The Instigator
cosecant
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Unknown_player
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Earth is quasi spherical in shape and not 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 4 votes the winner is...
cosecant
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 56951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

cosecant

Pro

Science Has Proven This Point, Dear Friend.
Unknown_player

Con

I accept to debate this entirely debatable subject, and I hope to have an interesting and serious discussion as my waiter serves me your butt on a silver platter. Shall we begin?
Debate Round No. 1
cosecant

Pro

Thank You...

++++++"as my waiter serves me your butt on a silver platter"++++++++
It Is A Very Indecent Statement....

1]During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is always round. If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always be circular (it could degenerate to a line!). But this is never observed, regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote about this.

2]When ships put out to see, they sink below the horizon gradually. First the hull goes down, then the masts, like so:
o
-+-
|
. / \ .
. .
. . /
. here you can still see the mast . |\ /
but the hull is below the horizon \ \/
This suggests that the Earth's surface curves away and downward from wherever you stand. It's hard to observe this effect on land, because mountains and trees and so forth get in the way when something moves away from you before it dips below the horizon.

3] If you climb higher, you can see further. On top of a mountain or lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible -- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground. For example, if you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see the Sun again. It is hard to explain why you can see further when you climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you wherever you stand.

4]The Earth casts a shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. The shadow is round.

5] When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away:

Sun's rays are parallel because the Sun is very far away.

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

this stick ||
casts no ||
shadow || this stick
|| casts a shadow
. .
. . //
. . //.
. . //...
//....
. EARTH ....
...

If you were to put a stick in the ground sticking straight up at noon in New York City, then telephone a friend in Chicago to ask him to also put a stick in the ground sticking straight up, he would see a shadow, and you would not. This is hard to explain unless ``straight up' (away from the Earth's surface) points in different directions when you are at different places on the Earth's surface. That is, the Earth is not flat.

6]If you travel North, you can see stars at night which you never saw before. Since there are so many stars, you only need to travel a hundred miles or so. The new stars are stars that were hidden below the horizon before you walked North. How could this be true if the Earth were flat?

7]There are tides in the oceans, which you can see at the shore, that repeat every 24 hours or so. If the Earth were flat, then there would be no tides, because the tides depend on their being a substantial distance between the near and far sides of the Earth, from the point of view of the Moon. This is kind of complicated, however.

8]Observation of the Earth from outside the planet shows it to be round, nearly spherical.

9]By the way, if you look at the stars, the sun, and the moon, you do not see any of them to be non-round. Since you observe them at different times and from different angles, it seems plausible to say that they are round. Why should the Earth be an exception?

{http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...}
Unknown_player

Con

Take it how you like.

First I would like to point out that the images you tried to create didn't match the source you gave....... It was all gibberish at first until I saw the source.

The geocentric model of the earth

1) Shadows would still be the same.
The earth still has day and night in this flat earth (probably because it's flat and we have day and night).
>> Many claim that two sticks in different place would produce the same shadow in a flat earth. Here's why this cannot be true. Let's say you're in your kitchen which is obviously flat, and you have one fan light. If you put two sticks in different places and distances from the light, they will produce different shadows. This is the same with earth. It makes perfect sense.
>> "The sun is a spotlight. It shines a down illuminating a set area. If you are outside the spotlight, you can't see the sun ie it is night. Light is two-way. If you can't see it, it can't shine on you. Sunset is merely the sun no longer shining on you" (1). Here is the explanation. The sun doesn't actually go under the earth for sunset. Even if it did, the earth would still be flat. And it is flat.

2) You could easily still go a few miles and see different stars with our flat earth
We do it every day for starters, but since that's not enough logic, I'll explain.
>> The stars still rotate around the earth on a flat earth, so it's not like the galaxy is all of the sudden still. My opponent asked how it was possible, I gave an answer. Therefore, my argument stands.

3) Lunar eclipses are impossible with a round earth.
First, the moon doesn't ever go under the earth so this is impossible for the actual shadow of the earth to produce it.
>> The earth's atmosphere reflects light from the sun (2). An experiment was done to prove that the earth's shadow could not possibly be cause by this refraction. In the experiment, the light was directed away from the surface of the moon rather that not it excluding the possibility if the shadow of the earth causing a lunar eclipse (2).
>> The surface of the moon is completely visible through the whole eclipse eliminating the shadow theory of the lunar eclipse (2). If the shadow of the earth were on it, you wouldn't be able to see it. It still shines during the eclipse, so it couldn't possibly be the shadow of the earth. Therefore, a lunar eclipse is not caused by the shadow of the earth, thus making my opponents point invalid.

