The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
skipsaweirdo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 89540
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*1st round is for acceptance.
*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.


Full Resolution
The sun rises in the west, and sets in the east.

Pro
Has 3 sets of 8,000 characters and the Burden of Proof to AFFIRM the resolution that the sun in fact rises in the west and sets in the east.

Con
Has 3 sets of 8,000 characters to refute Pro and NEGATE the resolution that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.


Definitions

sun - the star around which the earth orbits.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

rise - appear above the horizon.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

west - denoting the western part of a specified area.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

set - appear to move toward and below the horizon.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

east - denoting the eastern part of a specified area.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

skipsaweirdo

Con

There is no such thing as a rising sun. There is no such direction as West, North, East or south from the perspective of the space station which is where I am currently writing my part of the debate. Maybe I shouldn't have accepted this, my bad.👏
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

*Intro*

Thanks Con for accepting the debate thereby agreeing to the definitions.

Pro's (my) burden is simple...to affirm that the star around which the earth orbits appears above the horizon in the western part of a specified area and appears to move toward and below the horizon in the eastern part of a specified area.

*The Resolution Is True*

First, let's choose a specified area.
I'll choose the specified area of the United States, since I'm American.
The United States has a western part and an eastern part.

In California, the western part of the US, the sun appears above the horizon; the sun rises in the west.
https://www.google.com...

In New York, the eastern part of the US, the sun appears to move toward and below the horizon; the sun sets in the east.
https://www.google.com...

The truth is that the sun rises and sets in both the western US and the eastern US; Californians and New Yorkers both experience sunrises and sunsets.

Next, let's choose another specified area, to really crystallize this affirmation.
I'll choose the specified area of Venus, since it directly affirms this resolution.

"Venus rotates backwards (retrograde rotation) when compared to the other planets. This means that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus."
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...

I affirm the counter-intuitive resolution, because the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus, and, in the US, in the western part, the sun rises, and, in the eastern part, the sun sets.
skipsaweirdo

Con

Thank you pro for such a unique perspective but your reasoning has claims which have not been established. You claim that "on Venus" humans have agreed upon what would be considered directions. On Venus there aren't any directions. People from Earth have merely used Earth directions to communicate information concerning Venus yet there has never been an established unifying body of people on Venus to agree upon which compass directions should be established.
Let's take a hypothetical and say because Venus rotates in retrograde there isn't a magnetic "north" but instead a magnetic "south". It is possible that humans would then consider magnetic north on venus as being South. Then it might be established if a colony of humans were living on Venus that West is actually the direction that would be East if we projected Earth compass settings onto Venus.
Using Venus as a basis for directions is flawed reasoning because no documentation by humans living on Venus has ever been written or established what compass settings would be agreed upon.
And of course there is also this titbit's of information we might consider from Earths own Government organization NASA. They seem to contradict your claim.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

I have affirmed the resolution by showing that the sun rises in California (west) and the sun sets in New York (east) and by showing that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus.

Con has dropped the California and New York arguments.
Con instead has focused on Venus.

Con asserts:
"On Venus there aren't any directions."

My response:
Oh really?
Then how did the Magellan spacecraft map 98% of Venus's surface, including an image of a "30-km diameter crater Adivar, with a jet-like streak extending off to the left?"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Con emboldens:
"There has never been an established unifying body of people on Venus to agree upon which compass directions should be established."

My response:
Why does the established unifying body of people who agree upon which compass directions are established have to be on Venus?
Why can't any of the 40 spacecrafts that have visited Venus and the consensus of NASA astronomers on Earth suffice?

Con hypothesizes:
"It is possible that humans would then consider magnetic north on venus as being South. Then it might be established if a colony of humans were living on Venus that West is actually the direction that would be East if we projected Earth compass settings onto Venus."

My response:
Nope.
"Most of the planets in the solar system rotate in a counterclockwise direction when viewed from above their north poles; this direction is called direct, or prograde. Venus, however, rotates in the opposite, or retrograde, direction."
http://www.britannica.com...

The direction of rotation is determined relative to the planet's objective north pole, irrespective of our compasses on Earth.

For example, the Magellan spacecraft correctly identified "Aphrodite Terra [which] has two main regions: Ovda Regio in the west and Thetis Regio in the east."
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

From a spacecraft that was on the surface of Venus, with respect to Venus's objective North pole, West and East and other identifiable directions have been determined.

Con furthers:
"Using Venus as a basis for directions is flawed reasoning because no documentation by humans living on Venus has ever been written or established what compass settings would be agreed upon."

My response:
Despite the fact that no humans have ever been to Venus, Venus has a North pole, just like all of the planets do, and Venus's rotation is retrograde, which is in contrast to all other planets in the solar system; the 40 spacecrafts sent to Venus confirm this and there's documentation on it.

Con then provides a "titbit" of information to counter the claim that on Venus the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
The link con provides and neglects to explain mentions that the "Earth rotates or spins toward the east, and that's why the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars all rise in the east and make their way westward across the sky."

