The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The earth is spherical

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,850 times Debate No: 97753
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (50)
Votes (0)




The perpetuation of ball earth theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the Big Bang Theory, has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what, at the risk of losing their job, breaking their careers, losing friends, being shunned by family, and being ridiculed by anyone who refuses to think for themselves. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist". Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.

My opponent insists that we are living on a ball moving at 1,000 miles per hour. I insist it is impossible, and the earth is relatively flat, minus mountains and other unlevel surfaces. Since con will be arguing against the whole of mainstream science, sources will be sparse, and may include empirical observations filmed by independent sources on sites such as but not limited to YouTube. Any source may be used by either side, until that source or it's claims are proven fallacious.

Evidence should be examined with scrutiny. There are two types of evidence, subjective and objective. Below is an explanation with examples of each type.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.

For example, Fred says "My foot hurts a lot." Is he lying? How much is "a lot"? What is Fred's idea of "pain"? ... a sharp, stabbing pain, or just his foot "fell asleep"?

Harry says "That was a hard test!" Compared to what? Did he study? Is this just a subject he finds particularly difficult?

Bill says "Boy, that was a great football game!" Compared to what? Who was playing? ... his son, the team he coaches, him, two pro teams?

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.

If Fred walks in with a cane, and a knife stuck in his foot, you can make a decision without hearing Fred's opinion!
If you read the test Harry talked about, you can decide for yourself whether it's hard.

If you see a video of the football game, you might see great plays, high scores, a last-minute win, etc.

Subjective evidence can be useful in a dichotomy, especially when there are several subjective points. However subjective evidence should be secondary to objective evidence. We will find that the majority of the ball earth theory is based on subjective material, while just the opposite holds true for flat earth evidence. When the evidence for spherical earth is not subjective, that evidence is often inconclusive, completely unrelated or simply misunderstood phenomena.


I accept the challenge. Post your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


What I'm about to show you is sincere. I'm not a troll, I'm not trying to be difficult. Modern day science has convinced us that our basic senses are deceiving us, when, if you were to think about it, makes more sense if the earth was a plane. I personally like the idea that when I lay down at night, I'm not moving at 1,000 miles per second. The ball earth theory paved the course for other theories, including the heliocentric model the Big Bang Theory evolution and others. I see many spend hours researching and arguing creationism over evolution, and there is little to no objective evidence on either side. Why not start with the first domino? At least we have our basic senses to ultimately explain what we see around us. Sure, modern science will tell us they are decieving us, and we are seeing mirages, or theories of relativity to explain why everyone isn't dizzy from spinning at 1,000 miles per hour. These are just clever ways to make their theories unfalsifiable, anything to hold up the ball. Everytime a hole is found, someone comes along to plug up said hole, and the lie can continue. One thing though, until you can entertain the idea that the earth is stationary and relatively flat, you'll never understand the basics, and more importantly, you'll never start researching, even when looking at objective evidence, you still won't believe you were lied to. This is whats known as cognitive dissonance. You must, from here on, unlearn everything you know. The globe has been implemented into the "education" system at a very young age. If it were taught at the high school level, I would've laughed at my teacher, and you would have too, but you've never seen the earth as a ball, nor your teacher, his boss, etc. This is subjective information. So before you consider the ball earth theory as fact, at least have a look at some objective information showing otherwise. I realize the implications of the idea of a flat earth, but this is something that can be dealt with. One of the biggest, is that if the top of the social pyramid can achieve this level of conspiracy against the entire plane (t), what does that mean for other conspiracies? Our leaders lie, that is irrefutable, but would they lie to us about the shape of the earth?? The answer is not intentionally, for most cases. They've been indoctrinated just as we have, only a handful of people claim to have actually been far enough away from earth to see it as a ball, and now NASA claims it is impossible, due to "high levels of radiation" in the Van Allen Belt. They went in 1969 on a tin can with the computing power of an original Gameboy (if you believe that) no problem, but when citizens actually started getting the idea that we were going to space In the 80's, Challenger disaster was perpetrated, as if to say, "you're not ready yet" and that settled it, until now. Talk of missions to mars, with billions invested, and Virgin Space promising to send civilians to space over 12 years ago, also millions invested, and not one civilian has even been to LEO. I'm not sure about anybody else, but there's only so many times you can pull my leg before I realize it's being pulled. I've ranted enough, let us see some objective evidence .