4) The horizon argument is flawed.
First, if a ship actually went down on a spherical earth horizon, it would gain speed going down the slope and fall off. Since that doesn't happen, the earth must be flat. It makes perfect sense.
>> Senses can trick you. You can not use something that can trick you as evidence; therefore, you're argument is invalid. It's like saying everything tastes like chicken, so everything is chicken. That is a false statement. Only chicken is chicken no matter what your senses say. Since you can be tricked into believing something tastes like chicken, you cannot trust your senses. Going back to my point about the sun having a certain range of lighting. If you climb higher, you are getting nearer to it. By getting closer to it, you would be able to see it again as my opponent said.

5) We would fall off a spherical earth.
>> Can you honestly believe people are on the side or even on the bottom side of a spherical earth? What are we ninjas? I don't believe in ninjas that can walk on walls or on the roof and defy gravity. My opponent apparently believes in ninjas. This is a reason to vote con. Have you ever tried to stand on a large ball? I have provided evidence of what happens when you attempt to walk on a ball. . One does not simply walk on the sides a ball. It just can't be done. If the ball was popped and flat, it's easy to walk on. This is why the earth is flat.
>> Besides this fact, water would fall off, planes would stall, cars would not have enough traction, buildings would not have strong enough foundations, and the list goes on. Have you ever seen a building built upside down suspended above ground? I think not.

6) Oh dear...
You are assuming it SHOULD be round meaning there was a purpose to the universe, thus implying a creation of the universe. The Roman Catholics are the only religion to prove what earth would be with a creator. It is flat according to them. You agree with intelligent design; therefore, you agree with the a Roman Catholics. This means you agree with the flat earth agreeing with me. Thank you.
I should've expected such a weak sauce argument. Just because other planets and celestial objects are round doesn't mean earth is. There are living organisms on earth. There are not living organisms on other planets. This is why we are an exception. It makes perfect sense. Life couldn't be sustained on a round planet. We would fall off. The galaxy is flat. You don't seem to have a problem with the galaxy being flat, but then we say earth. You all of the sudden deem it not true. Check your logic.

You cannot argue the truth. The earth is flat. That is all. I await you're rebuttal.

Sources:
(1) http://forum.tfes.org...
(2) http://www.sacred-texts.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cosecant

Pro

Thank You..., again (during first round),

++++++"as my waiter serves me your butt on a silver platter"++++++++
It Is A Very Indecent Statement....

1]"First I would like to point out that the images you tried to create didn't match the source you gave....... It was all gibberish at first until I saw the source."
..........Yes, a copy problem.

2]" Let's say you're in your kitchen which is obviously flat"
..........You cannot use this as a proof, because to us, the Earth seems flat because of our size compared to the Earth.Just like microbes on a tennis ball.

3]""The sun is a spotlight. It shines a down illuminating a set area. If you are outside the spotlight, you can't see the sun ie it is night. Light is two-way. If you can't see it, it can't shine on you. Sunset is merely the sun no longer shining on you" (1). Here is the explanation. The sun doesn't actually go under the earth for sunset. Even if it did, the earth would still be flat. And it is flat."
.........This is not a proof of the flatness of the Earth.

4]"Lunar eclipses are impossible with a round earth"
........Yet it is taught in textbooks all over the world.

5]"Senses can trick you. You can not use something that can trick you as evidence; therefore, you're argument is invalid. It's like saying everything tastes like chicken, so everything is chicken. That is a false statement. Only chicken is chicken no matter what your senses say. Since you can be tricked into believing something tastes like chicken, you cannot trust your senses. "
.........Is taste like sight?

6]"First, if a ship actually went down on a spherical earth horizon, it would gain speed going down the slope and fall off"
.........Did you not hear of gravity?=Under your argument 5,"What are we ninjas? I don't believe in ninjas that can walk on walls or on the roof and defy gravity"=You believe in gravity.....

