The Instigator
edawg99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

The Earth is Flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 94235
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (7)

 

edawg99

Pro

Round 1 for acceptance, round 2 for arguments, round 3 for rebuttals.

You have all been told lies by the corrupt government. May God help us all.
bballcrook21

Con

I accept this debate.

As my opponent has failed to lay out the rules beforehand, I shall do so.


Rules:


1. No forfeits.
2. No semantics.
3. No kritiks.
4. BOP rests on Pro to prove that the Earth is flat.
5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add definitions of their own.
7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter.

Debate Round No. 1
edawg99

Pro

In my argument, I will show how ridiculous the globe truly is by demonstrating how it in actuality describes a flat earth, and I will prove my arguments using the works of Albert Newton and Isaac Einstein.

Newton’s Laws of Motion
  1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
  2. The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. F=ma
  3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Einstein’s Equivalence Principle

Einstein was fond of a form of inquiry known as thought experiments. In a thought experiment, a premise is assumed to deduct from it the possible consequences. One of these thoughts experiments in particular involved a solitary passenger on an elevator that is alone in the universe.

When the elevator starts accelerating upwards, a pull downwards is felt by the passenger. This is due to the passengers inertia. Recall that a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Einstein hypothesised that since this pull, caused by the momentum of the passenger fighting against his acceleration, is indistinguishable from gravitational influences, it is only logical to assume that they are one and the same phenomenon. Comparatively, another pseudo-force like this arises from a rotating reference frame, say if one is on a spinning carnival ride one would presumably feel a pull away from the center.

Consider the scenario of this elevator accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s/s . If the passenger were to jump in the elevator while it was accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s/s (the rate at which we are pulled to the earth by gravitational forces) he would observe the same effect as if he was jumping on the earth. An initial resistance would be felt; the ground, or elevator floor, would recede away from him at 9.81m/s/s until he has traveled enough distance to expend the force given by jumping. Then the elevator floor would rise up to meet him at 9.81m/s/s . This can be seen as an observational illusion: the elevator floor can be seen to either be accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s/s or the passenger could be seen as falling towards the floor. To the passenger - its indistinguishable! Einstein’s inductive leap here was the realization that perhaps the forces are indistinguishable because they are. They both are accelerating frames of reference. The idea that gravitation is a pseudo-force arising from a naive view (which is to say taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one) is known as the equivalence principle.

In short, gravitational pull then is shown as an observational illusion hinging on our naive view of our frame of reference being inertial. Gravity is actually revealed as an inertial force (also known as a fictitious force).

A Flat Earth Theory

First let us construct a Wish List, so that we can be sure to be fair when we claim we’ve shown sufficient proof for our model. A simple list of things we would like to say are true if we have indeed shown a model that says the earth is flat.

Our Flat Earth Theory Wishlist:
  • We would like it to be coherent with our previous interpretation or show it as an approximation
  • Results from a shift in our shift in the observational language, which is to say we are just “looking at it wrong” and this can be disillusioned, much like the Einstein’s Equivalence principle or Galileo’s inertia.
  • Show the Earth is Flat
  • Based on and coherent with known laws and facts

What do we mean when we say the Earth is flat?

Let us remove an obvious point of confusion and simply state that we talk about flat in a broad manner - we are not discussing mountains or valleys here. In similar fashion, we are not making the ludicrous claim that the Earth is two dimensional. What we do say is that it can be transversed via a straight line through space. We would also like to say that all such traversals are straight or can be seen as straight. It can be said to satisfy this if it can be shown to be parallel to another straight line in space along all such traversals.

The Ferrari Effect

Let us build first from the base of Newton.

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.

Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it.

We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence points us to. The issue is with our naive view of geometry and space. Likewise we take the view that it is indeed in motion and not still.

Let’s interpret the ramifications of the statement: an object in orbit travels in a straight (and thus flat), line through space through further thought experiment. First, we can define our field of interest in that taking all such theoretical orbits of our planet and realize them rightly as flat, thus defining the bounding space of interest also to be flat. It follows, given any orbit of this planet to be flat, the planet itself is flat since it satisfies our definition of flatness.

Let us again venture into thought experiment: eject some pods towards the earth from one such of our imaginary satellites at regular intervals along our orbit such that they are in free fall. Again, we can assume these are straight lines extending below to a translatable location on the surface of the earth, its geolocation. We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel. Since the orbit is straight, and the orbit relates directly to the geographical locations it is above, we have come a long way to show the planet is also flat.

Now let us consider what acceleration means. Acceleration by its nature means either a change in speed or direction, which is to say a change in velocity. So when we look at the parabola formed by a ball in motion we can recognize that it is for the most part accelerating - it changes both direction and speed. Now, let us examine the path if we remove the influence of gravity from our model as well as unbound the start and end points to allow it to move freely.

If gravity was not forcing the object downwards, it would then be travelling a straight path, parallel perhaps to our imaginary satellite and in this case tangent to the apex of our balls climb.

We can see by comparison between a theoretical object in orbit and our ball at the apex of its climb that if not affected by gravity it would travel a straight line. By repeating this experiment again and again with lower apexes of our ball, various orientations, and so on we see the earth itself, not just the paths of satellites, is flat.

Any honest judge will begrudgingly have to admit that I have shown that the flat earth theory directly follows from our laws of motion and coherence with relativity. Even worse is the realization that we would have been lead to relativity sooner if not for our strict faith-like belief in a round earth.

bballcrook21

Con

This debate is completely plagiarized and thus it is an automatic win for me.

This is the source from which he has plagiarized.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...

THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS COPY AND PASTED FROM THIS SOURCE. Automatic win for me, of course.
Debate Round No. 2
edawg99

Pro

Sources from previous round: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...


I will begin this argument by stating that con has not properly followed the rules of the debate. In his case, he was supposed to provide arguments and evidence regarding the earth being round, and he properly failed to do so. Therefore, con also failed to provide sources (since there was no argument).

Con's set of rules also didn't include plagarism as a restriction, and he showed lack of conduct by accusing me of breaking a rule that was never put in place. Con is clearly looking for loopholes for the purpose of receiving votes, and this behavior is completly unacceptable in a formal debate setting.

There is no evidence to rebut, therefore my argument stands. Since I have properly followed the rules unlike my opponent, I encourage all viewers to vote pro.

As a side note, I would like to thank all viewers of this debate from the bottom of my heart for reading my argument. I was recently diagnosed with HIV, and the support I have received from members of this website has been extraordinary. To whoever is reading this, I hope you have a wonderful day and always remember you are beautiful. God bless you all!


bballcrook21

Con

Of course, my opponent's entire argument is simply a copied and pasted argument which he has not in any way quoted. Instead, he decided to copy and paste the entire assertion from one site, and then tried to claim that he lacked plagiarism as it's not an explicitly stated rule.

Let it be stated here that posting a source which you copied directly from, with no mention as to which part of the argument was copied, or lack of usage of quotation marks and references is plagiarism. Therefore, as plagiarism is always an implied rule, this is most definitely a case of plagiarism.

There are no arguments for me to rebut, as my opponent has yet to state any arguments of his own. In fact, the only arguments he has made are pertaining to his plagiarism, instead of the debate at hand. Thus, as I have rebutted even those arguments, this is easily a win for me.

It's ludicrous that I have to explain as to why this obvious troll has plagiarized his entire debate.

Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 3 months ago
Lexus
"kek u mad good keks"

thank you vote con :)
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
There's no rule requiring voters to award points based on plagiarized arguments. A voter is allowed to award points on a different basis if they choose to do so, as long as the plagiarism is addressed in the RFD.
Posted by bballcrook21 3 months ago
bballcrook21
The ONLY argument my opponent made was plagiarized, and that's against the site's terms of service. The penalty for plagiarism is an automatic loss, so I won't argue when the debate has already ended.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
...Seriously? We doing this now? You know there are debates that are not moderated - I didn't feel the need to mention those here. It's not asking too much for voters to examine a single argument made in the debate and explain why it helped one side win it, particularly when that argument is dropped. You can be mad about it, or you can simply accept it and move on.
Posted by Lexus 3 months ago
Lexus
Will start responding to noob debates that don't meet BoP with "kek u mad good keks" and winning because that is how debates should happen
Posted by Lexus 3 months ago
Lexus
brb reporting every forfeited debate
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
Lexus, on any debate, you have to explain how one side met their BoP. That includes a debate where one side drops all of the arguments of the other. If none of the dropped arguments meet the BoP, then it doesn't matter that they were dropped.
Posted by Lexus 3 months ago
Lexus
If someone makes an argument and I reply "lol funny" someone would really have to do a level of BoP analysis further than "they just dropped the case ..."?
Posted by Lexus 3 months ago
Lexus
I assume that if you literally don't reply to any arguments, you concede them and that just makes them true and fulfill the BoP. If literally any other debate had the opposition drop EVERY argument presented my vote wouldn't get removed if reported, why is this any different?
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Lexus// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially concedes the arguments put forward by pro, just saying that it was plagiarized, but never attacking the actual substance of the argument. This concession means that the BoP has been fulfilled by pro (by the guidelines put forward by con, rule 4). With regards to whether con should have won, con only says that it is an "implied rule", but as pro points out, the only rules to consider are those that are explicitly put forward. Con doesn't do much work on the theoretical objections to plagiarism (which there is definitely a case for), instead just takes it as a given that pro should lose based on plagiarism, but never actually explains why or how, especially with the rules in mind. Therefore, because of the concession and lack of any argumentative weight from con, I give arguments to pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess points made by both sides in the debate, or examine the BoP in the debate and assess one side's points to explain how they met/did not meet it. The voter goes towards the latter here, but fails to examine any specific arguments made by Pro to explain how they met his BoP. Rule 4 does establish that Pro has the BoP, but it should be clear from this RFD what he did to meet it.

Note: The report was aimed at removal on the basis that Pro plagiarized in this debate. In cases where plagiarism occurs and is prominent, the voter is required to include in their assessment some words about that plagiarism and why it did or did not affect their vote. The voter clearly does this here, so that would not be sufficient reason for removal.
************************************************************************
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by WKOJ 4 months ago
WKOJ
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The plagiarism that pro used in his arguments was a violation of the rules, making it an auto-win for con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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: Plagiarism
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 months ago
lannan13
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagerism=autoloss.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 4 months ago
David_Debates
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagarism was Pro's only argument. While Pro states that plagarism is not against the rules set forth by Con, one could state that it is violation of Con's fifth rule: "5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate." All points to Con.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 7 points to con because Pro plagiarized his entire opening arguments in round 2. Pro admits to this. It is lazy and unfair to your opponent to simply copy and paste from another website. I believe that plagiarism is the worst conduct violation on DDO. Plagiarism is also against DDO's TOS and is stealing directly from the original authors. For this reason, the proper punishment of plagiarism is losing all 7 points.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 months ago
Greyparrot
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: plague of plagiarism
Vote Placed by Valladarex 4 months ago
Valladarex
edawg99bballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism = Automatic Loss. Shame.