The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheQuestion
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Earth is Overall, Flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
TheQuestion
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,810 times Debate No: 60826
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

The resolution is simple. I have to prove overall the Earth is flat.
Overall: mostly.
Flat: level, even
Earth:
This place pictured below


First round acceptance
TheQuestion

Con

Haha! I think I see where you're going with this. Nice, I accept the debate challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

No, you do not see where I am going with this. My arguments will strongly hinge on one single philosophical argument.
You see, this surface will be definitely considered "flat":


And logically this could also be considered "flat" overall:


And also if one person only has one single acne his or her face will definitely still be considered "flat".


Now, where am I going with this? You may ask. Well, you see, there has been proven by many scientists the possibility of us being in a four-dimensional universe surrounded by a black hole.
See: http://www.techtimes.com...
Think about it carefully. All I have to do is to prove in some kind of perspective the Earth is overall "flat".
We, three-dimensional creatures, see a two-dimensional figure as "flat", no matter from what perspective.


(Side view would be nothing because it's only 2-d)
And logically a 2-dimensional creature would see a one-dimension figure as "flat" from all perspectives.
Front perspective:

Side and top would be nothing because the line goes nowhere in all directions.

Therefore, logically, a fourth dimensional being, when seeing our Earth, it would appear to be flat no matter what!
We can now safely go to our conclusion. Earth would look and be "flat" in comparison to the fourth dimension.
Onto you, con.
TheQuestion

Con

1

Pro: "this surface will be definitely considered "flat":

http://www.labconco.com...

Assuming that this picture is a representation of a three dimensional object and assuming that pro is claiming that the individual surface areas of the represented 3D object will be considered flat, then I concede.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
2

Pro: "logically this could also be considered "flat" overall:

http://www.iidudu.com...

Assuming that pro is claiming that the top surface of this three dimensional object could logically be considered to be flat overall then I disagree and refute the claim.

The top surface of this 3D object (the chair above) is NOT flat overall. For a surface to be overall flat it would be required that most of the surface was level and even. The top surface of this chair does not meet this requirement as its entire surface is curved continuously and is thus not consistently flat overall according to the definitions we agreed upon.
I suspect that the reason my opponent wants to argue that this surface can be logically considered to be flat overall (which it cannot be on account of the fact that it is curved overall) is because the gradient of the surface is small enough to be considered to be "close" to flat. Well, I'm afraid, a gradient that is "close" to being flat still is not flat. As long as a gradient results in a curvature it is curved, no matter how small the gradient.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pro's next claim is absolutely absurd. Pro argues that if a person has only one acne on their face then their face is still mostly flat. I see absolutely no merit for this claim. A person's face IS NOT flat in the first place! The surface of a person's face is absolutely full of various curved gradients. Seriously, I have never met or seen a person with a flat face according to the agreed definition of flat. If you go to any reasonable person and ask them if they have a flat face, I can guarantee they will say no.
I suspect that here, pro is equating the term "flat" with the term "smooth". But if a surface is smooth it does not follow that the surface is therefore flat. A surface can be curved and still be smooth but that does not make it flat. To say something is smooth is not to say that the surface is overall flat, it is simply to say that the surface can be FOLLOWED smoothly.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
3

My opponent starts arguing from really shaky ground now in which pro relies on sneaky word usage in hopes that I won't notice. Pro says and I quote, "there has been proven by many scientists the possibility of us being in a four-dimensional universe surrounded by a black hole." Notice, pro does not say that the theory has evidence proving an actual feature of reality, he simply says that it is a proven POSSIBILITY. So that it is POSSIBLE the universe COULD be within a four dimensional universe. But is there evidence that indicates that this IS PROBABLE? Well, no. Pro doesn't claim the universe IS four dimensional and the article he linked cites no evidence for such a claim either. It is all a conjectural possibility.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
4

