The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
The Contender
THAT_Debater
Con (against)

On Earth The Sun Actually 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
THAT_Debater 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: 3/1/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 109703
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.
*1st round is for acceptance.
*By accepting the debate, the definitions below are agreed to be used.
*I request that moderators actually remove supid, irrelevant, votes.

Full Resolution
On earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east.

Pro
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Pro also has the BoP to show that on earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east.

Con
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.


Definitions

earth - the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars at an average distance of 149.6 million km from the sun, on which we live.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

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

actually - as the truth or facts of a situation; really.
https://en.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...
THAT_Debater

Con

Let's get it going then.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for accepting, Con.
I love to debate falsisms.
I also love that scientific concepts can be looked at differently.
Time to shine!

*Sunrise in Los Angeles*

Los Angeles, California, USA is located in the western hemisphere of the earth.
The people who live in California, Californians, witness sunrises.
The sun manages to appear above the horizon in the west, because those who live in Los Angeles live in the west and experience sunrises everyday.

The sun actually rises in the west (Los Angeles, USA).
https://www.google.com...


*Sunset in Tokyo*

Tokyo, Japan is located in the eastern hemisphere of the earth.
The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness sunsets.
The sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the east, because those who live in Tokyo live in the east and experience sunsets everyday.

The sun actually sets in the east (Tokyo, Japan).
https://www.google.com...


*Conclusion*

Therefore, I affirm.
THAT_Debater

Con

That is one interesting way to look at it, however it is an incorrect way based on your resolution and definitions.

First I want to point out that the definitions of east and west state "denoting the (eastern/western) part of a specified area.
The question that should be raised is: What is the specified area? Well again, that depends. The specified area is Earth, but you can get more specific with that.

You can say that in California, in the western hemisphere, that the sun rise in the western hemisphere. You can also say that it sets in the western hemisphere.

Now what does the resolution say? "On Earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east." Also under the "Pro" section of the guidelines of the debate say that "Pro also has the [Burden of Proof] to show that on Earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east." And here is the only arguments needed to warrant a vote for con. The resolution says "On Earth". Where on Earth, you might ask. The answer is, all of it. The resolution never specified where on Earth. The resolution doesn't say "On Earth, in California,". It says "On Earth" meaning throughout all the Earth, the sun sets in the east and rises in the west. Unless pro can prove that EVERYWHERE on Earth, the resolution is true, you should vote con.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for that response Con.
Some corrections need to be made.
Also, the definitions are quite clear.
Reminder to all, opt-in voting required.

***Correction***

I'm an idiot.
I posted the wrong link for both Los Angeles and Tokyo...total botch on my part, so here are the correct links for each:

Sunrise in Los Angeles, USA.
https://www.google.com...

Sunset in Tokyo, Japan.
https://www.google.com...

***End of Correction***


*Responding to Con*

I have already made the case that on earth, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, because Californians experience sunrises and the Japanese experience sunsets; I assumed that all understood that these were places on earth.


Con points out:
"the definitions of east and west state "denoting the (eastern/western) part of a specified area."

My response:
Right, and since California is in the western hemisphere of the earth and Japan is in the eastern hemisphere of the earth, we're talking about the west and east of the earth, the "specified area" you referenced.

Con continues:
"The specified area is Earth, but you can get more specific with that."

My response:
Was I not specific when I mentioned the eastern and western hemispheres?
In the west of the specified area the earth, the sun rises.
In the east of the specified area the earth, the sun sets.


Con near concedes:
"You can say that in California, in the western hemisphere, that the sun rise in the western hemisphere."

My response:
Therefore, given the agreed to definitions, you concede half of the resolution that the sun does appear above the horizon in the west of the specified area the earth.


Con asserts:
"here is the only arguments needed to warrant a vote for con."

My response:
Despite the subject-verb disagreement, I'm curious...

Con continues:
"what does the resolution say? 'On Earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east'..."On Earth". Where on Earth, you might ask."

My response:
The western and eastern hemispheres respectively?

Con adds:
"The answer is, all of it. The resolution never specified where on Earth."

My response:
Right, since the resolution didn't specify where on earth, *anywhere* on earth would satisfy "on earth," and, while I feel it silly to point out, both California and Japan are "on earth" and the western and eastern hemispheres are specified areas "on earth" as well.

Con pushes:
"It says "On Earth" meaning throughout all the Earth."

My response:
Nope.
It says that earth is the planet on which we live, yet no one ever lives "throughout all the earth."
Living in one part of the earth satisfies "on earth."
In fact, no one who lives ON EARTH has ever been "throughout all the earth," because there's too much deep sea and liquid hot core to be throughout all of it.

Con persists:
"Unless pro can prove that EVERYWHERE on Earth, the resolution is true, you should vote con."

My response:
I'm going to turn your reasoning against you, Con.

You rightly mentioned that:
"The resolution doesn't say "On Earth, in California...The resolution never specified where on Earth."

So then you also agree, since the resolution did not specify, that the resolution doesn't say "Everywhere on earth" just like it didn't say "On earth in California."

This leaves "on earth" to be satisfied by ANY location on earth, not ALL locations on earth as Con would fallaciously have you believe.


*Conclusion*

The resolution is affirmed, because, on earth, in the western hemisphere, in Los Angeles, USA, the sun rises and, on earth, in the eastern hemisphere, in Tokyo, Japan, the sun sets; Con's given no reason to doubt these facts.

Vote Pro.
THAT_Debater

Con

Well, let's get right into the responses to the pro side.

