The earth is flat
Debate Rounds (4)
The earth is flat. I have researched the subject for 6 months now, and there are more proofs on the side of a flat earth then I can find on a spherical one. The debate format shall be as follows. Round one is acceptance. In round 2, I state my argument, and con can either use this round for rebuttal or state arguments against the flat earth. Round 3 is for rerebuttals, and further arguments, if possible. Round 4 is strictly for rebuttals and round 5 should be used for conclusions but no new arguments in the last round. Please respect your opponents many sources and media may be used in your argument till that source is proven unreliable or the media is shown to be faked or false. Good luck, I hope to provide insight as well as receive it. I do ask that anyone accepting this debate please have a look at least at the flat earth theory before accepting and arguing against it as it has become redundant arguing the same 10 or so proves that the earth is a sphere. It is not required but makes for a better debate for the both of us. I also ask that theoretical math equations be excluded from the arguments, as they will confuse voters, though not to be confused with basic math as in Pythagoras theorem, and the like.
I will take this debate, I have already read the usual arguments for flat earth made by the Flat Earth Society.
After reading your asinine argument, I must say that I see absolutely no enterprise in continuing this debate. All of your arguments are entirely ludicrous and make absolutely no sense. You first, and main contention relies on the idea that the horizon continues indefinably, however it has been known since ancient times that things will disappear over the horizon. When given a reference point, we can see that this idea of an indefinite horizon is false. Your argument about a "hump of water" is utterly ridiculous and
In order for your arguments to be true, we must reject scientific principles, logic and fact.
In order to believe this we must reject the notion that man has been to space, however there are a number of ways to prove that man has in fact been to space, most notably the fact that we have moon rocks on earth, and the fact that there are satellites in space.
We also must reject heliocentrism, and thus basic astronomy and physics.
The entire premise of the Pro is that we have been brainwashed and science is part of a conspiracy, however he does not have any reason as to WHY we have been brainwashed. If it is to no end, why would it happen?
This alone has been a waste of my time, and energy, and I shall go no further with this lunacy.
It seems that con has abandoned the debate already resorting to the usual response one gets from someone with cognitive dissonance. I offered several sound proofs and instead of trying to effectively rebut any argument con calls the whole thing stupid. How did I waste your time? You accepted the open debate, and conceded that debate on the shape of the Earth. Were you thinking easy w? Now that you might have had to think a bit, you're out? Bop has shifted to you now? I extend all points and point out that bop has not been rebutted except by saying NASA brought us some rocks. Lol!
Since it seems you can't formulate a rebuttal, and bop stands, I'll put it in simple form that even children can understand. If you need to ask a reason, you're really asleep.
1) Several of your memes only prove my case, as you clearly know nothing about the apollo missons if you think all three astronauts were on the lander
2) I would invite you to come to the cosmosphere here in Kansas, where you can learn about space travel and see a legitimate moon rock for yourself
I will not even bother responding in the future as this is the most asinine logic I have seen in my life.
I'm other words, you can't rebutt my argument so You concede. I live in Huntsville lol, you and your rocks lol. Rocks make the world a sphere?Asanine indeed. Vote pro.
I am not going to even dignify that nonsense.
I am only responding to make the alerts go away.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides virtually no arguments for his side. After all of Pro's arguments, Con's only response is "After reading your asinine argument, I must say that I see absolutely no enterprise in continuing this debate." Saying that Pro's arguments can only be accepted at the cost of logic and science isn't a sufficient response. You must post the science behind your side, and show how Pro's science isn't factual. Con essentially drops every argument Pro made in R2, and continued the debate with rude, disrespectful comments about his opponent's intelligence.
Vote Placed by Petfish 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited sources; con did not. Conduct is roughly equal because con used arguments ad lapidem while Pro filled up his debates with silly pictures. Pro gave us certain arguments that would seem to affirm the resolution. Con dismissed these arguments, saying that we would have to dismiss the basis of astronomy and physics. Con also said that we've known things about the curvature for thousands of years. However, since con provided no sources, we are left to wonder whether these arguments are true. We also see that Con's arguments are red herrings; he claims that we have moon rocks, and that there are satellites up in space. But con did not show how this is impossible, given a flat earth. Pro's arguments seem to relate more to the resolution. He showed that airplane trails make more sense given a flat earth, he showed that we couldn't have a curvature, and he also showed that the Midnight sun would disprove a spining earth. These arguments were not sucessfully rebutted.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.