NEVER CONCEDED THE POINT THAT THE EARTH IS A SPHERE BUT THE UNIVERSE IS FLAT!


" The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius. Scientific observation of the Universe has led to inferences of its earlier stages. These observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history " [3]

There are two key phrases to watch. Most of its history, and observable universe. The observable universe is all we know about, taking what we know and applying it to stuff that is outside of our scope is incorrect and definition not direct or empirical. There are physical and metaphysical laws that could operate differently outside of the observable universe. "

I disagree with the direct quote; Observation? If matter did in fact fuse and condense, very compact, and then afterwards, there was a cataclysmic explosion, we didn't exist at that time. So, none have observed that. So, that is not a valid reasoning for the eternal government of physical laws.

However, like said, physical laws are inevitable, if correct.

Rebutting [P1]

"
The earth is not the world"

Yes, yes; I continously refer to it as world. However, you didn't rebut the argument itself.

Rebutting [P2]

"
see argument about concession. )

I have already rebutted it.

Rebutting [P1A]

"

We have no idea what laws existed prior to the big bang. The universe was not even functioning properly at that point. Against his is applying what we know now, to a situation where we 0 ideas about. The only thing we know for sure is that according to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. A lot more to do with heat, energy, and expansion. We can only take logical steps to assume how the big bang happened. "

In the explanation of the concept of a Big Bang, the Universe did indeed not do so. However, if the theory is scientifically proven to violate physical laws, or even one, then it is no longer accepted; Rejected, in other words. Laws are inevitable, and don't come into existence. All laws must've existed prior to the Big Bang. The government of physical/scientific laws must've then been eternal.

Rebutting [P2A]

Dropped by opponent. But having rebutted reply to P1A, as said premise, if scientifically proven, validly follows said conclusion, conclusion is not mandatory for acceptance.

Rebutting [P3A]

Same.

I leave it to the voters. May the better debater win.






Mikal

Pro

I'm just going to use this round to clarify and end the debate. In his last round my adversary essentially just copy and pasted my entire argument and dropped every point.


Break Down

(1) My adversary concedes to the fact the world is our universe
(2) He then proceeds to argue that the earth is round
(3) He argues a non sequitur from this stand point, because the earth being spherical does not negate the fact that our universe(world) is flat
(4) He never refuted, or even bothered to try and argue the fact that our world(universe) is flat. This point is conceded and goes to me.

(5) He likes Tuna
(6) He tries to explain that the laws of physics could exist outside of the observable universe
(7) He provides no evidence to support this
(8) I invoke Occams Razor and historical facts to show that YAMEH is the sole reason our universe is held in place
(9) Adversary drops all arguments and concedes that turtles own tuna


Conclusion

My adversary has conceded or dropped almost every point that I have made. We can all agree the universe is flat. I have presented empirical and verifiable evidence in almost every round to support this. I also have shown that Occams razor is the simplest way to explain the universe being held in place.

The most obvious conclusion is that our world is supported by my female goddess Yameh. She speaks to me, just as she can speak to you. Over countless decades I have perfected the art of speaking to her. She instills in me passion, desire, and the need to spread her gospel. I often find myself clashing heads with Muslims and Christians alike. They do not believe this even though historical evidence points to the fact she exists. There is no way to show that she does not exist, and through logical processes of thought we can all agree that it is the best explanation for our universe is held in place. The universal turtle is our truth, light, and hope. All you must simply do is ask her to love you. She will come inside you and give you peace and serenity, and by her light you will be saved. I only hope you all find the peace she has given me. I have shown that it is very possibly that she exists. I have shown that our universe is also flat. My BOP has been fulfilled while my adversary has dropped everything. Yameh is with me.

May you all walk in the light of the God turtle.



Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Forthelulz 2 years ago
Forthelulz
Question: Are there four elephants between the turtle and the Disc?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
my god...this debate was hilarious and a perfect example of how one can fail due to semantic arguments. Other than Poop has DNA, of course.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
HILARIOUS!! MIKAL actually won this one!
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
MY FORMATTING (Which to me, was formal) BLINDED YOU? Wow; How many times were you poked in the eye by a recently-sharpened pencil?
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
I apologize, but the votes lack legitimacy; Our logic really differs.
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
I mean, you can deduct the conduct point, or the spelling and grammar point, but not arguments, given that again, this involves the frequent use of science, but you can barely comprehend from your lack of knowledge.

(P.S. Cite my source* (In singular form, given that only one source was cited, but assisted me, having known the fact that it actually supports said arguments))
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
FOR A MATTER OF F*CKING FACT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN EXPLAIN HOW MIKAL'S CITATION OF IMAGES MORELY SUPPORTS HIS ARGUMENTS THAN MY EXPLANATIONS!

Seriously, if you lack superior knowledge in astronomy (Science, in particular), given that this debate much focuses on that, don't vote; It'll be difficult to be able to realistically conclude, from given arguments from both sides, who had more convincing arguments.
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
YYW: SOURCES: Just because you're a visual learner (I mean, even if that's what YOU like, my cited sources from where I derive arguments from are still comprehensible. I mean, it's such a simple definition), that doesn't mean that Mikal's sources are more reliable than mine. ARGUMENTS: The persuasion of arguments... Entertainment isn't a principle for that.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Logic and reasoning, why would you accept all your opponent's definitions at the beginning of round 2?
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
"s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com......; alt="" />"

Failed to encrypt; I attempted to paste a picture of the Earth, occupying space in the Universe (Which is impossible if the Universe is flat, seeing as the Earth is a spherical model (As discovered)(3-dimensional object)).
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
LogicandReasoningMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con agrees to pro's definitions in round 2 and then refuses to argue against them and bafflingly argues the Earth is not flat as opposed to the universe. Pro wins arguments. Pro has more reliable sources as well.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
LogicandReasoningMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro gets conduct because Con's formatting blinded me. I won't judge arguments since I didn't really read Con's arguments (not that I could).
Vote Placed by TheAmazingAtheist1 3 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist1
LogicandReasoningMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Mikal included pictures containing cuss words. S&G: Mikal made multiple spelling errors, as Con never had. ARGUMENTS: Not only did he organize by formatting his arguments more formally, but I felt it made more rational sense.
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
LogicandReasoningMikalTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate originally looked like an easy win, however, Con never defined world and did a lackluster job of refuting Pro's point about a turtle holding up the Earth. Since Con never defined world, world could mean anything, including our universe. As Con states and proves with reliable sources, the universe is flat. Also Con never proved that there wasn't a giant turtle holding up the Earth. Con merely stated this with out any source. Therefore, I have awarded sources to Pro since he used more and better sources i.e. NASA while Con used one source; wikipedia. S&G does go to Con since he made way less spelling mistakes.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
LogicandReasoningMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate has made me question everything. I'm utterly at a loss for words, much in the same way that CON is at a loss for this debate. Flabbergasted, or something to that tune, is the only conceivable way to describe my reaction to PRO's arguments while CON bored me to tears. PRO made an vivacious series of arguments, supported by several -highly entertaining- graphics which were very much more persuasive than CON's failed attempt to use words. What can I say? I'm a visual learner. Sources to PRO, for that reason, as well.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
LogicandReasoningMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used several sources to justify his reasonable arguments, but had a curse word in a photo he posted.