The Instigator
Lexus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AndyHood
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Earth is Flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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...
AndyHood
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,977 times Debate No: 74464
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

Lexus

Pro

Resolution: The Earth is Flat
I am pro and my opponent is con

Rules:
No forfeiture
No semantics (probably won't be a problem)
Good conduct must always be kept

Round structure:
1. Acceptance and general outline of rounds/rules
2. Constructive case ONLY.
3. Refutations ONLY
4. Defense from refutations ONLY.
AndyHood

Con

I am happy to propose and defend the position that the Earth is a relatively smooth oblate spheroid.

I accept your terms. I'm not sure where this is going but I've a hunch it'll be interesting!

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Lexus

Pro

I thank my opponent and hope that he realized that he is accepting a debate that is within the section of 'religion', which means that all arguments must be based on religious reasoning or religious wording.

Christian proof of a flat earth:
Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds".
On an oblated spheroid earth, as my opponent pointed out is what a rounded earth really is, you cannot see on the other side of the earth. The line of sight is limited to only part of the earth, so this must mean that the earth was and is flat.

Matthew 4:8. "...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world".
The same logic that is used with Daniel can be applied here.
A spherical earth cannot have a mountain so high that all parts of the earth are able to be seen, so this means that the earth is flat.

Luke 4:5. "[a]nd the devil, taking him up into a high mountain shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time".
Again, you cannot see the other side of the earth by being on a high mountain on the opposite side.
Let this diagram be of proof:


This graphic clearly shows that you cannot see the other kingdoms of the land if you are on a superhigh mountain or tree unless you are on a flat earth.

Isaiah 11:12. "he shall set up an ensign for the natiosn, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"
An oblated spheroid sphere cannot have any corners, but a flat earth could.

Revelation 7:1. "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth"
Again, an oblated spheroid earth has no corners, but a flat earth could.

Islamic proof of a flat earth
An-Naziat 79:30. "And after that He spread the earth"
The verb 'spread' is nearly synonymous with the verb 'to flatten', which means that He (Allah or God) flattened the earth.

An-Naba 78:6. "Have We not made the earth as an expanse"
A sphere cannot be an expanse, since it infinitely loops into itself, but a flat earth does not do this.

Az-Zukhruf 43:38. "Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)"
What this implies is that there are 2 definite points that are each marked east and west. However, this is not possible with a sphere, since it is infinitely looping and is compltely subjective in terms of directions.
In order for this to be true, the earth must be flat

Al-Kahf 18:47. "...you will see the earth as a levelled plain"
A sphere is not a levelled (see: flat) plane, so the earth must be flat in order for this to be true.


I await your response, con
AndyHood

Con

Apologies for the hypocrisy this debate requires of me. I shall be arguing from the Jewish, Christian and Muslim position.

From the Book of Job in the Ketuvim, we learn that the Lord God created the horizon to provide a boundary between the light and the darkness:

Job 26
[1]
10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.

One can see from this that the shape of the Earth that God created is three dimensional in such a way that some areas may be bathed in light whilst other areas may be simultaneously in darkness. The first book of the Tanakh (Genesis) tells us that God created light and darkness and intended them to be separate; we also know, from this holy scripture, that the Lord God named the light "day" and the darkness "night". Any theory that comports with these scriptures must explain how a horizon separates day from night; it is puzzling, of course, how God managed the miracle of bending the surface of water, which seems to always find a level, from common experience. Truly, it is wonderful to behold His creation and to read of His revealed wisdom in writings recording His revelation from years ago:

Genesis 1 [2]
3 And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day" and the darkness He called "night".

So, we know that the God created the Earth with a shape such that a horizon separated light from darkness, day from night. Thus far in my case, it could be a cube or a doughnut or even an icosohedron. In fact, it could be almost any other shape but flat. Fortunately for my case, God tells us more about the shape of his miraculous creation in the Book of His prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 40 [3]
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth and its people are like grasshoppers.

This tells us that from His place above the Earth, from a God's-eye-view, the Earth is like a circle. And there is only really one three dimensional shape that has the properties necessary to satisfy all of the scriptures: a sphere.