7]"Since that doesn't happen, the earth must be flat. It makes perfect sense."
........Does your flat Earth extend to infinity?

8]" We would fall off a spherical earth."
.........See 6]

9]"Besides this fact, water would fall off, planes would stall, cars would not have enough traction, buildings would not have strong enough foundations, and the list goes on. Have you ever seen a building built upside down suspended above ground? I think not."
...........Every building is upside down on a round Earth.....

10]"You are assuming it SHOULD be round meaning there was a purpose to the universe"
...........How?, I did not know...

11]"The Roman Catholics are the only religion to prove what earth would be with a creator"
.........Really?......

12]"It is flat according to them"
........To all Roman Catholics?.....

13]" Just because other planets and celestial objects are round doesn't mean earth is. There are living organisms on earth. There are not living organisms on other planets. This is why we are an exception"
.........Oh really?......

14]"There are not living organisms on other planets"
........How can you be so sure?.....

15]"I should've expected such a weak sauce argument"
........What a conduct......

16]" You don't seem to have a problem with the galaxy being flat"
.........When did I admit that?.

17]"Check your logic"
........Check mine?...

18]If water falls on a round Earth, what happens to a flat Earth?

19]How do clouds move?

20]What about the Athmosphere?

21]The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.

{Russell 1991, p. 3. See also Russell 1997.}

22]According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."

{Gould 1997}

23] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference"

{Lindberg & Numbers 1986, pp. 338"354}

24]Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.

{http://www.christiananswers.net...}

25]Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.

{Russell 1997.See also Russell's book (Russell 1991).}

26]In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell describes the Flat Earth theory as a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization and creationism.

{Russell 1991}
{Jeffrey Burton Russell, American Scientific Affiliation 1997 Annual Meeting}

27]James Hannam wrote:
The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.

{James Hannam. "Science Versus Christianity?".}

28]The flat-earth myth, like other myths, took on artistic form in the many works of art displaying Columbus defending the sphericity of the Earth before the Council of Salamanca. American artists depicted a forceful Columbus challenging the "prejudices, the mingled ignorance and erudition, and the pedantic bigotry" of the churchmen. Abrams sees this image of a Romantic hero, a practical man of business, and a Yankee go-getter as crafted to appeal to nineteenth-century Americans.

{Abrams 1993, p. 89.}

29]Russell suggests that the flat-earth error was able to take such deep hold on the modern imagination because of prejudice and presentism. He specifically mentions "the Protestant prejudice against the Middle Ages for Being Catholic ... the Rationalist prejudice against Judeo-Christianity as a whole", and "the assumption of the superiority of 'our' views to those of older cultures".

{Russell 1993, p. 347}

30]WHY DOES THE NASA AGREE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND?
{http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...}

Thank you for your patience.......
Unknown_player

Con

You know bringing things up twice like this gets tiresome and quite... annoying. But while were on the topic, do mind if I measure your butt to see how big of a platter I will need? If you really want to know the reason behind it, wait until my final argument, and I will reveal it. Then it will make sense to you.

I will argue his points in the same manner he argued mine by using the same numbers for the same points in R3 that he used to "attack" my arguments:

1) Maybe you shouldn't have tried to copy them... It didn't help your point at all.

2) It's an analogy. I was trying to make it easier to understand for everyone rather than simply going into further detail and possibly confusing people more. It's a good and valid example. The earth seems flat probably because it is

3) Thank you for dropping this argument leaving it to my side. Now you can either go down my list of evidence and explanations and say that they aren't true, or you could prove me wrong with evidence and explanations like a true debater. It actually is proof though because if the sun doesn't set over the horizon, it can't possibly be round or the sun would never hit half of the earth.

4) You have no proof that it's taught around the world first of all. Second of all that's another dropped argument. Third of all, that doesn't mean it's true. Fourth of all, this is not an argument against my case at all.

5) This is another dropped argument. You never answered the question. Since you didn't, I will. They are similar. They are senses, therefore they are similar. Once again, you attacked my example rather than the argument itself, AND you provided no evidence. I win this point as well.

6) There is an up and down in the universe. The gravity is below the earth. If you were on the bottom, you would fall downward. AHA! You don't deny believing in ninjas. Once again, you have failed to prove me wrong. My point stands.