Next, pro makes an unwarranted claim. Pro claims and I quote, "All I have to do is to prove in some kind of perspective the Earth is overall "flat"."
I completely disagree. It is not the interest of this debate whether or not the earth "appears" to be flat in a perspective other than our own. Neither is it the interest of this debate for pro to prove that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of a dimension that has not been evidently proven to probably be an objective feature of reality.
The interest of this debate is for pro to PROVE that the earth IS flat and he has relied on the ambiguity of the wording of this responsibility to dodge having to prove that the earth is flat from an objective perspective. This is why pro tried to sneakily suggest that reality is four dimensional but as I have pointed out, it has not been proven that reality PROBABLY IS four dimensional, it has only been shown that it COULD be POSSIBLE.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
5

For the purposes of keeping this round from becoming more filled with text I have not fully included my refutations to pro's material on two and one dimensional entities.
So, in short, those refutations are based on the notion that entities that can exist in dimensions other than 3D do not have a three dimensional surface and so thus cannot be considered "flat" in the three dimensional sense. And as it has not been proven that reality is anything other than three dimensional, the perspectives from other dimensions do nothing to prove that the earth is actually flat from an objective perspective. So, my opponent's arguments do not strongly hinge on a single philosophical argument (not to mention that none of his arguments were philosophical), pro's argument strongly hinges upon evidence that the three dimensional universe exists within a four dimensional universe and as there is neither no claim by pro that we have such evidence (as he only claimed that it is a possibility) and as there was no such evidence cited in the linked article (it too only showed that it is possible), my opponents argument fails.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Finally:

I hold that from an objective, three dimensional perspective, the earth is not overall flat. The earth is mostly curved or jagged and it is extremely difficult to find a naturally flat surface on the face of the earth. Therefore, the earth is not overall flat.
I also hold that it has not been proven that our three dimensional universe is within a four dimensional universe, it has only been shown to be a possibility and has not been shown to probably be an objective feature of reality.
I hold that pro cannot prove that from an objective, three dimensional perspective that the earth is flat. The most pro has shown is that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of another dimension and that it is possible that such a dimension is an actual feature of reality. So, pro can show that it is a possibility but pro cannot prove that it is an objective feature of reality.
-
On to you pro.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent rebuts quite interestingly. This is the first time I've debated a first-timer who didn't forfeit, so this should be very interesting.

My 3 objects in the beginning were to clarify what "overall flat" meant, just in case it wasn't clear.
The 3-D "flat" object: yes, we are assuming the surface has a few small unseeable bumps but is otherwise mostly flat.
The chair: Wrong. This will also be considered "flat" due to the surface. If I move my hand over the surface and feel no noticeable bumps, then the surface of the chair is flat.

Flat=smooth?
If you have a smooth face it will be level in comparison to another. Think about it carefully.
This will probably not be considered flat under normal circumstances:


However if you view it from a giant's perspective, it will be pretty flat with the exceptions of a few tiny barely noticeable bumps.

Earth appear to be flat:
Yes, it is entirely possible the world is fourth dimensional, which makes it possible that the earth is "flat".
In addition as I said above, if it's mostly smooth with little tiny bumps, it doesn't matter if it seems to have a load of random mountains and structure that makes it seemingly impossible for the Earth to be smooth. In fact, Earth on average is smoother than a billard ball! [1] (Yeah, I know, I trailed off last round. I lost my train of thought and couldn't be too sure where I was going to)
Therefore the Earth is going to be flat due to its level surface, which overall is smoother than the billard ball and therefore is flatter than the billard ball, technically.
To be more clear, here's an example of a "overall flat" surface:
s://patternsthatconnext.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="395" height="398" />
It has folds and bends but can probably still be considered overall level, since nothing seems to be really above anything else. Now, what if I fold it into a gigantic sphere?

Is this now "overall flat"? It does not seem to be "overall flat", since the surface curves so much, but if you think about it carefully, this is kind of like earth. We are so tiny that the earth curves at a very very little rate. Imagine what it seems to a tiny ant. Yes....it's now level for everything. No matter how much you crawl you won't get to that tiny "curve" of the earth, you are too small to consider it "not level". Similarly, if you were a giant running over earth, the curves would be very obvious and you would not be running on a "flat" surface. However, since I proved in some perspective--the ant's perspective--the earth is definitely overall flat and not the other way around.

