The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Con (against)
The Contender
Overhead
Pro (for)

The earth is an oblate spheroid

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Edlvsjd has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 104132
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Edlvsjd

Con

There is no irrefutable evidence for a spherical earth that I know of. There are very many reasons to consider a flat earth, and even a few that would suggest a concave earth. I don't know, I'm still on the fence. My opponent is convinced that the earth is a spinning ball, and has irrefutable evidence for this belief. For this to be true, two things must be proved: curvature and axial rotation. Opponent must state their arguments in r1 and forfeit the last round.
Overhead

Pro

To clarify for voters, an oblate sphereoid is a sphere that's a bit squashed. Planets (like Earth) tend to bulge at the equator slightly due to the physics of their rotation. The topic is essentially "Is the Earth a ball".

On to the argument:





End of argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Con

My opponent assumes this will be an easy debate I see. News flash, pictures aren't infallible evidence for anything. They are unsourced, and I have no idea if they are even real or not. I've actually created better images of earth in Photoshop myself. Anyone with a few hours or less of free time can do it.

https://youtu.be...

Fact is, these pictures are unverifiable. None of us can say they've seen the earth from this far away. All we see ourselves are flat horizons and we can't tell we are moving. So the pictures go against our common senses. My opponents arguments are the equivalent to proving shark kitty exists by simply posting an image of him.

https://i.pinimg.com...

It's a ridiculous argument, and I hope he can come up with something more substantial than just images, or this will be a short debate.
Overhead

Pro

"My opponent assumes this will be an easy debate I see. News flash, pictures aren't infallible evidence for anything. They are unsourced, and I have no idea if they are even real or not"

My opponent seems to have missed the obvious implication, which I honestly did not think needed to be spelt out. There are a host of bodies, both public and private, that have satellites in orbit that can take pictures of the earth and confirmed that the earth is round. As there is such an array of options which one I used isn't really relevant because there being a wealth of such imagery is common and very basic knowledge. In this case, in case it is ever relevant, I went with NAZA's DSCOVR satellite which usually takes several pictures a day (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov...).

Also pictures are certainly evidence of what they represent existing. Whether they are infallible or not is to be decieded, I look forward to your attempt to refute them.

I've actually created better images of earth in Photoshop myself.

Please feel free to provide them. Also feel free to explain why this is relevant. Do you have proof that the array of photos taken from massess of satellites run by the national and international space organisations and private satellite communication companies across the globe are all part of a conspiracy to defraud humankind in regards to the shape of the Earth? Then what does your professed photoshop skill matter because that does not refute the pictures.

"Anyone with a few hours or less of free time can do it.

https://youtu.be...;

Please note that the first step of the process CON has laid out in the link is to literally google and use pictures of a spherical earth that NASA has taken from orbit.


Fact is, these pictures are unverifiable. None of us can say they've seen the earth from this far away. All we see ourselves are flat horizons and we can't tell we are moving. So the pictures go against our common senses. My opponents arguments are the equivalent to proving shark kitty exists by simply posting an image of him.

My opponent is apparently unaware that there being space agencies run by professional experts who arrange for pictures to be taken from space and verify their authoenticity. You know, like NASA. Or he is being intentionally obtuse and refusing to engage with my argument.

Either way, I feel that any voter will understand that the there being a wealth of imagery available from professional and governmental bodies is very basic knowledge. Even if they feel it is not, it has now been pointed out.
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Con

"My opponent seems to have missed the obvious implication, which I honestly did not think needed to be spelt out. There are a host of bodies, both public and private, that have satellites in orbit that can take pictures of the earth and confirmed that the earth is round. As there is such an array of options which one I used isn't really relevant because there being a wealth of such imagery is common and very basic knowledge. In this case, in case it is ever relevant, I went with NAZA's DSCOVR satellite which usually takes several pictures a day (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov......)."

Regardless of who and what produced these images, the point stands. Images can be faked. This leaves doubt. My opponent, in order to provide irrefutable evidence that we live on a spinning ball, must do so beyond all doubt. Since Photoshop and its cousins exist, this should be a clearcut case that the doubt has been sufficiently cast, and the resolution has been negated. My opponent may be gullible enough to believe every image he sees on his TV or PC, but I'd like to believe that most of us aren't that gullible.