Contention one: The Specular Highlight

Anyone who celebrates Christmas can verify this. Have a look at the glass balls on your tree this year, most of us have them up right now, so have no excuse not to perform this simple, empirical experiment. Take a glass ball and make a right triangle with the observers eye at A, the ball at B, and a light source at C. (1) This is where we are in relation to the sun at the time of sunset.(6) Do you see the light reflected in the ball? Of course not! This is because spherical objects, or convex surfaces produce a specular reflection, whereas it points back to the source. (2,3) Not only that, but the reflection of the source appears smaller. This is why the give you that little warning on your side mirrors in the car. Sure you might can cheat a little with the relative distances and angles, and you might even get a hint of the reflection, but you'll never be able to reproduce this image. (4) Water is highly reflective, just like glass, or sheet metal. So let's try to reproduce this image with these reflective materials. Hold a flattened piece of sheet metal or like material up to the eye, and point the other end, as if you were aiming a rifle, up to a light source. The results are very much like the sunset. (5)
We now have an empirically experimentally objective proof that the earth is not a ball.

Contention two: The Chicago Skyline

Joshua Nowicki has been photographing the Chicago skyline for a few years now. This would be impossible if he were doing so on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. (7) Just like I said, modern science tells us that this is a mirage, but again, anyone who's actually seen a mirage, superior or otherwise, will agree that mirages are just "reflections" most of the time they are greatly distorted, and always upside down. Granted, visibility factors such as atmospheric blocking and waves and swellls on lake Michigan sometimes do not grant this sight always, but the skyline is seen on a regular basis. (9) This isn't the only instance of people being able to see further than they should, in fact, people are recently testing the globe, and the flatness of water to see landmarks that should be well over the curvature of the earth, and every time this test is done, no curvature can be found. This can be done easily if there is a fairly large body of water near you. All you need is a decent camera and the earth curvature calculator(10). This is yet another objective proof that the earth is not a ball.

Contention four: Gyroscopes

Definition from Wikipedia: "A gyroscope, not to be confused with gyrocompass, is a spinning wheel mounted on a gimbal so that the wheel's axis is free to orient itself in any way. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours." (11) Anyone who has ever owned a gyroscope can verify that they do verify that they do very curious things, even seemingly defying "gravity" sometimes. This experiment show both that the earth is NOT rotating, and can't be a ball. Gyroscopes have been spun up for hours at a time, and not even the slightest of rotations can be observed. (12) Attitude indicators operate by use of a basic gyroscope. (13) If the earth were a ball, spinning, wobbling, going around the sun, which is bolting around our galaxy, that is rocketing around the universe at a combined rate of about 1,000 miles per second, they would be virtually useless, especially on transcontinental flights. Some higher end smart phones are equipped with a built in gyroscope. If yours has one, download any decent pitch indicator, and leave it on your night stand when you go to bed. Wake up in the morning and see for yourself that the phone has not moved or changed it's angle the entire time. Since your average person can get a good gyro and produce these same results, this is another objective proof that the earth is not a ball.

My opponent may either use round two to refute these contentions, or provide objective evidence that the earth is a ball and refute them in round three.



I personally like the idea that when I lay down at night, I'm not moving at 1,000 miles per second"
Well, that depends on where you live. The fastest is 1,040 mph at the equator . The slowest at at the center of either pole, and it is only a fraction of 1 mph. Per second is an exaggeration.

"The ball earth theory paved the course for other theories, including the heliocentric model the Big Bang Theory evolution and others. I see many spend hours researching and arguing creationism over evolution, and there is little to no objective evidence on either side."
Look, I believe in God, too. But I believe He created it round. And, the heliocentric model came before the ball Earth model. Not to mention the man who introduced the heliocentric model was Christian.