Now, I feel that I have shown clearly why the Earth must be spherical, according to the Holy Bible. However, I did say that I would argue for an oblate spheroid - now, I admit that this bit isn't 100% and requires a little bit of interpretation:


Joshua 10 [4]
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel,
Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
"Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

It must be noted that the Earth spins rather than the sun orbitting the Earth once a day, but that Joshua was not, being a fallible human, to know this. Obviously when Joshua asked God to make the sun stand still, God in His infinite wisdom, understood that Joshua wanted Him to make the sun seem to stop moving by stopping the Earth from spinning and this is exactly what He did. Which leaves us with the brute fact of the rotation of the Earth causing, over time, the sphere to turn into an oblate spheroid.

I have to say, though, that this is really just a theory - it may simply be true that the Earth is still a still sphere and that God literally made the sun stop it's daily journey around the Earth (how amazing is it that God keeps the sun orbitting the Earth!?)... even then, I've heard of some modern fellow called Newton (himself a good God-fearing Christian) who had a theory about gravity - it may just be that the gravitational pull of the Sun, which orbits the Earth in this way, causes the Earth to be stretched into an oblate spheroid.

Personally I think that the Earth is an oblate spheroid but I suppose that it would be possible for it to be spherical. The scripture is clear, at least on this point: the Earth is not flat.

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Lexus

Pro

This round will be refutations, as noted in R1.

"One can see from this that the shape of the Earth that God created is three dimensional in such a way that some areas may be bathed in light whilst other areas may be simultaneously in darkness"
Sorry, but this is not necessarily true.
There is a current theory that the sun is a spotlight, revolving around the earth and sending light to specific areas.
This .gif is a perfect illustration of this idea:

As you can see, the world does not have to be rounded to have specific lighted areas.

"And there is only really one three dimensional shape that has the properties necessary to satisfy all of the scriptures: a sphere."
... or a cylider.
... or an upside down cone.
What I am trying to get at is that it can be many 3D things besides a sphere, and could even be 2D and a flat plane. Scripture even clearly says that this must be a flat plane, not a 3D plane.

"Which leaves us with the brute fact of the rotation of the Earth causing, over time, the sphere to turn into an oblate spheroid."
Sorry, how?
I don't understand the logical steps taken to reach this conclusion.

" I've heard of some modern fellow called Newton (himself a good God-fearing Christian) who had a theory about gravity - it may just be that the gravitational pull of the Sun, which orbits the Earth in this way, causes the Earth to be stretched into an oblate spheroid."
Theory of gravity, not the absolute knowledge of gravity.
Personally, I could say that gravity doesn't exist and I would have as much biblical proof as this claim does.

AndyHood

Con

My opponent starts with:

Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds".

But this is not putting the verse into its full context! Anybody who had read the holy scriptures would know that this was a dream and, furthermore, the great Daniel (who had the holy spirit of God in him) interpreted the dream and we find that the mighty tree (which protected all the life in the kingdom) was a dream-image representative of the dreamer himself, King Nebuchadnezzar [1]. Surely, Pro doesn't expect us to interpret dreams literally? If dreams (even planted by God Himself) require a skilled interpreter (as I think the scriptures make plainly clear), we certainly should not presume to add interpretation beyond that which Daniel himself offered!

Pro then treats us to two important passages from the New Testament, in which we find our Lord Jesus Christ being tempted by none other than the Devil himself:

Matthew 4:8. "...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world".
Luke 4:5. "[a]nd the devil, taking him up into a high mountain shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time".

How should we interpret this? I suggest that if we were to read it literally (and why wouldn't we, if it's perfectly sound to do so?) then we would have to explain how Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the World in a moment of time. I think that it's quite clear that what the Devil did was to create an image in Jesus' mind of all the kindoms of the World, without the need for physical reality... in other words, we are not told that the Devil turned Jesus round in a full circle so that he could survey the kingdoms of the World... rather, he "shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time". Apart from anything else, we are told that Jesus was taken into a high mountain; for Pro's interpretation of events to be correct, Jesus and the Devil would have had to be right at the very summit of a mountain (and that mountain would have to be one with a single such peak); no such conclusions may be drawn from the scripture alone.

