The Instigator
Randy0rt0n
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Balacafa
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Moon isn't real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 80053
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Randy0rt0n

Pro

You have seen my point you go now
Balacafa

Con

There is not such thing as the moon. Anyone with a brain could figure that out. The government has a big projector to try to trick us into thinking there is such thing as a moon, in order to steal or money for the "NASA" program. yea right, Bollywood is a hoax created by the government. The sun is also a lie, we are not actually living on a planet, we are in a test chamber created by the government in order to experiment on us and only the simple minded people can't realize that. I have many more points and challenge any dumb idiots to argue against my wit and intelligence.

This is my opponent's argument. I will not respond to it in this round because this round will be dedicated to arguments only. Since my opponent has stated an argument in R1 (technically) that means that I am allowed to as well.

Arguments

The Moon is thought to have formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth. There are several hypotheses for its origin; the most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia.

The Moon is in synchronous rotation with Earth, always showing the same face with its near side marked by dark volcanic maria that fill between the bright ancient crustal highlands and the prominent impact craters. It is the second-brightest regularly visible celestial object in Earth's sky (after the Sun), as measured by illuminance on Earth's surface. Although it can appear a very bright white, its surface is actually dark, with a reflectance just slightly higher than that of worn asphalt. Its prominence in the sky and its regular cycle of phases have, since ancient times, made the Moon an important cultural influence on language, calendars, art, and mythology.

The Moon's gravitational influence produces the ocean tides, body tides, and the slight lengthening of the day. The Moon's current orbital distance is about thirty times the diameter of Earth, causing it to have an apparent sizein the sky almost the same as that of the Sun. This allows the Moon to cover the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipse. This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence. The Moon's linear distance from Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82 ± 0.07 centimetres (1.504 ± 0.028 in) per year, but this rate is not constant.

Have you ever noticed that the Moon is covered in craters? Well, that’s because it gets pounded by meteorites, protecting Earth from some of the rocks that head our way. With the Moon annihilated, we’re now also more vulnerable to space rocks.

Of course, one of the Moon’s most noticeable effects is the tides. With the Moon no longer there, the oceans of the world become much calmer. The Sun still has an effect on them (known as solar tides), so surfers wouldn’t be completely devoid of waves. But the oceans would largely become serene.

This has a dire effect on life on Earth. When life first formed on Earth in tidal pools, it was thanks to the gravitational pull of the Moon that primordial life was able to traverse between different pools and generally spread across the planet. While we’re already here now, life that is currently in the oceans is no longer able to move so easily. The churning of the oceans, and thus the circulation of nutrients, ceases. Water-based life struggles to survive and, eventually, thousands (and probably millions) of species go extinct.

You see, it also accounted for about one-eightieth of the Earth-Moon mass system. The loss of the Moon directly affects the Earth’s orbit, rotation and wobble. Without the Moon to act as a stabiliser, the Earth begins to wobble more and more, sending our seasons into turmoil and changing our orbit around the Sun from slightly elliptical to massively elliptical. We now swing around the Sun in a wild, unstable, fluctuating orbit.

It proven that if the moon never existed we would have an 8 hour day! Faster spinning would create faster winds! Only wind resistant life would exist. No birds would exist. No tall trees would grow. Creatures would have to be short and low down, including us. Without the moon we wouldn't have...

- Our concept of a month
- A bright night sky
- Space race
- Moon walking (or at least the name)
- Wearwolves (maybe it wouldn't be so bad....)

Therefore the moon exists. Unless my opponent can prove these arguments wrong they have lost this debate.

Sources

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...;

Debate Round No. 1
Randy0rt0n

Pro

The Moon is thought to have formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth.

Key word: Thought it is thought to have formed

There are several hypotheses for its origin; the most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia.

That is all bs theorys that scientists make up to try to look smart

As for the rest of your arguement it is null.
All of this information has been told to you, from who? Government slaves.
How do you know that it isn't a projector holographic image of a moon, and the whole sky and all of our concept of month, bright night sky, space race, moon walking, and wearwolves, how in the heck do you know that it isn't made up by the masterminds at the pentagon and whitehouse. Or the new world order who control the information we get. All I can say is, you would win this, if you can say you have been to the moon and physically been on it yourself.


Balacafa

Con

R1 Rebuttals

I am going to exclude the point about Bollywood not existing because that has no purpose in this debate and I am tempted to give an explanation on why the sun exists but that would be going off topic. Pro has done many things in his first round. He has:

a) Shown poor conduct : "dumb idiot"

b) Shown poor spelling: "yea right"

c) Shown that he is too self confident: "argue against my wit and intelligence."

The R1 argument provided no evidence as to why I should believe their false claims.

It is extremely unlikely that we are living in an experiment created by the Government. If we were that weak and inferior in comparison to the government then what would be the point of an election and all of the election campaigns. Also it would have to be a pretty big test chamber to contain us (an Earth sized one) I have been to England, Wales, Spain, USA, Portugal, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand and France. Others have been there too.