"Sure, modern science will tell us they are deceiving us, and we are seeing mirages, or theories of relativity to explain why everyone isn't dizzy from spinning at 1,000 miles per hour."
Simple. We are stationed by Earth's gravity. Our senses are on the platform of Earth and it's gravity. Earth is just that big.

"They went in 1969 on a tin can with the computing power of an original Gameboy"
Yeah, well, that tin can also had fuel-powered engine thrusters, and a sealed air system.

Contention One Rebuttal:
Not really. Imagine you are in space trying to get a reflection of yourself on the Earth's surface. That is, if you are looking at the water and you are lined up between the Sun and the Earth. If you aren't lined up, then forget about it, because the water is the only thing that can reflect on Earth's surface. You see, the Earth's surface (excluding water), is made out of terrestrial material, such as rock and dirt. Here's a little experiment to verify this. All you have to do is stare at the ground. You don't see a reflection of any kind. That's because terrestrial material cannot be reflective. Now, let's say you are are lined up with the Sun and the water. You still won't see it. That's because you are too far away from the Earth to see it in space. You won't cast a shadow, either. Even though you are blocking some of the sunlight from reaching Earth, the light you haven't blocked will fill in around it. Not just that, but you can see the light reflected in the ball, as light is necessary for humans to see things. And since this this round reflective ball has all angles, you still can see the light source in the reflection.

Contention Two Rebuttal:
The skyline of Chicago. What happens here, is that, eventually, where the sky and cities meet, that it is out of your sight of range. You see, Earth is so massive, that Earth's curvature is not noticeable. You see, with a ball that massive has a very slow curvature angle. Not to mention the range you need to see to notice Earth's curves while still being on Earth is out of your range of sight. It's time someone explained to you the concept of gravity. Any object, including that ornament you have, has a gravitational pull. YOU have a gravitational pull. Granted, the gravity of a person or an ornament is very small. This is because the bigger the object, the stronger the gravitational pull. That is why you aren't pulled to the ornament, yet pulled to Earth. Also, gravity is also weaker the further away from the object you are. It takes immense thrust to reach the stratosphere.

Contention Three Rebuttal:
Yes, I do believe that God is there. You see, the contents of the mantle and core of the Earth is mostly iron. The moving around in the core, as liquid does, causes the electrons to orient themselves into a pole. Positively charged ones, will sink be go to the bottom of the pole because they are heavier, and negatively charged ones will rise to the top of the pole because they are lighter. This creates a magnetic pole that the Earth rotates on.

Number One
Assuming you are the same distance from the core, and not on a mountain, you may notice that gravity is the same no matter where you are on the Earth. This would be impossible on a plane because you would be further away from the core around the edges of a plane making gravity light as you get near the edges.

Number Two
Our perspective is in 3D. Us, ourselves are in 3D. It would make no sense that we are on a 2D plane.

Number Three
People have successfully circumnavigated the Earth before. The first recorded case of this was Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magelland and his crew. This would not be possible on a flat Earth.
Debate Round No. 2


"I'm not moving at 1,000 miles per second"
Well, that depends on where you live. The fastest is 1,040 mph at the equator . The slowest at at the center of either pole, and it is only a fraction of 1 mph. Per second is an exaggeration."

My opponent seems to have forgotten the earth' s motion around the sun, it's motion around the milky way, which is rocketing around the universe. To quote Eric Dubay:
NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged "Big Bang" cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That"s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we"re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever."

So, to clarify, 670,568,000mph "60= 11,176,133 miles per minute "60= 186,268 miles per second. Give or take. I get sick on the gravitron. With some people, even the slightest motion will cause the hurling. Motion sickness would be non-existent if we were constantly moving that fast. So 1,000 miles per second is not an exaggeration, it is an understatement.

"Look, I believe in God, too. But I believe He created it round."