Next, Pro turns to Isaiah:

Isaiah 11:12. "he shall set up an ensign for the natiosn [stet], and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"

Already, it seems obvious to me, the "corners" represent the four cardinal directions: North, South, East and West. However, on closer inspection, it's a little more subtle than that, and we need to turn to the original Hebrew to understand [2]. I encourage the gentle reader to follow and read the link [2] but for those who cannot be bothered: "corners" is a very loose translation; "wings" is more literal and this is what one biblical commentary says (as do others that I have had cause to recently refer to):

From the four corners of the earth - Chaldee, 'From the four winds of the earth.' The Septuagint renders it, 'From the four wings (πτερυL9;γων pterugoM2;n) of the earth.' It means, that they should be collected to God from each of the four parts of the earth - the east, the west, the north, and the south. The Hebrew word rendered here 'corners,' means properly "wings." It is applied, however, to the corner, or border of a thing, as a skirt, or mantle 1 Samuel 24:5, 1 Samuel 24:11;Deuteronomy 23:1; and hence, to the boundaries, or corners of the earth, because the earth seems to have been represented as a quadrangular plain; Ezekiel 7:2.

I suspect that Pro would have done better to reference Ezekiel 7:2 (or the commentary that I have generously quoted that seems to have some sympathy for Pro's position) but, alas, according to the rules that Pro laid out, it would be unfair for them to do so now; either way, "four corners" or "four winds" or "four wings" represents "four compass points" and, as such, is not meant to inform our understanding of the shape of Earth in any way... I understand that there is a common modern theory that can explain "north" "south" "east" and "west" that comports with my spherical Earth theory... but I won't demean the gentle reader by providing an unnecessary image.

And finally, for Pro's Christian case, they resort to Revelation 7:1. Again, I ask the gentle reader to listen to the biblical commentary provided by biblehub [3] but I provide the most relevant detail here:

"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" — That is, the north, the south, the east, and the west;

Now, I am only supposed to be using refutations in this round... but since Pro provided a positive argument in R3 that was different from Pro's R2 offering (see the picture of a circular rotation of the sun and the moon on a flat circle: I'll leave it to the gentle voter to decide whether this was breaking Pro's own rules or not), I feel it only fair that I may refute that new argument here: Which point of Earth, Pro, is at the centre of your circle? Where is it constantly the same level of light and dark? Because as far as I'm concerned, all points of the Earth experience day and night (as I've already shown is the Lord's desire) even if there is 6 month day and then 6 month night. Unless you have biblical evidence that some points of the Earth were not to recieve the special intention of the Lord and remain in semi-light/dark? The North Pole is as worthy a point of God's creation as any other and it, like all others, receives variation from Day to Night. How important it is to take the Word of God literally: when He divided light and darkness, He didn't just do it for some places, He did it for all places. Hence the spherical interpretation! (Nice try with the flat disc, though!).

Briefly, now, since I have not much space left, I turn to Pro's Islamic justification for a flat Earth: 79:30 "And after that He spread the earth" - I wonder if Pro has ever spread icing on a cake? Was that cake flat? No! So...

78:6. "Have We not made the earth as an expanse" - let's look at what that word "expanse" means [4] - "A wide continuous area of something". How, unless the World wraps around (as I say it does) could you have a continuous area? This verse argues for the spherical Earth, not the flat Earth (thanks Pro)!

43:38 "...distance of the two Easts..." - cryptic but, even by Pro's admission, this is open to interpretation; I offer this one: "from East to West". If Pro wishes to cite this verse as authority, I ask Pro to provide an interpretation of the original Arabic that precludes the interpretation "from East to West".

18:47. "...you will see the earth as a levelled plain" - oh, yes, Pro, but "you will see"... well, we may well "see" things a certain way, but this verse is not claiming to describe objective reality, simply a subjective feeling that the Earth will seem to be as a levelled plain. What does this prove? Anyhow, this is not a definitive translation and should not be read literally (as Pro implies) [5]:

And [warn of] the Day when We will remove the mountains and you will see the earth prominent, and We will gather them and not leave behind from them anyone.