Onto you, con.

[1] http://www.curiouser.co.uk...
TheQuestion

Con

In regards to the three depictions at the beginning of my opponents opening argument:
If I'd realised the purpose was to illustrate what my opponent meant by "overall flat" (I thought they were like premises for an argument) I may have treated his argument differently. Then again, his argument from the fourth dimension takes a different line to his argument from smoothness so which way pro is trying to go with this is a little confusing.
Due to a lot of ambiguity actually, this entire debate has been inadequately defined and clarified from the outset.

There are two senses the word "flat" has been used, both of which can be defined as "level, even":
The sense my opponent intended to use it which is simply a surface that is continuously smooth and mostly without uneven bumps (so, synonymous with "smooth").
And the sense I assumed to use the term which was of a geometrical understanding; a surface with a curving gradient is curved, not flat and a surface that is "level, even" (so the gradient is 0) is flat.

For the moment I'll call these two senses "Gflat" and "Sflat"
_____
I hold that it was more reasonable for me to assume from the outset of the debate, the term "flat" as it was defined was intended as "Gflat" not "Sflat" as my opponent actually, initiall intended, for three reasons:

Reason 1 is the title of the debate "The Earth is overall, flat":
this title causes one to think of the ancient belief that the earth was flat. That is to say, that the earth did not have a curving gradient to form a shape like a globe but that it was flat. So, I was deceived (intentional or not) by this title into debating a topic which was not what it was more obviously reasonable for me to think it was.

Reason 2 is the ambiguous usage of the term "flat":
as defined in the first round, it didn't clarify the sense my opponent actually intended to use it and so it did not correct my geometric understanding of how I thought the term was intended. As my understanding of the use of the term (as implied by the title) was not clarified by anything my opponent said in the first round, I thought it reasonable to assume we were on the same page.

Reason 3a is my opponents arguments:
It was not clear to me that the three depictions at the beginning of round two were intended to clarify what my opponent meant by the term "flat" (the first depiction of the represented 3D object mind you didn't at all clearly indicate that the surface was meant to have bumps). It seemed to me rather that they were sort of a kind of set of premises that were meant to lead the reader to the sneaky subliminal conclusion that a surface with a very small gradient can be considered "flat overall" and so this was what I attempted to refute.
Granted, if these depictions were meant as premises to an argument designed to lead to that subliminal conclusion using "Gflat", it'd have been a ridiculous argument, especially considering what I thought was premise three with the person's face.
So, I should have begun to suspect the misunderstanding at that point and given my opponent the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't make such a ridiculous argument.
I apologise for not being more sympathetic and I also apologise for not making sure that I and my opponent were on the same page in regards to the term "flat".
However, I do suspect that my opponent was deliberately ambiguous in the debate title and in round one so as to promote such a confusion and catch whoever accepted the debate out. Quote, "No, you do not see where I am going with this." If my opponent was so confident that I wasn't aware of where the debate was going this suggests they were deliberately ambiguous to catch me out. Granted, perhaps this was in reference to a confidence that I couldn't have suspected the argument from the 4th dimension... which brings me to the second part of my third reason.

Reason 3b is that it was and still is unapparent to me which argument my opponent was/is making:
As I understood and still understand my opponent's argument from the 4th dimension, his usage of the term "flat" here is "Gflat" and not "Sflat" like in the section concerning the three objects.
Either he's trying to argue in both senses or he in one of them, or maybe one of the arguments is the fallback. Either way, I can't see a reasonable way to carry the same understanding of the term for both arguments. I have to assume he is using one or the other in each case but it's ambiguous because he always just says "flat". I have to assume when he is arguing with a different understanding of the term. This of course added to my confusion in the second round because as my opponent did not make clear that he intended to use the term flat in two different senses I naturally assumed he meant it in one of the senses which was of course "Gflat". So, since it was more reasonable for me to understand his argument from the 4th dimension with "Gflat" this led me to further refute anywhere he equated flatness with smoothness.