7) You can obviously fall off the earth, but rarely anyone goes to Antarctica, the edge of the world. If someone falls off and they're in Antarctica, probably no one would know. They would assume they froze.

8) I do believe in gravity. I don't see what magical gravity my opponent keeps talking about.

9) That's weird I don't see upside down buildings suspended in mid air. Even if every building were upside down on a round earth (which frankly doesn't make any logical sense), we're on a flat earth so everything is like it's supposed to be. The roof is on top and the floor is the bottom. Again, dropped argument.

10) Why SHOULD the earth be round? There must be a purpose that it is round. This means you believe there was a purpose to the universe. This means you believe in intelligent design. Only the Roman Catholics as a religion believing in the same thing have proven with their religion what the earth is shaped like. They say it's flat. You agree with them so I win this point. You dropped in anyway, so it doesn't really matter that I even said that.

11) I find this a direct insult to my intelligence. I believe my opponent. Should lose conduct points. Prove me wrong. You dropped this too.

12) It according to the religion. You have no argument against this, so it is dropped as well.

13) Again, this is offensive to my intelligence with this trite remark on my argument. This argument is dropped as well. To answer your question, yes. It makes perfect sense. We have life. Other planets do not. We do not need to fit their shape. We are an exception.

14) The burden of proof is on my opponent. Unless he proves there is life on other planets, we must assume there is not. Asking questions is not arguing, this Poitou is dropped.

15) This was an attack on the idea of a round earth. This was in no way directed to anyone. This as directed to the argument. I'm sorry if your argument is offended.

16) I'm assuming you believe the galaxy is flat especially since you trust pictures from NASA and things of the sort which I will address later. You never admitted it, but do you deny it?

17) I don't see why this was brought to attention, but to answer the question, yes.

18) ummm.... It doesn't fall off.... Antarctica is the edge of the earth on all sides so it's not really water.

19) Temperature change.

20) I don't see where this is going...

21) The theory of a round earth is a hoax created by scientists to make money. Please provide something substantial. You can't just post evidence and expect people to read it as your argument. You have no argument so the evidence is worthless.

22) This is plagiarism. You have no argument or explanation making it your own. You copy and pasted someone else's argument not yours. More conduct points should be lost for such an unforgivable sin.

23) Once again you copy and pasted what someone else said without saying anything but introducing it. This is more plagiarism. This evidence must be discarded as well. More conduct point loss.

24) I have no clue whatsoever how in the entire universe this in any way, shape, or form proves me wrong. It does absolutely nothing for my opponent's argument. This is a random fact that has no weight like the ninjas my opponent doesn't deny believing in.

25) Uhhhhh, so what. Just because society believes something doesn't make it true. This also has no weight in proving me wrong. It's just another random fact that is like a sitting duck while the hunter (me) shoots with my shotgun.

26) same deal as the previous. Just to point this out, this is all pretty much plagiarism because my opponent has no arguments or even EXPLANATIONS on any point with evidence before and I'm assuming after this statement. This should be a loss of all conduct points. This is crime number one for debaters.

27) Plagiarism

28) This doesn't prove why I am wrong. This is all just some people's opinions. This is not a fact that actually would explain I am wrong.

29) Opinions are not facts. Beliefs are not facts. Evidence proving that the earth is flat is facts I would take seriously. Not this.

30) NASA is run by the government. The government lies, therefore it cannot be trusted. Thus, we cannot trust them to be completely accurate. We never went to space anyway. We never have seen an all of earth picture. All pictures we see are expertly created to further the hoax that we made it to the moon. This is so much evidence and signs that suggest the moon landing as a hoax.

http://moonconspiracy.wordpress.com...

For my argument: I have little to say because none of my points were addressed. All of my points stand no question so there is no reason to say more on them. I will just provide another reason the earth is flat. If a plane flies completely straight perpendicular to the ground from which it started, it would not go out of the atmosphere as it would in a round earth.

RECAP
All of my arguments were dropped (basically a forfeited round)
All of my opponents augments were plagiarized
Therefore, conduct points go to me
Questions are not arguments unless you answer the questions with explanations. I did. My opponent didn't.
My opponent blatantly offended my intelligence with trite remarks (another reason conduct points go to me)

At the end of R2, I said that I awaited my opponent's rebuttal... I still am waiting.
Debate Round No. 3
cosecant

Pro

Thank You..., Simple conclusion.....