I note, Pro, that you awaited my response; now you have it: I refute every single verse that you cite, from the Bible and from the Qur'an. Your entire case lies in tatters. I eagerly await your counter-refutations; I'm ready (and very keen) to provide mine to your R3 offering.

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://biblehub.com...
[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[5] http://quran.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Lexus

Pro

I thank my opponent for an amazingly well thought out case, I am truly in awe that he expended this much thought into his case. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we have people that interpret the bible in different ways, because they can come to many different conclusions.


Daniel Refutations.

I thought that Daniel being a dream was well known throughout the religious world, so I apologise if it seemed as though I purposefully left that out to trick you or anything like that. In fact, I had thought that everyone knew the context. Sorry again.
Now, I actually do think that we need to look at this dream literally. God is these three things: (a) omnipotent (b) omnibenevolent and (c) omniscient. What this means is that he can effectively live outside of logic, and that he actually does defy logic whenever he sees fit. He is also everywhere, and is able to plant very specific dreams within a person's subconcious when they are dreaming. The word of God is in this dream, so of course we must look at this with the most respect and thought.

Matthew and Luke Refutations.
The only possible way to see every possible kingdom on the face of the earth in a moment of time is for the earth to not have any curvature which hides the kingdoms from our sight.
Con makes an alternative which I cannot believe to be the case -- where the Devil is actually tainting the mind of one of the holy trinity. Now, it's not that this is not possible, but surely God would be able to stop this, seeing as how to he is omniscient. Regardless, the Devil cannot plant images such as this, when the wording of these verses is so clear. To show is to make apparent with objective reality, and you cannot be shown all of the kingdoms of the earth without them all being apparent to you.

Isaiah Refutations.
First, sorry for the misspelling of nations. Never thought I'd do that in my life.
Anyways, I think that the most popular bible translations to English should be the most accurate, due to hundreds of years of re-translation and constant revisions. If we are to see that the Bible says "corners", then the word of God must be corners.
I understand that the translation from Hebrew may be taking a few steps, but this is how it is meant to be taken.
Even if the word of God had been lost in translation to mean wings -- so what? That does not mean that my interpretation of this verse was wrong or anything of the sort.
I find wings to represent the wings of the Earth, holding it up in the ever weightless thing that is space. Where could a wing be, if not the underside of a plane or on the corners of a plane? Would they be placed arbitrarily upon the Earth, although this was never presented in scripture? I don't think so.
If the wings are in the sky, then they are most likely pushing air down upon this Earth, making the mountains and terrain flattened even more. More flattening actually backs up the idea that the Earth is flat, because it is becoming more and more flat as more and more time passes.
Sorry if this seems as though I am rambling, I cannot put my thoughts into words at the moment.

Revelation Refutations.
I must say sorry for presenting a picture of the flat earth in R3. This seemed as though this was allowed because it was not bringing up a point, rather proving that an earth can be flat yet have night and day upon it. It was a refutation with diagrams against your claim that I could not have had in my constructive case. I agree, I will leave this up to the gentle voter to decide, but I feel as though I am justified in having this.
I am not really sure what your question means. If you can message me in PM and then perhaps put a screenshot of my response in your round, then I would greatly apprecaite that (pictures do not take up any space).

General Refutations
"I wonder if Pro has ever spread icing on a cake? Was that cake flat? No! So..."
The cake is flat if you spread it with force that removes any and all variations in landscape.

"How, unless the World wraps around (as I say it does) could you have a continuous area? This verse argues for the spherical Earth, not the flat Earth (thanks Pro)!"
An infinite plane does have corners. This is just a proof that is geometric and I do not have much space to prove that infinite planes have corners, but trust me, they do.

"distance of the two Easts"
This could mean north-east and south-east.
They satisfy having *east, which is inclusive of easts.

"you will see the earth as a levelled plain"
A plain is a flat, treeless area, whereas a plane is a flat, level surface. I think that maybe I have copied down the verse incorrectly, it is meant to say 'plane'.
However, you will see that the Earth exists, therefore it has an objective reality.
If you cannot see something does not mean that it does not exist, but if you can see it then it does exist.
The earth being a levelled plane* is something that must have objective reality.