"Con near concedes:
'You can say that in California, in the western hemisphere, that the sun rise in the western hemisphere.'

My response:
Therefore, given the agreed to definitions, you concede half of the resolution that the sun does appear above the horizon in the west of the specified area the earth."

RESPONSE:
Sure. Maybe in some places the sun does rise in the west but not in all. Not to mention the fact that in some it doesn't. But that's not everywhere on Earth.

"Con adds:
'The answer is, all of it. The resolution never specified where on Earth.'

My response:
Right, since the resolution didn't specify where on earth, *anywhere* on earth would satisfy "on earth," and, while I feel it silly to point out, both California and Japan are "on earth" and the western and eastern hemispheres are specified areas "on earth" as well."

RESPONSE: They are on Earth, but when the resolution says on Earth, it's specifically referring to everywhere on Earth.

"You rightly mentioned that:
'The resolution doesn't say "On Earth, in California...The resolution never specified where on Earth.'

So then you also agree, since the resolution did not specify, that the resolution doesn't say "Everywhere on earth" just like it didn't say 'On earth in California.'"

RESPONSE: While it doesn't say everywhere on Earth, it doesn't refer to a specific location either. I think this issue should be decided by the voters, because it relies on one's interpretation of the resolution. My view is that it is referring to "all Earth", because it says "On Earth". It doesn't say "any specific location on Earth". It's all about interpretation.

"Con persists:
'Unless pro can prove that EVERYWHERE on Earth, the resolution is true, you should vote con.;

My response:
I'm going to turn your reasoning against you, Con."

RESPONSE: If you're trying to say that I have to prove everywhere on Earth the resolution is not true, then you're dead wrong. According to YOUR own guidelines, pro has the burden of proof to prove the resolution true. All I have to do is cast doubt on the resolution.

One thing I want to make clear is that while the sun can rise in the west, in one locations, and set in the east in another, it cannot do BOTH at ONE SPECIFIC location. Using the pro's logic, the sun rises (in California), in the west, but also sets in the west. It doesn't do both at ONE location. Using the pros logic that they have to prove at one specific location, the resolution is true, they should lose the round. Because if it is only one specific location, then they haven't proved the WHOLE resolution to be true, in one location. But if it's everywhere on Earth, they haven't proven throughout Earth, the resolution is true.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Alright, so we have a clear concession.
Opt-in voters take note.
If one side concedes and a voter votes for the side that conceded, the vote will be moderated.
Thank you for voting with opt-in standards.

*Definitions*

The definitions for earth, agreed by Con with his acceptance to be, mention that earth is the planet ON WHICH WE LIVE, yet neither I nor Con nor anyone else lives THROUGHOUT ALL of earth.
That's because by living in ANY location, one satisfies their inclusion in the definition of "the planet on which we live."
Unless Con can find someone who lives THROUGHOUT ALL of earth or lives in ALL LOCATIONS on earth.
Come on.

Con concedes:
"Maybe in some places the sun does rise in the west."

My response:
You've conceded that the sun appears above the horizon in the western part of the specified area the earth, which is on earth.

Con mentions:
"They are on Earth..."

My response:
Nice!
A concession to the point of "on earth."

Con contradicts themselves:
"but when the resolution says on Earth, it's specifically referring to everywhere on Earth."

My response:
Oh is it now?

Let's look at what Con said in the 2nd round:
"The resolution never specified where on Earth"

Now, though the resolution never specified where, Con claims "it's specifically referring to everywhere."
If it never *specified* anywhere how is it *specifically* referring to everywhere?
The truth is, the resolution doesn't specify where on earth, so ANYWHERE on earth suffices, just like earth is the planet on which we live yet we don't live on all of it.


*Conclusion*

This should be an easy vote for opt-in voters.
Con has conceded that the two locations are both on earth and that on those parts of the earth, the sun appears above the horizon in the western specified area and the sun moves toward and below the horizon in the eastern specified area.

The resolution has been affirmed.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
Why ON EARTH would you forfeit last round?
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
If you live ON EARTH do you live throughout all of it, David_Debates?
Posted by David_Debates 2 years ago
David_Debates
Unless Pro can pull out a stupendous argument in the final round, I think Con won this one. Effectively pointed out the hypocrisy of Pro's definition.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
All of the definitions are laid out for you to see, no tricks.
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
WOLF.J
John, its all apart of this ploy to get cheap wins, if it sounds suspicious, then he has a trick up his sleeve. watch yoself
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
If you think it's wrong then accept the debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
John_C_1812
I am not sure I understand the guidelines placed on the debate. Wouldn"t Con be given choice to establish the sun is traveling through space in a straight line?
Saying that the horizon is a fixed position to noon, which is not actual true anymore must be assumed in this debate as it is not part of the guidelines, and definitions given?
On earth the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east is not true.
At noon the sun will always rise in the North to South East and set in the North to South West. This is a mathematic law based on motion by degree set based on circular geometry, meaning it is a fixed mathematical outcome, and not a set truth or fact of science.

None of this information even coming close to describing or explaining that East and West are a magnetic orientation and will this position be seen as fixed to the inclination of only magnetic north. Will be saying East and West change if magnetic North changes? I"m assuming no?

I"m not sure if Rises in the West isn"t a typing mistake, shouldn"t it be the other way around rises in the East, sets in the West?
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
hahahah, well played
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
WOLF.J
"Eh. Can you tell me why you won't take this debate?", because I want to play mind games with you before I finally defeat you! MWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
So are you taking the debate?
Btw the definitions say appear above or appear below, no movement is described.
This debate has 0 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.