.........I Wrote:"again (during first round),

++++++"as my waiter serves me your butt on a silver platter"++++++++
It Is A Very Indecent Statement...."

.......You replied:"You know bringing things up twice like this gets tiresome and quite... annoying. But while were on the topic, do mind if I measure your butt to see how big of a platter I will need? If you really want to know the reason behind it, wait until my final argument, and I will reveal it. Then it will make sense to you."
It is another Indecent Argument.....

......You also wrote:"I should've expected such a weak sauce argument"

Time Tells......

1]The contender brands citing the source as plagiarism.

2]"I do believe in gravity. I don't see what magical gravity my opponent keeps talking about"
............Translation please.....

3]My opponent disagrees with the NASA....

4]My opponent claims to have refuted all my statements while this is not the case.

5]Since most of my proofs are not accepted (being branded as plagiarism), i have nothing more to say.

I thank you for your cooperation.
Unknown_player

Con

Not quite so simple I'm afraid. Thanks again for dropping all of my arguments. Let's see, how many were addressed in this round? Oh wait, that would be none. I will address why your butt on my silver platter should not even be mentioned in this debate a little later.

As for the weaksauce argument. I was not attacking my opponent. I'm guessing that he looked this argument up. I was suggesting that this is a completely flawed argument, and I couldn't believe anyone would try to make it. This was not in any way an insult to my opponent. If you were offended, I apologize.

Time tells what? Oh wait last round, you didn't explain, so I will. Time tells that I will win this argument. My opponent now agrees that time will tell that win because he once again didn't finish the statement. Since my ending to the statement is unchallenged, it stands.

Refuting his "arguments" in R4 in the same maner he made them. My refutations correspond with his arguments with the numbers (for clarification purposes):


1) Citing a source and copy pasting something from it FOR YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT/POINT IS PLAGAIRISM. Those weren't your arguments. Those were other people saying stuff that you stole from them. I can copy paste stuff from every website in existence, but that doesn't mean I should win a debate. Evidence does not win a debate. Arguments do. Since I am the only one with arguments, this is why I should win. Even if his sources were valid, I owned every one of them which I will show in 4.

Here is why if that explanation doesn't suffice. Let's say I read a book. I'm supposed to write a paper on the book. If thought the entire paper I put, "On page #, it says, 'fill in the blank'" or if every sentence I say, "A review on the book says this about it, 'fill in the blank,'" this is plagiarism. It's not my paper. It's a compilation of things other people said. With this explanation, I think it's very obvious to see that every piece of evidence in round 3 was plagiarized.

2) There is gravity at the bottom of the universe. My opponent must believe that we all have magical powers to defy this gravity by being on the bottom of the earth.

3) What is your point? I'm pretty sure disagreeing with something doesn't make me wrong. My opponent disagrees with me, therefore he is wrong.

4) I have refuted every argument you had. Before I show you, you never said which ones so no one will ever no. I say that I have and will prove it. He has not proven anything in any way. Also, he did admit that I address at least some of his points. He has not defended them meaning he even dropped his own arguments. Here you go:

This is how I have refuted every statement he had:

ROUND 1
Science has proven a flat earth.

ROUND 2
1] Lunar eclipses are not created by the shadow of the earth as seen in my third point. I have evdince and arguments my opponent has not refuted. My opponent dropped this point and had no evidence to support it in the first place. I win this points.

2] The illusion of a ship going over a "horizon" is just a trick of the eyes. That ship must be far off. You can't see into eternity, and you're eyes are not valid for evidence. Senses can trick you. See my 4th point. He opponent didn't refute it. I win this point.

3] Same point as the previous. Eyes are not to be used as evidence. It isn't evidence at all. Second, eyes are not reliable. I win this dropped point as well.

4] I just realized this is the same exact point as the first... I won that one.

5] I addressed this with my first point. The sun is like a spotlight. The sun obviously doesn't stay in the same spot or expand over ever place it lights up like a cover. My opponent dropped this point by not attacking my argument. My argument is unchallenged which means I win this point.