Henceforth, I demand that my opponent from here on specify whether or when he is arguing that the earth is "overall smooth" and whether or when he is arguing that the earth is "overall Gflat" (now simply "flat"). And that for the purposes of removing further ambiguity, he no longer uses the term "flat" in the smooth sense and instead simply says "smooth" (the article linked in my opponents round three post not once uses the term "flat" which further leads to my suspicion of his deliberate and unfair ambiguity).
_____

Now, for my round three ;]

As I currently understand my opponent, he's made two different arguments; one from smoothness and one from the 4th dimension (I have a sneaking doubt that I have incorrectly understood the latter dimension but for the purposes of this round's argument I am going to go with my impression).
-
In regards to my opponents argument from smoothness, that is to say, the earth is overall smooth (smoother than a billiard ball) I concede: depending on the POV the earth can be considered overall smooth and geometrically speaking, it is technically smoother than a billiard ball.
-
In regards to my opponent's argument from the 4th dimension, I carry my refutation (disregarding confusions over "Gflat" and "Sflat") from the second round, which my opponent has neither defended against or commented on (although he did agree on something else relevant to this):

I said, "Pro doesn't claim the universe PROBABLY IS four dimensional and the article he linked cites no evidence for such a claim either. It is all a conjectural possibility."
Pro said in agreement to this and I quote, "Yes, it is entirely possible the world is fourth dimensional, which makes it possible that the earth is "flat"."

My refutation to the argument from the fourth dimension is as surmised below (I believe pro agrees with the second premise):

1. It is pointless in this debate for pro to prove that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of a dimension that has not been shown to PROBABLY be an objective feature of reality.
2. Pro has not proven that our three dimensional universe is within a four dimensional universe (it has only been shown to be a possibility). So it has not been shown to probably be an objective feature of reality.
3. Therefore it is pointless for pro to make an argument from the 4th dimension (whilst it is interesting).

Disclaimer: If my opponent's intent was only to show that it is a possibility then I do not penalise him for making the interesting contribution and I apologise if I have misunderstood him to be using it as an argument.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Onto you, pro.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

FINAL ROUND!!
"So, I should have begun to suspect the misunderstanding at that point and given my opponent the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't make such a ridiculous argument."
You do know that me being a troll debater, I'm allowed to pull out my trap card technically any time right? It's just that I chose to argue about this topic is a serious, although twisted way.

"...if these depictions were meant as premises to an argument designed to lead to that subliminal conclusion using "Gflat", it'd have been a ridiculous argument...."
I was going to go that way, but I thought "Eh. Whatever. It's this guy's first debate. No need to troll him to uphold the resolution."
Evidence of the 4th dimension/multi-dimension existence (sorry I forgot it the previous rounds, I was too busy and got slacked off on the research)
http://www.delusionresistance.org...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
(Above link tells us the possibilities of multiverses caused by the Big Bang)

http://home.web.cern.ch...

http://www.space.com...
(The link above shows how multiverses can be formed due to cosmic infaltions)

http://physics.stackexchange.com...
http://www.math.columbia.edu...
(Above link provides hard evidence for multiverse)

Below link also cites a scientific paper that suggests the existence of multiverse universes.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com...

As you can see many research suggests that multiple dimensions/the 4th dimension exists rather than not. The possibility is simply too overwhelming to state "there is only one dimension, and that is the 3rd dimension".

Flat=smooth?
"It was and still is unapparent to me which argument my opponent was/is making..."
Then I've accomplished the feat of confusing you. You see, I started this debate as a lure to those who used to argue about the spherical earth theory in a scientific way, then slap them in the face by talking about different perspectives (the earth from an ant's point of view, smooth versus flat, and finally the fourth-dimension theory to switch things up a bit). Obviously I would lose if I wanted to argue about the flat earth theory the normal scientific way, as photo evidence instantly smashes flat earth theory, and I couldn't exactly come up with any troll arguments about why the earth is flat. Anyhow, my point is supposed to be, our perspective of what is "flat", when compared to real life, shows that in fact the earth is flat, because a "Flat" surface is smooth. Like the table we talked about, it looks curvy but has a "flat" surface and is therefore overall "Flat". That round spherical ball does not have a level surface, but other than tiny bumps, the surface is pretty smooth and therefore "level", and "overall flat". You see, from a philosophical standpoint, when you connect smooth and flat together, then the Earth is "overall flat". I've said this before, but I'm repeating it just in case it's not clear. You seem to be a bit confused.