My response:
Great.
What does this have to do with Venus?
skipsaweirdo

Con


Pro says
"Most of the planets in the solar system rotate in a counterclockwise direction when viewed from above their north poles; this direction is called direct, or prograde. Venus, however, rotates in the opposite, or retrograde, direction."

http://www.britannica.com....
Appeal to authority. Humanity doesn't have the authority to decide what other planets inhabitants, when and if they become inhabited, must use as their terminology to determine compass directions... It is more than reasonable to assume that an individual of great wealth could take an expedition to another planet and using "homestead" laws declare ownership of the planet. That person may also use different terminology for compass directions as would be their right under the interplanetary land claim agreement which was decided on in 1972 by the United nations here on Earth. Unfortunately this agreement has been declared "for eyes only" TOP SECRET and no longer is available for public examination. A one time announcement was made at the time the declaration was agreed upon then was sealed until an actual claim is filed as to ownership of any planets.

Pro says
The truth is that the sun rises and sets in both the western US and the eastern US;
Are you implying the sun rises in the West at the same moment it rises in the East?
Californians and New Yorkers both experience sunrises and sunsets.
Fallacy of equivocation and/or ambiguity depending on what you're implying.
Experiencing sunrises and sunsets doesn't therefore mean they are where the sun rises or sets. Experiencing this is ambiguous
What do you mean by experiencing a sunset or sunrise?
At no time does a new Yorker experience New York as being on the horizon. You defined rise and set as being on the horizon.

"Venus rotates backwards (retrograde rotation) when compared to the other planets. This means that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus."
In response to my link....
Pro says what does this have to do with Venus....

Your argument used rise and set in reference to observations on Earth. How the sunrise experience is on another planet is irrelevant.
Since your title to this debate was a fallacy of ambiguity the debate itself is undebatable. Your title didn't specify on what planet the argument of where the sun rises and sets addressed. You used Venus as a rebuttal to what NASA says about the Earth. That's a fallacy of moving the goalposts.
I could also contend that the sun rises in the North and/or South if I were to travel in a space craft circling the the moon in a path that takes me from the "South Pole" on the dark side of the moon to the "North pole".
If your debate title said "The sun rises and sets in many directions based on who is observing what we call rise and set and where they are observing the phenomenon, then there wouldn't be anything to debate.

Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for that...response, Con.

In round 3, Con seems to be confused.

Con argues:
"Humanity doesn't have the authority to decide what other planets inhabitants, when and if they become inhabited, must use as their terminology to determine compass directions..."

My response:
Who said anything about inhabitants?
Con, please reference the definitions you agreed to in this debate specifically "rise" and "set."
Nothing about "appear above the horizon" or "appear to move toward and below the horizon" mentions an inhabitant's sight...nothing.
The sun appearing above/below the horizon could be seen by a space shuttle's camera on Venus sans inhabitants.

So, even if Venus's inhabitants ever determine directions, it wouldn't Impact this debate, because "the western/eastern part of a specified area" was agreed to by both Pro and Con and doesn't mention inhabitants' perspectives.

Con buffoonishly asks:
"Are you implying the sun rises in the West at the same moment it rises in the East?"

My response:
Nope I'm implying that the sun rises/sets in both the east and the west indicatively, not simultaneously. California has sunrises and New York has sunsets, and I privided sources for the times of each of those phenomena.

Con claims:
"Your argument used rise and set in reference to observations on Earth."

My response:
What do the definitions to which you agreed say?
They say that "rise" is "appear above the horizon"...this doesn't say "earth's" horizon and it doesn't say that a human has to see the appearance of this event. A spacecraft can view this appearance of the sun and the horizon on Venus...we agreed to the definitions of the debate.

Con reasons:
"I could also contend that the sun rises in the North and/or South if I were to travel in a space craft circling the the moon."

My response:
I agree. Now just apply that same logic to Venus within this debate.
You can see that Venus's retrograde rotation allows for the appearance of the sun above the horizon in the west of Venus.
It's a fact.

So Con can complain all they want...they agreed to the definitions and these allow for an easy affirmation of the resolution.
The sun rises in the west and sets in the east, indicatively.
skipsaweirdo

Con

This is evidence that Pro has agreed that his argument is a fallacy of ambiguity. Using his logic as he agreed to my example of being on the moon.
Con reasons:
"I could also contend that the sun rises in the North and/or South if I were to travel in a space craft circling the the moon."

My response:
I agree. Now just apply that same logic to Venus within this debate.
You can see that Venus's retrograde rotation allows for the appearance of the sun above the horizon in the west of Venus.
It's a fact.

This is where pros contradictions and "changing the goal posts" reasoning or logic is exposed thus defeating his argument himself by openly admitting that "the horizon" can be North, South East, West , based on the position of observer and the rotational qualities of the "object" from which the observer stands or is traveling. Therefore his contention that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East is a non argument without the concise instructions that a planets "rotational" quality and an observers position determines his position or argument. Had he been more concise and not left his assertion (premise of the debate) as ambiguous as he did then he would be by fair judgement the victor. Unfortunately he , in his last bit of "reasoning", admitted that the Sun rises in all directions and sets in all directions. Had that been the title of this debate then he would have no one to debate because that is a logically sound premise.

So Con can complain all they want...they agreed to the definitions and these allow for an easy affirmation of the resolution.
The sun rises in the west and sets in the east, indicatively.

So pro can run from his disingenuously constructed debate "subject" all he wants. He has proved himself a good opponent, although his reasoning and logic wasn't sound. I should have just put him in his place from the start. His definition of what constitutes horizon was a fallacy of ambiguity and his argument relied on this fallacious definition. He now contends that the statement the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East is accurate. It is ultimately a biased sample fallacy to use only one other planet to make his arguments because he now agrees it can rise or set in all directions.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Yes really
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
not really.
Posted by Seagull 1 year ago
Seagull
Amusing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.