So you believe in God but you don't believe the Bible? The Bible is clearly a flat Earth book from cover to cover modern Christians can adjust their beliefs or try to change the Bible to fit in with what science has discovered recently comma but with all the proposed motions that the Earth is going in fixed and immovable describes the Earth in the Bible and this is hardly true.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

" the heliocentric model came before the ball Earth model"

False, Aristotle postulated the earth was a ball in ancient Greece, but he was a geocentrist, the heliocentric model was not introduced till later.

"the man who introduced the heliocentric model was Christian"

Copernicus was a sun worshipping Satanist, cultist, and freemason.

"At rest, however, in the middle of everything is the sun. For, in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in another or better position than that from which it can light up the whole thing at the same time? For, the sun is not inappropriately called by some people the lantern of the universe, its mind by others, and its ruler by still others. The Thrice Greatest labels it a visible god, and Sophocles' Electra, the all-seeing. Thus indeed, as though seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the family of planets revolving around it." Copernicus

"Yeah, well, that tin can also had fuel-powered engine thrusters, and a sealed air system."

We carry a computer in our pocket more powerful than all of NASA's technology during that time. It's illogical to say that it's impossible to get a civilian into space by now. Of course you would miss the point entirely.

Refutation: Specular Highlight

My opponent seems to have misunderstood this contention, or is grasping at straws. He argues that dirt is not reflective, and but you can see the light reflected in the ball, as light is necessary for humans to see things, but these statements are irrelevant. The point was that when watching a sunset, sometimes we see a linear reflection that continues all the way to the edge of the water. This can't be reproduced with any convex shaped, reflective surface. The objective contention stands unrefuted.

Refutation : Chicago skyline

My opponent again shows us his Dunning Kruger effect towards his model. Vaguely asserting that the earth is too big to detect any curvature. He ignores the curvature calculator completely. He then rants about gravity for some reason. The observable fact that things that are denser than the air around them fall down is indeed objective, but is has not been observed that water, or anything for that matter sticks to the sides or bottom of a spinning ball, or that an object can be set in motion, in a vacuum or otherwise, so that it falls around another object. These properties of gravity are therefore subjective, and therefore gravity is irrelevant. Trust me, I went through the same indoctrination system you did, I understand the concept of gravity, I do not agree with it, but I get it, really..

Anyway, my opponent clearly has not even researched the allowed curvature for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, so I'll give him, and everyone else, a quick run down. From any point on the globe, there must exist a declination of 8 inches per mile squared. Water should drop 8 inches in the first mile [(1X1)8=8"], 32 inches in two miles[(2X2)8=32", and 3 miles worth of curvature should hide the average human. This is very measurable. So for 57 miles (the distance from Chicago to where the photograph was taken) there should exist a declination of almost 26,000 inches, or 2,166 feet at sea level. From a height of a generous 20 feet, the drop off should be 1,770 feet. The tallest building in Chicago is Willis Tower, to the tip, is 1,729 feet. Chicago should not be visible at all from 57 miles, yet we can pick out at least 30 buildings. Maybe my opponent understands now. This objective contention stands.

Refutation :Gyroscopes

My opponent seems to have possibly confused this contention with one from another debate entirely! Nothing he states about the magnetic poles is not relevant to the contention at all. I feel confident enough that most voters understands this point, and my opponent's refutation does not hold water. I urge my opponent to re-read the contention a second, or third time even. This objective evidence stands unrefuted.

Refutations of my opponent's arguments
1. I've explained how gravity is both subjective (we must take someone's word that it forces objects into a ball shape) and objective (apples and microphones fall to a place of equal or greater density). The objective instances of gravity are irrelevant, or in actually, proves my case, rather than his, objects fall off of the bottom of a ball. He also assumes there is an "edge" to the earth, which in itself is a subjective assumption.

2. My opponent assumes a flat earth must be two dimensional, which is preposterous. Is a box two dimensional? The box has flat sides. This is an asanine argument, perhaps more so than any other I've seen. We know the earth has depth, at least 7-8 milled of it, which is the deepest we've ever gotten.

3. Circumnavigation is both objective and relevant to the shape of the earth, so let's address the statement "This would not be possible on a flat Earth."