There are countless examples of people going in other countries so you cannot deny that the world is small and there is no evidence that there is more than 1 country.

Examples:

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

Here are my R2 rebuttals:

My opponent claims that the key word is thought and therefore my theory is wrong however my opponent's theory is not even thought to be true. My theory is more plausible as well as likely since the most commonly used theory is the one presented by me. My opponent has not provided a source of anyone else genuinely believing his theory and he has not told me why his theory is right with any evidence unlike my arguments that were backed up with sources and evidence.

My opponent states that this theory is come up by scientists to make them look smart. I'm almost certain that if there was a giant projector projecting a hologram of the moon then tell me why nobody has discovered this projector. It would be clear which direction the projection would coming from.

You are asking me how the hell that I know that it isn't made up but really since the BoP is completely on my opponent I should be asking my opponent the same question. My opponent further claims that I can only win this if I can say that I have been to the moon and physically been on it yourself. Okay, so all I need to do is say that ... okay then is everyone reading this:

I have been to the moon and physically been on it myself.

There you go. I win this debate - only joking, but seriously you can only make that claim if you have tried to go to the moon and seen that there is not moon. Your logic works both ways and since the BoP is on you it your own logic harms your argument more than it harms mine.
Debate Round No. 2
Randy0rt0n

Pro

) Shown poor conduct : "dumb idiot"

b) Shown poor spelling: "yea right"

c) Shown that he is too self confident: "argue against my wit and intelligence."

This is how you know you have won an arguement, when you use points irrelevant to the arguement


My opponent claims that the key word is thought and therefore my theory is wrong however my opponent's theory is not even thought to be true. My theory is more plausible as well as likely since the most commonly used theory is the one presented by me. My opponent has not provided a source of anyone else genuinely believing his theory and he has not told me why his theory is right with any evidence unlike my arguments that were backed up with sources and evidence.

My opponent states that this theory is come up by scientists to make them look smart. I'm almost certain that if there was a giant projector projecting a hologram of the moon then tell me why nobody has discovered this projector. It would be clear which direction the projection would coming from.

You are asking me how the hell that I know that it isn't made up but really since the BoP is completely on my opponent I should be asking my opponent the same question. My opponent further claims that I can only win this if I can say that I have been to the moon and physically been on it yourself. Okay, so all I need to do is say that ... okay then is everyone reading this:

The reason nobody has found it is because anyone who has has been shot or brainwashed into an oven by the government. You say that you have been on the moon but you haven't, so how could you know for sure it is real? Everything you have stated has been told to you by random people, and brainwashed government officials.
Balacafa

Con

Everything in bold in my opponents argument is my argument - they just copy and pasted it in without quoting it so that it would look like it was bigger, so this is what my opponent actually said themselves:


The reason nobody has found it is because anyone who has has been shot or brainwashed into an oven by the government. You say that you have been on the moon but you haven't, so how could you know for sure it is real? Everything you have stated has been told to you by random people, and brainwashed government officials.


I will tackle this argument individually.

" so how could you know for sure it is real? "

I have provided scientific evidence that suggests that the moon is in fact real whereas you have only claimed that my argument is false and that I have been told this by the Government and that the moon is actually a projection. My opponent has failed to give me a reason why his theory is more likely than mine. He has offered no scientific explanation or evidence to suggest his claim is valid. So, I am going to change the question from how do you know that it is real to how do you know that it isn't real?

" Everything you have stated has been told to you by random people, and brainwashed government officials. "

Whislt it is true that I have been told that information by people (not random though) it is equally likely that you are false since if I was told that the moon is real by random people then I have also been told the moon is fake by a random person (ie. you). This argument makes your claim no more likely since you are just as random as the people that told me the moon is real - and at least they gave me scientific evidence to back up their claim. Your argument isn't even an argument, it is just a claim.
Debate Round No. 3
Randy0rt0n

Pro

Randy0rt0n forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Randy0rt0n

Pro

I'm too busy to argue that is why I forfeited that round. Basically you have no real evidence to suggest that the moon is real, only things that people have told you. I can say the moon isn't real because there is no proof it is so until proven by yourself it is not real. You know you have won when they start commenting on format and spelling or writing style.
Balacafa

Con

Pro still fails to understand that the BOP is on him. He has not attempted to refute this and therefore I can only assume that he accepts this - meaning that I do not necessarily need evidence to show that the moon is real. You need to show that the moon is fake which you have been unable to do.

You cannot say that you have won because I have commented on format and spelling. That is just my style of debate. Sometimes readers miss out certain parts of the argument I find it important to highlight mistakes made by my opponent so that they are not overlooked. You will notice that I often do this in my debates whether the debate is an easy one or a more challenging one.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Topher1989// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I didn't even read this s h i t. Of course the moon is real.

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter makes no effort to even read the debate and yet allocates all 7 points to Con. If the voter feels so utterly biased that they made their decision without even reading the debate, then the voter should not be voting on this debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Thanks for the PM
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
Balacafa
Do you want me to begin in R1. Or do you want me to just type: I accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Randy0rt0nBalacafaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/74648/