IN CONCLUSION....
-If I lose this debate I hope to have another debate with you, this time possibly on the big issues
-This debate was interesting and helped me view things from a different perspective
-I have proved that from a different standpoint and under philosophical circumstances, the earth is overall flat, and fulfilled my BoP
Vote me.
TheQuestion

Con

Again, my opponent is attempting to troll me but this time, not with ambiguity over terminology between "flat and smooth" but with ambiguity over the subject in question referred to as the "4th dimension".

As such, I am only going to adhere to the understanding of the 4th dimension as offered in the primary article pro initially linked, seen here: http://www.techtimes.com......

And I will disregard any of his subsequent links (the magnitude of which suggests he is attempting to overwhelm me with material) that stray from this understanding (it should also be noted that whilst some of these articles don't necessarily stray from the initial understanding, they still don't make a claim to definitive evidence of anything being an actuality, just more possibilities and so I've included those articles in this list too). The linked articles I disregard are as follows:
http://www.delusionresistance.org......
http://news.nationalgeographic.com......
http://home.web.cern.ch......
http://www.space.com......
http://physics.stackexchange.com...... (this link actually helps my case so I don't think my opponent really did his research and that he was just attempting to find as many things as possible to try and overwhelm me)
http://www.math.columbia.edu......
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com......

As you can see, the above list includes ALL of the new links my opponent added, so I hold that my opponent has made no actually useful contributions to his initial argument from the 4th dimension. Though I agree with pro when he claims it is a possibility, however I disagree that it is overwhelming... as it is still speculation it is hardly overwhelming in a definitively evident sense.

Flat vs Smooth
My opponent admits truth to my suspicions that he has only been interested in causing confusion via deliberate ambiguity. As such my opponent has revealed that was not in fact interested in a real debate and was only interested in how crafty he can be in the art of trolling. Thus, I claim that my opponent loses the debate in respects to the real interest of an actual debate by default.

This being the case however, as I have removed all ambiguity over the terminology between "flat" in a geometrical sense and "flat" in a sense synonymous with "smooth" I am still going to address my opponents comments on both the argument from the 4th dimension and the argument from smoothness (ignoring the further ambiguity he attempted to suggest on account of the purposelessness of the semantics to anyone but a troll).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Argument from smoothness:
In this last round my opponent is trying to recover the ambiguity he threw over the synonymous terms "flat" and "smooth". It seems that it is a bitter-sweet victory for him as a troll that I first removed this ambiguity before conceding. It also appears that my opponent is fishing for some kind of praise towards his attempts to argue that the earth is "overall flat" by arguing with ambiguous semantics (and for pro's information, he is not arguing in a philosophical manner over the term "flat" by equating it to "smoothness"... that just is plain semantics, a common and cheap play to use in a debate).

Now, whilst I have conceded to the argument from smoothness after I had removed all ambiguous semantics in the debate in this regard, I hold that I have also a rightful claim to victory in this part of the debate as well. My argument for my claim to victory is as follows:
1. It is the interest of a troll to not have an actual debate but rather to troll his opponent.
2. It defeats the purpose of trolling to come out of the closet and begin being reasonable.
3. It defeats the purpose of trolling to stop trolling and instead try to recover a serious debate.
3. My opponent has admitted that he is a troll (come out of the closet) and has been reasonable by admitting that this debate has "helped him" and has also reasonably attempted to recover a serious debate (see the last point in pro's conclusion).
4. Thus, my opponent has failed as a troll and failed his initial intentions as a troll in the debate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Argument from the 4th dimension:
I carry my counter argument from the previous round as my opponent has neither commented or refuted it.
In extension to this, my opponent has admitted that if he were serious about this debate, he would have lost:

In the second round I said the following, "I hold that pro cannot prove that from an objective, three dimensional perspective that the earth is flat. The most pro has shown is that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of another dimension and that it is possible that such a dimension is an actual feature of reality (and you will recall that my argument that still stands in refutation to the 4th dimension argument concludes that the 4th dimension argument is pointless and is thus useless in the debate)."

