The Instigator
ChokingChlorine
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Earth being flat, which can go beyond our limited pretense of it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 76910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

ChokingChlorine

Pro

Okay, I know that in the common sense that the Earth as we know it is to be called round, but did you know that aliens who inhabit worlds may use the term flat as to say that when they view the world from the outside that they can size themselves up to a planet and come up with the term flat as the world is big enough to provide flat land for them? Or there could be the thought that the Earth is not perfectly rounded, and thus is cast down to be in the category of the flat worlds, if you are a perfectionist.
Zarroette

Con

I thank ChokingChlorine for instigating this debate. As is standard in debate, Pro has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution. The two major points requiring proof are:

(1) The Earth is flat
(2) Our conception of the Earth is beyond our limited "pretense"

I aim to show that neither of these claims are true, yet I only have to negate my opponent's argument which attempt to prove these things, in order to win the debate.


Counter-case

A1: Geostationary orbits

In satellite technology, there is what is known as a “geostationary orbit”, of which is where a satellite orbits the Earth without moving. To do so, there is a certain altitude in which the satellite must remain to stay in the same as the Earth rotates. An implicit absolute within this calculation is the idea that Earth rotates and is spherical, otherwise the satellite would not be able to stay in the same spot, sometimes recording a view of the Earth. The calculations for determining the altitude required for a satellite to be geostationary are as follows:

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)


A2: During a lunar eclipse, the Earth’s shadow is circular

It is well documented how the Earth’s shadow can be seen on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Below is an abstract pictorial representation of how the effect occurs. Further below that are actual pictures of the Earth’s circular shadow on the Moon:


(http://physics.weber.edu...)


A3: Ships disappearing over the horizon

If there is curvature to the Earth, it would be expected that ships would appear to be sinking as they traversed the world. Take the following depiction as demonstration:



(http://www.weatherwise.org...)

Now, observe the following image. Are the containers floating in the water? Of course not; containers do not float. The curvature of the Earth has hidden the ship beneath:

(http://www.sailblogs.com...)

Conclusion

It should be abundantly evident that there is no “limited pretence” involved with the shape of the Earth. There is a mountain of evidence which quite clearly shows how the Earth is round (I have only cited a mere fraction of it). This mere fraction, as it stands, is more than enough of a counter-case, especially considering that I do not have the burden of proof.


Counter-arguments

“Okay, I know that in the common sense that the Earth as we know it is to be called round, but did you know that aliens who inhabit worlds may use the term flat as to say that when they view the world from the outside that they can size themselves up to a planet and come up with the term flat as the world is big enough to provide flat land for them?”

(1) Firstly, it is not common sense that tells us that the Earth is round. Rather, it is science that allows us to realise that the Earth is round. Before science proved that it was round, people believed that the Earth was flat due to “common sense”.

(2) Secondly, my opponent does nothing to prove that there are “aliens who inhabit worlds”. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that these aliens exist.

(3) Thirdly, in the case that these aliens do exist, my opponent does nothing to show that aliens do use the term like this, hence there is no real reason that the term “flat” should be interpreted this way. In fact, this is semantical abuse because in contemporary discourse, flat is never used in this sense (flat meaning: “the world is big enough to provide flat land for [aliens]”).

Actual definitions of “flat” are as follows:

“Having a smooth, even surface” [1]

having a smooth, level, or even surface : not having curves or bumps” [2]

As you can see, the meaning of flat my opponent tries to convey is semantical abuse and is not supported by any these official definitions, and I challenge my opponent to find his/her definition from a credible source.


“Or there could be the thought that the Earth is not perfectly rounded, and thus is cast down to be in the category of the flat worlds, if you are a perfectionist.”

The Earth not being perfectly round does not mean that it is considered flat – this is a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy) [3]. The reason this is a logical fallacy is because there are not only two options involved. To demonstrate, it is possible that:

1) The Earth is flat

2) The Earth is round

3) The Earth is neither round nor flat

My opponent’s arguments implies that there are only two possibilities involved (i.e. 1 or 2), of which there are clearly not, as I have demonstrated.


References

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://www.philosophy-index.com...

Debate Round No. 1
ChokingChlorine

Pro

What you are doing isn't even necessary. The concept still remains accurate within its own context.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Pro.

My opponent's counter-arguments both fall under the logical fallacy category of bare assertion, in that both are asserted without evidence or sustained argumentation [1]. Due to this shortcoming, due to all of my opponent's counter-arguments being logically fallacious, I only need to extend my arguments and counter-arguments.


Reference

[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ChokingChlorine

Pro

ChokingChlorine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
@Envisage

LOL
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
I could replace the word "Earth" with "penis" and Pro's arguments would make just as much sense....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
ChokingChlorineZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no arguments
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
ChokingChlorineZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro, so conduct to Con. Arguments also go to Con, as they put out a detailed case for their side of the debate and Pro simply responded with a bare assertion, "the main concept still stands." This statement is worthless as a rebuttal, as Pro didn't even bother to explain *why* the main concept still stands. After this Pro forfeited, leaving all arguments of Con's standing. Therefore arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
ChokingChlorineZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Not to add that Pro didn't debate at all! Con is the only who presented any argument.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
ChokingChlorineZarroetteTied
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: Pro offered no rebuttals and forfeited a round. Loss of conduct for forfeit.