"Please feel free to provide them. Also feel free to explain why this is relevant. Do you have proof that the array of photos taken from massess of satellites run by the national and international space organisations and private satellite communication companies across the globe are all part of a conspiracy to defraud humankind in regards to the shape of the Earth? Then what does your professed photoshop skill matter because that does not refute the pictures."

I should not provide anything, since I've nothing to prove. Let alone why "space organizations" would lie about the shape of the earth. I'd guess unless they did provide images for the gullible, they would lose funding of almost $18billion per year. That's about $50 million per day. Stargate cost just $55million in 1994. I can present images and videos of a 200 foot gorilla kidnapping white chicks and climbing buildings, but that is proof only that I've presented pictures and videos of king kong.

"Please note that the first step of the process CON has laid out in the link is to literally google and use pictures of a spherical earth that NASA has taken from orbit."

That doesn't make them any more infalliable, this is a strawman.

"My opponent is apparently unaware that there being space agencies run by professional experts who arrange for pictures to be taken from space and verify their authoenticity. You know, like NASA. Or he is being intentionally obtuse and refusing to engage with my argument."

My opponent appears to pur much trust in these "professional experts" to profess to him something that can never be personally validated. This is the equivalent of a preacher saying that God exists and pointing at the Bible as evidence. NASA has professed that imagery they produce is Photoshop on multiple accounts. They've presumably had several thousand satellites in orbit around the earth at varying heights since the birth of NASA, but even the iPhone "blue marble" from 2012 is confessed created, and nearly every one before that.

https://www.nasa.gov...

From it's creator:
"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17."

Even the so called satellite that took the images my opponent offers has produced questionable results.

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...
Overhead

Pro

"Regardless of who and what produced these images, the point stands. Images can be faked. This leaves doubt. My opponent, in order to provide irrefutable evidence that we live on a spinning ball, must do so beyond all doubt. Since Photoshop and its cousins exist, this should be a clearcut case that the doubt has been sufficiently cast, and the resolution has been negated. My opponent may be gullible enough to believe every image he sees on his TV or PC, but I'd like to believe that most of us aren't that gullible."


Incorrect, To provide an irrefufable evidence, I must so so beyind your ability to reefute my argument.

Irrefutable: "impossible to prove wrong:" as in "an irrefutable argument" [2]

Con has not proven my argument wrong. Con has laid out the infintismally small possibiluity that my argument is wrong - if every single instance of all photos of earth showing it's spherical shape have been faked due to some gigantic worldwide conspiracy. This is irrelevent as it does not refute my argument by proving it wrong and the idea that all evidence has been faked is so unlikely that it is basically irrelevent.

I've got to say I'm disappointed. From their attitude I had hoped Con was going to put forward some solid reasoning behind why the earth couldn't be spherical. I have no diea what that argument would be, but I was interested in finding out. Instead Con has resorted to scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The reason doubts don't really matter is because it's possible to have doubts about pretty much anything. If the required metric is "Does any amount of doubt exist no matter how small" then you can just fabricate absurd - but technicalyl possible - reasons for anything. You can argue that pigs have wings and fly because maybe we're all in the matrix! You can argue that giant space turtles exist because how can we 100% definieteively prove that we're not a giant space turtle dreaming it's a man? All absurd, but also not things that can be disproven so technically they create an infintesmal amount of doubts.

That this is the only argument Con stoops to is really disappointing. I had been hoping to be pressed and perhaps needs to whip out extra arguments about how a spherical earth meets Popperial standards of falsifiability, how it matches what we would expect from natural laws, how independent tests show it to be correct etc.

"I should not provide anything, since I've nothing to prove. Let alone why "space organizations" would lie about the shape of the earth. I'd guess unless they did provide images for the gullible, they would lose funding of almost $18billion per year. That's about $50 million per day. Stargate cost just $55million in 1994. I can present images and videos of a 200 foot gorilla kidnapping white chicks and climbing buildings, but that is proof only that I've presented pictures and videos of king kong."

If you are going to present no arguments to refute my cargument, you just make it easier for me.

You're also begging the question here. Your argument about why the earth isn't spherical already assumes the earth isn't spherical. Not only that but it doesn't make much sense to me. I'm pretty sure that a space organisation showing pictures of a non-spherical earth would get asses of money.