In this last round my opponent has conceded to this, quote, "Obviously I would lose if I wanted to argue about the flat earth theory the normal scientific way, as photo evidence instantly smashes flat earth theory, and I couldn't exactly come up with any troll arguments about why the earth is flat."

Thus, as my opponent concedes to my contentions in the second round as described above and as my refutation to the argument from the 4th dimension still stands, I win the debate in this respect on both accounts.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IN CONCLUSION:
I claim victory in this debate for the following three reasons:

Reason 1, victory by default:
My opponent has revealed his true intentions as a troll and has thus revealed it was not his intention to have an actual, serious debate. So in respects to an actual, serious debate, I win by default.

Reason 2, my opponent fails as a troll:
See the above section "Argument from smoothness" for my argument as to why my opponent failed as a troll anyway. Thus, even in respects to my opponents true intentions of this debate, he failed and lost.

Reason 3, my opponent admitted defeat if he was intent on a serious debate anyway:
I quote him again, "Obviously I would lose if I wanted to argue about the flat earth theory the normal scientific way, as photo evidence instantly smashes flat earth theory, and I couldn't exactly come up with any troll arguments about why the earth is flat. Anyhow..." My opponent not only admits he is a troll here (see reason 1 and 2), he then goes on to try and recover a reasonable debate on his argument from smoothness (see reason 2 again) and so this not only admits defeat in a serious debate (see reason 1) but also admits failure as a troll.

Thus, I win by debate and hold I have rightful claim to victory. Vote me.
;]
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truth39 2 years ago
truth39
all photos of earth from space from NASA are composite images, the only origional image of earth from space is the same one used singe the APAllo11 mission of Africa sprawled across the surface, and this one has questionable vlidity due to viedo evidence of a framing of the picture by astronauts, research it and come up with your own theorys instead of taking the easy way out and believing what is told to you.
truth will prevail
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
You had you chance ;]
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
i kind of wish I agreed the tie. I was too lazy to waste all the effort. Oh well.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
FAILED noob trap :(
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Jeepers creepers
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
Thanks Ragnar.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
if I lose this I want a rematch!!!
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
.....yep, yeah, what I expected...
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Con, something you may find useful for future debates: https://docs.google.com...
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
you have to click "rich text" then paste the picture.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 3 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
9spacekingTheQuestionTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued the case of perspective but Con took it down easily. Also, Pro was caught in between a troll and a serious debater and that got the better of him.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
9spacekingTheQuestionTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: If you're going to attempt these sorts of definitional games, the only way you're really going to get them to "stick" is by putting them in the R1 acceptance, where, by accepting, Con's behind the 8-ball in arguing them. By trying to sneak them in after acceptance, it's now on YOU, Pro, to sway judges on the point and I didn't find it super compelling. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
9spacekingTheQuestionTied
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: Due to being only 3D myself, con's case had greater merit, but it's by a subjective standard (not objective as he claims) of a mere three dimensional being. Any 4D voter should probably award to pro. On to some notes "My 3 objects in the beginning were to clarify what 'overall flat' meant" the first round was your chance for definitions, this becomes moving the goalpost fallacy. Gish Galloping sources in the final round distracts even more from conduct, "You do know that me being a troll debater, I'm allowed to pull out my trap card technically any time right?" Trying to switch to a comedy standard in the final round, is unacceptable, start it from the beginning or don't bother. Also actually make people laugh, otherwise you are becoming a type two troll, which no one cares for. ... Pro actually could have won this, by arguing a mathematical standard of averages, or by labeling this a troll debate and being funny.