Again, I thank my opponent.
Because this is the last round I ask the voters to please read over the debate again, because there is a lot of information throughout this entire debate. This truly opened my eyes to my current interpretation of the bible.
Vote pro!
AndyHood

Con

Well, I thought this debate might be fun and it has been; I thank my opponent for a strange detour from my usual type of debates!

I understand from the rules of the debate that I must keep this round to counter-refutations (i.e. response to Pro's R3 refutation of my R2 offering). That's a bit of a shame as there's lots else I'd like to say, and Pro's R3 refutation wasn't, shall we say, too weighty; ah well, perhaps that will work in my favour!

First, Pro proposes a system of light and dark created by spotlight effects for Sun and Moon. I think that two things are obvious from the GIF that she included: the sun and the moon would be always visible from all points on Earth; the North Pole would have a completely constant level of day/night that would not change. Both of these objections completely flaw the objection to my 3d theory of the shape of the Earth.

Then Pro falls into a trap that I had hoped she would; she starts by quoting me:

"And there is only really one three dimensional shape that has the properties necessary to satisfy all of the scriptures: a sphere."
... or a cylider [stet].
... or an upside down cone.

But she did miss the vital point that I was making:


Isaiah 40 [3]
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth and its people are like grasshoppers.

This tells us that from His place above the Earth, from a God's-eye-view, the Earth is like a circle. And there is only really one three dimensional shape that has the properties necessary to satisfy all of the scriptures: a sphere.


What this verse is telling us is how the Earth seems to God; now, I wonder what Pro's vision of God's location is... I know that I have read my scripture and from it I know that God is, of course, everywhere!

Let's take a look at some of the reasons that I know God is simultaneously everywhere:

Jeremiah 23 [1]
24 "Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?" declares the Lord.
"Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the Lord.

Proverbs 15 [2]
3 The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

So, in the light of the fact that God's eyes are everywhere and that God fills heaven and the Earth... let's have another look at what I wrote in Round 2:

Isaiah 40 [3]
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth and its people are like grasshoppers.

This tells us that from His place above the Earth, from a God's-eye-view, the Earth is like a circle. And there is only really one three dimensional shape that has the properties necessary to satisfy all of the scriptures: a sphere.


I'll leave it for the gentle reader to decide whether a cylinder or an upside-down cone could, as Pro suggests, produce the impression of the Earth being a circle to an omnipresent being; I say that to suggest that it could is to ignore scripture and to rather demean the size, power and quality of the Lord.


I will happily drop my argument for the Earth being an oblate spheroid; it was, as I said, only a personal theory. To be honest, if I'd known that I was going to be required to argue merely from scripture (a trick that I feel would have been more honestly declared before my acceptance!), I would have limited my case to a spherical Earth; I only offered the extra steps to get to an oblate spheroid to live up to the claim that I said I'd be happy to defend in R1... in R2, Pro removed all of my scientific basis and I was left with, I admit, a weak case - weak, that is, in justifying the oblate spheroid - but I rest in the confident knowledge that I have demonstrated, by scripture alone, why there can only really be one shape of the Earth: a sphere. It seems to me that this is sufficient to reject the motion of a flat Earth.

Final note (sorry if this doesn't strictly count as a counter-refutation, but I think it only fair that I may bring this up, since Pro has not played strictly by her own rules): I'll leave it to the gentle voter to decide whether it was fair for Pro to lay out rules in R1 that included specifically that R1 was for rules and R2 for constructive case ONLY... and then deliberately (and with forethought) open R2 with an extra rule that should have been in R1! Still, I don't think that it crippled my case and I hope that the gentle voter might find favour in the way that I generously played by all of Pro's rules, even the ones she introduced after the laying-out-the-rules-round!

Vote Con!