Lastly all evidence can be faked or incorrect. Eye witness testimoney, scientific studies, even our own personal experience can be wrong or fabricated. We deceide if something constitutes valid proof based on the context and it's credibility, e.g. a scientific study that references a load of sources which don't appear iin any database of scholarly literature and is written by someone whose who has a PHD from a university that doesn't seem to exist is probably fake. "B-b-b-b-but it could be fake" isn't an argument because anything could theoretically be fake, what matters is providing an actual reason to believe it is.

So are photos of a spherical earth analogoous to a lone person with no credentials or expertise taking a picture of a 200ft tall gorilla - a type of creature it would be bizarre if we hadn't already discovered if it did exist and which seems to defy all notions of physical laws (e.g. animals can't get that big)?

No, it's masses of photos taken by an array of professional experts which all substantiate each other and which match the evidence we would expect based on natural laws and via the use of technology which would only work if those natural laws and the shape of the earth are correct.

The only "King Kong" style claims that are happening are your conspiracy theories about all evidence of the moon being faked.

"That doesn't make them any more infalliable, this is a strawman."

That's not what a strawman means. You use a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument, not just if you think their argument is incorrect.[2]

You also don't seem to have understood the point. You tried to make the point of how photos of a spherical earth can be faked, but your example relies on a spherical earth being real and pictures of it having been taken by Nasa for use as the source image..

"My opponent appears to pur much trust in these "professional experts" to profess to him something that can never be personally validated. This is the equivalent of a preacher saying that God exists and pointing at the Bible as evidence. NASA has professed that imagery they produce is Photoshop on multiple accounts. They've presumably had several thousand satellites in orbit around the earth at varying heights since the birth of NASA, but even the iPhone "blue marble" from 2012 is confessed created, and nearly every one before that."

I'm not sure what the scare quotes are meant to represent. Apparently for someone unknown reason Con doesn't think that people who work in the field of astromony (e.g. professionals) and will have all relevant trainign and qualifications (e.g. experts) are professional experts.

Anyway, on to the main point. Con argues that the photos aren't personally validated, presumably meaning me personally going into space and seeing the earth is spherical. That isn't relevant because that kind of personal validation isn't required. We don't need to personally visit Italy to accept that Italy exists and photos of Italy are real. Again, it's dependent on context and Con merely falls into making absurd analogies that don't connect to the topic under discussion.

"The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17."

You seem to be posting proof that people have taken pictures of a spherical earth, as that still admits the earth is spherical and real pictures have been taken. Thanks for that

I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make, it's very vague. If you're trying to cast doubt on the specific images I chosee, your interview is in 2012 and the satellite I referenced was launched in 2015 so your info is out of date. [3]

If you're trying to create some vague insiuation due to the gap, this is just because for a long while there was no need for long distance space flight after the Apollo missions finished. Satellites were launched into low earth orbit where they were close enough that they would only get partial images of a hemisphere - whcih still show the earth is spherical. For instance you can lifestream from the international space station but you only get a partial view of a hemisphere: hhttp://www.ustream.tv...

Even the so called satellite that took the images my opponent offers has produced questionable results.

Someone once saw a shape in a clould. Shocking.[4]

[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Overhead 11 months ago
Overhead
Whether pictures are valid or invalid evidence depending on context. Hence why in your argument you tried to use the analogy of a picture of a 200ft tall ape rather than, say, the analogy of a family picture taken from a photo album. One is very likely to be fake, the other is very likely to be true. I trust the reasoning behind this is obvious enough to not need elaboration.

The context of my pictures is that they have been validated by tons of professional experts, are consistent with known natural laws and have been backed up again and again over decades. You didn't actually put together an argument why they were not valid pictures representing the factual shape of earth.

If your only argument is "B-b-b-b-but there COULD be a massive international conspiracy of which I have absolutely no evidence" then your argument is the same level as "B-b-b-b-b-b-but maybe I can fly unaided because w're all trapped in the matrix and in the real world we can fly but I have no evidence". Hence why I say is uninteresting. It's the lowest common denominator on the scale of debate, you could not provided a lower standard of evidence for your position if you tried.

Why would I care about continuing such an argument?
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
Says the guy whose only evidence that he lives on a spinning ball is "muh space pictures" gullible chump
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
Says the guy whose only evidence that he lives on a spinning ball is "muh space pictures" gullible chump
Posted by Overhead 11 months ago
Overhead
Nah, your argument wasn't exactly thrilling.
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
Wow thought I had the rest of the day

Bring your arguments here. http://www.debateisland.com...
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.