6] This is adressed directly in my second point. He asked a question and. I answered it. Since he didn't answer it, my answer stands. He dropped this point as well by not defending his own point or attacking mine. I win this as well.

7] I adressed this by my point that states that neither the sun nor moon go beneath the earth. They go in eclipses above it. This explains tides easily. My opponent didn't defend his point or prove me wrong. He didn't been bring it up again actually. I win this point.

8] We never left space. I clearly said that it was all a hoax. Pictures are created by master designers to keep the lie going. I even had evidence. My opponent had no evidence and didn't refute my point. He didn't defend his either. I win this point. We never went to space.

9] Earth is an exception because it has life. Just because other planets are round doesn't mean earth is. Also, we can't be completely sure other planets are round. Again with the eyes. It's not evidence that something appears round. 2D games look kind of 3D. That doesn't mean they go though you're TV in 3D. Trickery. I win this point.

ROUND 3
I literally went down the list of his arguments like I just did above and tore down all of his arguments against mine. I need not list them all again.

Now that I'm done with that, I have attacked every point he had, my opponent has neither defended them by challenging my attacks or attacked my case.

5) Good. I have plenty to say still.

Conclusion:
-My opponent still has not denied believing in ninjas
-My opponent did not deny or even address blatantly offending my intelligence by his remarks in R3 which must mean that he meant to directly insult me. Conduct points should go to me by this ALONE. On top of that, he plagiarized all of third round. He even tried to attack me by trying to suggest that I was attacking/insulting him. These are unforgivable sins of every good debater. I apologized for none of his insults while I did. More conduct points should go to me. (See top)
-He didn't address any of my arguments in this round. They were all dropped completely in the debate. All of my arguments are unchallenged. I win all of my arguments.
-My opponent never answered his own questions while I did. My answered are unchallenged, thus I win all of them.
-My opponent basically forfeited R3and R4 because they held no substantial arguments.

Please for the love of debate never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever make another topic such as this. What happens is someone who is a great/decent debater, possibly an unknown debater (pun intended), will stumble upon it and completely own it. Thank you very much. I clearly won this debate. Vote con! Thank you in advance all voters.

Source
Pure, unchallenged, superior, sound, unaddressed, destructive, effective logic.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amorae 2 years ago
Amorae
I'm roman catholic and I do not believe the world is flat, nor does any other catholic that I know!
Posted by Unknown_player 2 years ago
Unknown_player
Grammar much?
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
yes, and why did you talked? :-}....
Posted by Unknown_player 2 years ago
Unknown_player
Please cosecant, the debate is over. There is nothing more to say.
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
i never made any rude comment, i just said it pasted the statement of con.....read it please....
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
I spent some time reading this debate, as I had intended to vote before I found out that the voting wasn't open. However, I'll go ahead and provide what would have been my RFD.

Conduct- Firstly, there were rude comments from both sides. It made it a bit hard for me to take this debate seriously, but it didn't affect my decision. I have to give conduct to con because of the large amount of plagiarism in pro's arguments. Pro literally copied and pasted the whole first round. However, even if an argument is plagiarized, it should be attacked.

Arguments: This would go to con. Pro brought up some good points in the first round, and a couple of them were dropped (the tides argument and the view from higher elevations). These were unaddressed by con, however I can't take these into account because pro never mentions these drops. Pro only directly attacks three of con's points in R3 (lunar eclipses, sun as a spotlight, and gravity) and then proceeds to bring up history on the flat earth myth / why people believe the earth is flat. However, with this point, pro provides no evidence to prove that the earth is actually round. Con provides a sufficient rebuttal to each of pro's claims. At this point I would consider this debate to be a tie. In R4, pro provided barely any arguments, whereas con had a detailed conclusion. Therefore, arguments go to pro. However, for me, this point was very close.

A couple notes:
Firstly, I did not think making 30 points was necessary in R3. A lot of the points seemed to say the same thing and it was really hard to read. Also, con's R3 was really difficult to read because I had to keep scrolling up to see pro's initial statement. I would suggest that in the future, con should post something to show what the initial argument was about. I would have much preferred reading the debate if there were not so many unnecessary points.