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Lexus, if a debate is related to category x, then you can put it in x whether or not your arguments are based on it. If "God Exists" is put in religion, you'll argue from the Bible? Categories exist because people can navigate through debates--if I want to find debates about religion, I go to the left side and click religion. It seems you've not used the feature of finding debates on religion, etc., but making arguments only based on the category completely spoils the navigation process.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
If you wish to debate about it, I'm fine with that.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Then why have a category?
It is like posting 'Obama is a good man' into politics. You do not bring in if he is a good man according to his religion, instead you bring in his policies and what he has done for the people (thus, politics). I can't explain very well right now, at work, but I will continue later if you need clarity
I can issue a debate to you about what debate categories should do.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
There is no such rule that confines arguments to the category that the debate falls under that I am any bit aware of; if you can show me that this is written or implied somewhere, I shall retract it. The primary reason for the Conduct Loss is that the rule was sprung on the Contender *after* he accepted the debate with the rules already stated.

If you look through the debates, especially the religious debates about the existence of God, a lot of them contain scientific arguments that pertain to the topic. So, say if you had an atheist and a theist arguing about whether or not God exists, it simply cannot follow this strange restriction, because the atheist will use science and the theist will use theology, and both may likely toss some philosophy into the mix. The debate category does not restrict the arguments' categories.

BTW - I think this debate of yours was a great idea, and it definitely highlights the power of interpretation regarding religious texts. Bravo!
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
@Chaosism thanks for taking time to make your RFD. I doubt this is the place, but how is the rule that one must use religion in a religious debate unfounded and unreasonable? How does that cause con to get conduct for something that should be known?
I agree with everything else. I started my response in the last round with 'I concede' but decided to stick it out just so my opponent can get a proper response for his thoughts
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
*Daniel 4:10-11 (clarified slightly more)
Con decisively corrects Pro's argument that the context was a dream. Pro's defense was inadequate, as Pro was grasping at straws to justify the argument. Argument to Con.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
--Expanded RFD: Arguments--

Daniel 4:10-11
Con decisively corrects Pro's argument that the context was a dream. Pro's defense was inadequate. Argument to Con.

Matthew 4:8 / Luke 4:5
Con's rebuttal could have been counter by: "A moment in time" is not explicitly defined as an instantaneous snapshot of time; it has equally valid meaning that fit with the scenario (Dictionary.com #3). However, Pro's defense pertains to the assertion that God would have prevented Jesus' mind from being affected, but does not provide support. Certainly God "could have" prevented it, but then he could have prevented other things, as well. Argument to Con.

Isaiah 11:12 / Revelation 7:1
Con provides a correction to the interpretation of the word "corners" meaning "wings". I cannot discern whether Con's rebuttal or Pro's defense is more accurate. However, the image that Pro provides in R3 argues conflicts with this one. Argument to Con.

An-Naziat 79:30
This is a weak argument, but Con does not sufficiently refute it. Argument to Pro.

An-Naba 78:6
This argument does not necessitate a flat earth. Argument dismissed.

Az-Zukhruf 43:38
This argument is too vague, and relies solely on interpretation. Argument dismissed.

Al-Kahf 18:47
As Con argues, "see" is subjective, which is true regardless of the form of the word "plain/plane". Argument to Con.

Job 26:1 / Genesis 1:2
Pro provides an alternate explanation in the form of a GIF image, but this is well countered by Con. Argument to Con.

Isaiah 40:3
Pro's rebuttal is logical, but Con's counter regarding omnipresence is enough to refute the requirement of a flat earth (although I don't think it necessarily indicates spherical, either). Argument to Con.

Joshua 10:4
Dropped argument.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
Note that the current vote will be removed for Lack of RFD and Vote Bomb. I urge all to report this vote. I am currently preparing my vote and concocting my RFD...
Posted by drag0vien 1 year ago
drag0vien
Well good luck, it will be very interesting indeed to see both your arguments.
Posted by AndyHood 1 year ago
AndyHood
I agree with much of what you say, drag0vien; however, I'm going to do my best to fight this one on the level that Pro requests - after all, it could be fun and you've got to throw somebody a bone who's prepared to argue such a tricksy position!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
LexusAndyHoodTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro introduced an unfounded, unreasonable new rule in R2, which Con generously accepted. Conduct to Con. No significant Spelling/Grammar mistakes by either participant. Arguments to Con (see expanded RFD in Comments). Con was the only one to cite sources, which were almost entirely for verses and definitions. However, Con did employ a good source regarding the translation of the word "Corners". Sources to Con.