The Instigator
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
87 Points
The Contender
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
46 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,760 times Debate No: 2706
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (53)
Votes (32)

 

Mangani

Con

Though I am posting this debate, it is in response to other debates and comments made by my opponent. Because it is generally accepted scientific, logical, and rational thought that the Earth is spherical in shape (though not a perfect sphere), my opponent asserts that the Earth is flat, and therefore the burden of proof is on him.

Let me define "flat" as it is generally accepted in "flat Earth" philosophies. It is generally believed in "flat Earth" philosophies that the Earth is a plane. The North Pole is at the center of the Earth, and the outer limits of the Earth are "blocked" by a 150ft. wall in what we call Antarctica, and since noone has ever crossed that wall, noone can prove the Earth is NOT flat.

I ask you the following. If the Earth is flat:

-How do you explain volcanoes, magma, tectonic plates, earthquakes, geysers, and other phenomena which are easily explained by the scientific belief that the Earth is a sphere, has three major layers (crust, mantle, core [liquid outer, solid inner]), magma rises through the crust creating more crust, tectonic plates push against each other or float away from each other, etc. etc. etc.???

-How do you explain the belief that countries, companies, and even wealthy individuals have launched thousands of satellites into "orbit"? These satellites can be SEEN through telescopes, they lose energy and crash, they provide us with cell phone service, TV, internet, etc. so we know they are real. How do you explain their orbit?

-How do you explain the countless pictures taken from Earth of similar planets, and of the Earth from space? How do you explain the apparent conspiracy that the earth is spherical perpetrated by various countries, companies, and wealthy individuals who have traveled to space?

-How do you explain gravity? A flat surface doesn't create gravity, so the Earth being flat doesn't explain how we don't "float away" into space. How do you unexplain what science explains as the effect of one celestial body's gravitational pull over another like, for instance, the way the moon affects our tides? How do you explain (since you claim to know about wavelengths) the way white light bends through different points in the Earth's atmosphere? How do you explain the predictability of weather patterns, astrological phenomena like solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, and visible planet alignments visible from Earth as spheres (this relates to the assertion in science that Earth is similar to other celestial bodies in more ways than one)?

-How do you explain the proven fact (through cross-world nautical expeditions, aeronautic feats, and orbital photographs) that an object that travels continuously forward around the Earth's surface does not significantly veer left or right (the sum of travel left subtracted from the sum of the travel right would equal zero) so it would be impossible to explain through a "flat Earth" theory how a plane, ship, or object in orbit can fly, sail, or circle in orbit East to West along the equator traveling from one point on the Earth to the same completely circling the Earth without ever veering north or south(numerically, because the sum of the mileage traveled north subtracted from the sum of the travel south equals zero; if the Earth were flat an object traveling west would have to continuously veer slightly right)?

I humbly await your response...
sadolite

Pro

After reading extensively on the existence of "Ether," that being the hing on which I was going to base my entire argument, I am forced to accept "Occam's Razor" with regard to this "Ether". Let's be honest, I suck at debating. So I think you should feel sorry for me, kinda like little Johnny or little kids who play sports. You can't tell them they are wrong or they didn't win because that might hurt their feelings. You should feel the same for me. I think you should give me an honorary win for trying and send me on my way.
Or better yet appeal to your sense of humor, and vote for me because Mangani's friends would rib him for losing a debate on "The world is flat". I think that would be very funny.
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Con

I will not assume, and in the process make your argument more clear, with regards to your deference to Ockham's Razor.

Your "ether" theory proves nothing other than the fact that a couple of scientists in 1887 could not prove the Earth was moving. They couldn't prove "ether" doesn't exist either. The relation between the two, and the scientific results of that relationship are unfortunate in that people are relying on unproven information to prove something that is just not logical. The questions I posted above are not answered under any "flat earth" society website- they are not even addressed. YOU have also failed to address those issues, and the fact that you do not understand why something is the way it is doesn't prove that it's not.

To disprove that the Earth is a globe, you would have to discredit thousands of astronomers, scientists, US Air Force personnel and personnel from other countries' Air Force's, along with logical scientific theories that allow us to predict weather patters like tides, etc. You would have to disprove that the moon is also flat (because the way it's gravity affects the Earth is more evidence that the Earth is a globe), the sun, and the rest of the planets (for the same reason- gravitational pull). You would have to come up with hundreds of scientific rebuttals to logic going back almost 2000 years! I don't see you doing that my pleading that you are not a good debater...
sadolite

Pro

Magani, let me ask you some questions. Why would go through so much trouble to debate such an absurd assertion that the earth is flat? You go out of your way to listen to any possible evidence, no matter what the source, that may suggest otherwise and compare it to known science. You try to look for any possible piece of information contained in the information provided to you that would suggest the earth is flat. And look for flaws in the information and explain why, in the greatest detail, why the information that would suggest the earth is flat is flawed. Why would you do that? Is there a scientific answer for these questions?
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Con

Sadolite, though your questions are in English, I fail to understand exactly what it is you are asking me. Are you suggesting you accepted this debate just for the sake of making a statement that I am being ridiculous by arguing a point that you were already arguing about on the comments section of another debate of the same title and topic in which you also failed to prove your point? Where are you going with this? First you tell me to post my argument or I will forfeit and lose, now you are opposing the fact that I am debating you even if you have given up?

Maybe what you should be asking, and to yourself, is what the heck were you thinking even entertaining the idea that the Earth is flat... just a thought...