In conclusion, this was a pretty close debate, but ultimately due to pro's weak arguments and conclusion, con
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Correction. It was CON who asked me to vote on this.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
I was asked to vote on this by PRO, but in that it is a "judge" debate and not one with open voting, this is what would have been my RFD:

"This is now the second debate on the earth's shape that I've judged in the past 24 hours. Is debating this subject becoming a thing, now? This, so far as I can tell, doesn't look like a troll debate. Rather, it presents a question of fact and as a judge I therefore am compelled to evaluate it on that basis. PRO affirmed that the earth is sort of spherical, and not flat. CON could not overcome that. Sources and arguments to PRO."
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
so, con's conduct was better?....
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Aloha!

Con requested I evaluate this debate. I would vote on this if I were able, unfortunately it is judge voting, and I was not nominated...My RFD would be as follows:

Obviously, the Earth is a sphere. That isn't in question; the question is who won the debate. That person was Con.

Conduct - Both sides were snarky, which was disappointing. Pro needs to put anything he is directly C/Ping from his source in quotes--anything less is plagiarism. Conduct to Con.

Arguments - Pro makes many assumptions and bare assertions. Additionally, he fails to address many of Pro's arguments and to sufficiently warrant his own rebuttal claims. His R4 arguments were so short as to be almost wholly inconsequential. Con extends his points, meaning that the weight of the evidence flows Con, meriting a Con vote.

Suggestions for Improvement - Pro, perhaps you could use the "review" function to proofread your arguments to ensure they formatted correctly. Additionally, using rich text options (e.g. bolding or highlighting things) is helpful in improving the readability of your arguments. Also, go more in depth...provide analysis. One sentence quips are hardly sufficient to reject an argument, esp. when the underlying logic of the sentence you wrote is not provided. As a judge, I can only evaluate your argument based on what you say in the debate, not based on what I know personally. You failed to provide enough evidence to prove your point.

Anyway, I wish you both luck on DDO! I hope this RFD was useful. PM me if you have concerns or questions.

Best Wishes,

bsh1

P.S. - I strongly disagree with Roy's vote. None of Pro's arguments were sufficiently warranted to merit a Pro ballot. Judge's should not take into account their own knowledge when evaluating a debate such as this. Anyhow, who I am to criticize. I am not a perfect voter either...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
cosecantUnknown_playerTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's misunderstanding of gravity basically killed his postion; he assumes that gravity is "things fall down", but that is not gravity. I agree that Pro could have given more detailed arguments, but they were sufficient in this case since Con failed to address them properly. Con uselessly lost points for conduct in round 1. Pro had better sources. A word to Con: You refer to " ninjas" as if they were mythical creatures when in fact they were simply civilians fighting the oppression of samurais in feudal Japan. Some people still follow their creed today even though samurais are not much of a threat.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
cosecantUnknown_playerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It only takes one convincing proof that the earth is a sphere to win the debate. Pro had two convincing proofs: a ship going below the horizon and the qualified expert opinion of NASA. Gravity is the correct answer to why ships don't slide down the curve. The shadows of sticks proof depends upon the Pro's assertion that the sun has been proved to be far away. Con implicitily denied that assertion, but didn't provide any counter evidence that the sun is close. The sun and stars being close are assumptions critical to the Con case, and he didn't support them. Pro should have attacked those more vigorously, but Con needed a very good case to overcome the expert opinion given as evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The debate had too much fluff: random insults, religious arguments, and other wastes of words. But both sides were about equally derailed.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
cosecantUnknown_playerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Shall vote on this either today or tomorrow.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
cosecantUnknown_playerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con came across as arrogant and rude this entire debate, therefore I gave conduct to Pro. However, Pro neglected to "flesh out" his responses adequately, and use his time to persuade, so I gave the convincing arguments point to Con. For improvement: Pro: Use your time. If you had explained your arguments and directly responded to Con more consistently, I could have given you the argument's point. Con: Even though this is a "funny" debate, respect is still important. I know you can do better because I have read one of your other debates. The comments you made to your opponent, while you did not intend to insult him, did come across as unnecessary and rather rude. Also, please also do not tell me how to give out points. Recommendations are fine, but assuming a point goes to you is just taking it a little far. I know that none of this was intentional, so I hope that you will be more careful in the future. Good job to the both of you! Good luck on your future debates!