The flat earth is a circle shape, similar to a pizza. Magnetic north is the center of the pizza, and The Antarctic "circle" is the crust that holds the water in. When one circumnavigates the earth, they are just going in a very large circle around the north pole. Again, from Eric Dubay:

"There are no fixed "East" or "West" points just as there is no fixed "South." The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth, with South being all straight lines outwards from the pole, East and West being concentric circles at constant right angles 90 degrees from the pole. A westerly circumnavigation of Earth is thus going around with Polaris continually on your right, while an easterly circumnavigation is going around with Polaris always at your left. Magellan and others" East/West circumnavigations of Earth are often quoted as proof of the ball model. In actual fact, however, sailing or flying at rights angles to the North pole and eventually returning to one"s original location is no more difficult or mysterious than doing so on a globe. Just as an architect"s compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the "pole," so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth."

As of round 3, my opponent has yet to provide objective, conclusive that the earth has any curvature or axial rotation, two basic tenants of his model. It would appear he has no knowledge on the model he attempts to refute, and very little on the one he defends.


Unfortunately, something came up, and I must waive this round. I ask that you do the same for the next round so that it is even.
Debate Round No. 3


Since this is the final round, and I was asked to waive it, I forward all points. Nothing has been refuted. Vote for Con.


Who said anything about an auto-loss? You never gave it a mention in the first or second round, when you could have implemented that rule. I only waived that round because I had homework, and not enough time to type a long response. I shall reject that new rule because you tried to create it halfway through the debate, when we were already in the heat of it. I shall continue to rebut and refute.

670,568,000 mph and motion sickness:
Do you know why you don't feel all of that motion? The answer is in you ear. In your ear, there is this thing that look like a snail, with the spiral shape, and tube with pipes sticking out. Look up a diagram of it. Ignore the spiral, as that is part of the hearing. Only focus on the protruding "head" of the "snail", since that part is actually relevant. Those tubes, which have a 360 1/8 sphere shape with X, Y, and Z coordinates on a 3D plane, are your motion sensors. There is fluid in there, and hairs with nerves on the inside feel where the fluid is. For example, if the fluid is at the top, your motion detectors will notify your brain that you are upside down, probably hanging from a tree with your legs or something like that. This fluid, is also held down by Earth's gravity, constantly being tugged towards the center of the Earth, like the rest of you. Thus, when you spin on around a bat, you are flinging that fluid in a different direction than Earth's gravitational pull, causing dizziness.

Bible verses:
God did not mean that in a physical sense, He meant it in a spiritual sense. He had fixed the Earth, immovable and firm, as His domain. Not Satan's, nor Sin's, or anyone else's.

Okay, so globe Earth did come before heliocentrism. But this was not an important point whatsoever, anyways.

It seems like you only skimmed through his quote there. Let me give you a modern version of his quote.

"In the middle, staying still, is the Sun. Who would place the Sun so that everywhere can be lighted? The Sun is very appropriately called the lantern of the universe by some. Some people call it a god, or an all-seeing spirit. The Sun sits on the throne of the universe and governs the planets around it" -Modern Copernicus

Let's take a closer look at that quote.

"Who would place the Sun so that it all can be lighted?"
This was a rhetorical question, he was referencing God.

"Some call it a god."
Notice in the modern, and the original quote, he says "SOME call it a god." He never says that he did, he just said that there were people who did.

"The Sun governs the planets around it."
This, is an example of an old metaphor, which were common in those days.

The tin can:
It is not about computing power. NASA is on a budget, and fuel is very expensive.

Specular highlight:
You seem to have skimmed through it again. This reflection is just the Earth's atmosphere. Also, have you ever been to a fun house? Convex mirrors are a thing there, and they make you look smaller.

Chicago skyline:
The Dunning Krueger effect is correct. The curvature, per mile, is incredibly small due to the size of the Earth. How hard is this to understand?

"Then he rants about gravity for some reason."
Once again, you were only skimming and not paying attention.

As for the curvature calculator, you only used a 2D measurement. You need a 3D one to get it. You input the length and the width, but no height. Your calculations are meaningless.