By the way- this debate is about wether or not the Earth is flat, not about why I am debating, researching, or stating whatever I am or am not stating.
sadolite

Pro

I was hoping you were going to explain the scientific method to me. As I think this would be the correct answer to the questions I asked.
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Con

Sadolite, unfortunately due to the debate structure of this dialogue you would have to justify your line of questioning with regard to it's relation to your rebuttal against my premise. I can also be "smarter than a fifth grader" and list the periodic table of elements, but doing so poses absolutely no relevence to my premise or your rebuttal. I can also name the Three Stooges, recite the entire Dogg Food CD by Tha Dogg Pound, and repair any electronic device with my eyes closed. None of that proves that the earth is neither flat, nor round. My arguments not only have the reader's own logic in mind, they are consistent with third grade science, and I pose questions already answered by third grade science that you cannot explain under any "flat earth" theory. You haven't posed any arguments other than that you are not a good debater (which I am not known to be myself), you have not justified the need for the questions you pose to be answered in the context of this debate, AND you are wasting your turns to argue in doing so. I will not engage in discourse with you on any subject other than the topic at hand within the context of this debate, and if you wish to veer from the topic- by all means, create another debate and challenge me. You want to debate fishing? Let's debate fishing. You want to get the upper hand after accepting a debate you can't debate in? Challenge me to your favorite topic! I'll make you feel better!
sadolite

Pro

Mangani, let me first apologize to you, as I used you unwittingly to prove another point. If I were talking to you in person I would have never been able to keep your attention. I suppose I should explain. I could have never gotten a better person than you for proving my point. Your absolute adherence to the scientific method is impeccable. You are a true scientist even if you aren't one. My point to prove was that when somebody is emotionally tied to the topic of the debate, the scientific method goes out the door. In this debate you didn't care where the information came from, you absolutely wanted to here it, analyze it, try to figure if it would make a change in the theory and through the scientific method proved it's inaccuracy in the greatest detail. You made no attempt to reject it because you didn't like the scientists political affiliation, the company he may have worked for or his personal beliefs. None of that mattered one bit. All that mattered was the information and weather or not if it was applied to the current available data, it would change it. It mattered not how stupid you thought the assertion was, you took the time to research it and explain the flaw so as to leave no doubt. And if there was some kind of inconsistency you explained why or why not the inconsistency had relevance or not.
My point is that there has never been a scientific subject so politicized so as to allow the scientific method to be thrown out the door as global warming I find it impossible to have a coherent debate on this subject without my personal beliefs, my political affiliation or my personal position on the subject being the reason I am a skeptic. To all the people who call me a denier because I'm not completely convinced this is why and I hope it made a good scientific point. No matter how stupid you think I am or how stupid this whole thing was. My mind is open, convince me in this manner. I won't listen to anyone who rejects any information I give because they don't like the source. Who cares what the source is, if it's easy enough to explain away then do it. And it will bring me one step closer to your side of the argument. Starting off by calling me a denier and all of sources I provide junk science with out even so much as trying to explain why the information I provide is what keeps me a skeptic. Thaks for indulging me Manani, I'm sorry I wasted your time. Sadolite
Debate Round No. 4
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
What ever Mangani.
Posted by Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
Here we ago again with the groups rant... Grow up already Sadolite...
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
others. Missed it by one word
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Here is the point that no one seems to get, except me of course. When one openly associates themselves with a group of people who give the "perception" of manipulating the voting process, they will suffer the consequences associated with being associated. I will now define "perception" in context when it comes to groups like the "Cleaners" and the "CWO" or any other openly admitted group. When it's members say they are going to go back and review and fix debates or say that they want other people to go and vote on a debate that they believe someone should have won or someone should have lost, this gives the "perception" to the rest of the voters that these groups are singling people out or specific debates out because of bias on the groups part. A group of people are generally like minded people with like minded biases and similar intellectual responses. It has been my personal observation that these groups of people consider other people who do not subscribe to their group and it's philosophy as intellectual dolts with mental issues. Thus the overall masses revolt against these groups and vote bomb in favor of the person being insulted. This is what I have tried to explain to Mangani but instead he thinks I am blaming the "cleaners". Sense I voiced my opinion about the "cleaners" in the cleaner debate and was chastised and dismissed and had my character assassinated in the comment section of that debate for not subscribing to the cleaner philosophy the voters revolted and went to all of my debates and voted for me. I did not ask anyone to do this, they did it on their own. It is simple, the voters don't like groups and they don't like people who associate themselves with them. I get it, why don't you. I am saying this to all people who are in groups or associated with groups having to do with the voting process. It does not matter how well intentioned you say you are it does not matter if your group is not vote bombing it is what your members say and how they treat
Posted by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
Perhaps you two should not take debate.org so seriously.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
As you can see I have repeatedly said I lost, and said vote bombing sucks. This will not be sufficient for Mangani. He has to assasinate my character by suggesting I have no honor and also suggest that I have mental disabilities. If anyone has no honor It's you.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
As you can see, Mangani resorts to more lies about me by suggesting I have some kind of mental disorder, typical.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
This is increadible, I FRIKEN LOST!! How many friken ways can I say it.
Posted by Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
Sadolite, there you go again with your self righteous condescending "acknowledgment" of your loss. This isn't about "other" people knowing and/or fixing the votes, rather your continued attack on the Cleaners in a debate that has nothing to do with them, as a response to someone who has nothing to do with them! Do you have turrets and just can't help mentioning them? Were you genuine about what you're saying you would simply admit the loss and move on without having to mention anyone outside you and me. You are in your 40's right? Grow up. Don't you think it's about time?
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
How many friken ways do you want me to say vote bombing sucks. You friken win. You have been wronged, You deserve to win. Now go round everyone up and correct the injustice. It is because of groups like the cleaners that it exsists, that is the part you will not acknowledge.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 31 through 32 records.
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 6 years ago
polka-dots323
ManganisadoliteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 6 years ago
SportsGuru
ManganisadoliteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30