Not paying attention closely enough... again. Here is an experiment for you. Go get a small plastic or wooden ball. Then, use a drill to create a hole all of the way through it, so that the drill bit is sticking out of the other end. Next, take out the drill and insert a straw, or a chopstick. Now spin it around. That is your magnetic pole model. You see, the magnetic pole is the straw, and the ball is the Earth. The pole is not one that literally pierces the Earth, it is just the force of magnetism that is piercing it.

The larger the object, the stronger the gravitational pull. Your object is falling off of your ball, because your ball's gravity is incredibly small, and also because Earth's gravity overpowers the ball's gravity by a longshot. Also, this "edge" is where the atmosphere meets the stratosphere.

2D flat earth:
Wow. An actually valid argument. One thing, though. The closer you are to an object, the stronger the pull. This is easily observed with magnets. Another thing is that gravity pulls to the core of the Earth. That being said, if flat Earth were real, you would be able to jump higher, and fall slower, the further you get from the North Pole, which is the center of flat Earth, according to a diagram in one of your photo albums. This is not the case at all, as people jump and fall at the same rate all around the Earth.

Another valid argument that will be disproven. According to flat Earth, circumnavigation is going around the edges. That is not circumnavigation, that is a lap. Picture a racetrack. The cars are going around the edges, would you call that circumnavigation of the track? No! It is just called a lap! In relevation to him saying there are no specific NSEW points, that is because, with sphere Earth, you can go infinitely North, going around and around nonstop, showing up on the other side, and going around again. There are actually six points (2+2+2=6), like a Rubik's cube (except with the Rubik's cube it is sides, not points). These points are only where we have set it, for simplicity. Now, going back to the whole "going around the edges of the pizza" thing. If you look at his route, you see that he goes straight for very long distances, without actually coming in contact with the "pizza crust", AKA Antarctica. When going straight, he would have touched Antarctica on a flat Earth, which he did not in real life, tracing his route. He also showed up on the other side, something you can only do a sphere Earth.

They are in the comments section.

All of my evidence is objective. You can observe it yourself easily.

God always gets it right. He has made the Earth a spinning sphere that orbits another sphere, so that the Seasons may change to regulate the Earth, and has created forces, and a fluid in our ear, so that we would not notice. Amen.
Debate Round No. 4
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
This isn't a joke. I do this to wake the smarter ones up, so they can help me. You failed miserably.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Most of my old ones are 1,000+
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Heh. You got me there.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
This is still my most viewed debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Agonist// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I was surprised by this debate. During the challenge period, I thought this was a semantic fishing over "spherical." Despite this, the Instigator presented some clear arguments. The refutations to these arguments were at hand to those with a solid grasp of modern scientific knowledge. The Contender, in my opinion, did not adequately refute the claims brought by the Instigator. As an aside, a point was awarded to the Instigator for ceding a round at the request of the Contender.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. That requires more than simply stating that one side was clear and used "scientific knowledge" " it must be clear how that knowledge was used and why it was significant to the debate. Similarly, merely stating that the contender did not respond is not sufficient. The voter is required to assess something they said, not merely point to what they didn"t say.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Overnight// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con because he/she used arguments that I didn't feel contributed to the debate at all, such as the whole round on subjective evidence. Thats was totally useless in my opinion. Also, the examples (with Fred and Henry, etc.) have NOTHING to do with the resolution. Pro actually referenced factual evidence, including that of reputable scientists. Sources go to Pro because the sources Con gave were either irrelevant (Sources about illusion) or youtube videos with no factual verification. Pro gave easily verified evidence, hence he gets my vote.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific points made by both sides and explain why they were or were not important. While the voter does so for Pro, but does not for Con, instead generalizing and saying that Con merely contributed something of substance. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Again, the voter analyzes Pro"s sources, but fails to substantively evaluate Con"s sources, generalizing about their veracity.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Juliegirl// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: why is this even a debate?

[*Reason for removal*] This is not an RFD. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made in the debate, and not merely provide their views on the topic as a reason for their decision. All point allocations must also be explained.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.