Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

RFD for debate: "The Earth is Flat"

Kescarte_DeJudica
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2016 5:27:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The following is my RFD for the debate: "The Earth is Flat":

S&G: Tied.

Conduct: Pro

Reason: Con makes a couple of remarks in Round Three which subtly insult his opponent's intelligence. "a harmful aspect of the flat Earth theory seems to be their denial of climate change (which has been proven by satelite imaging). They believe anything that doesn't follow their ignorant belief is fabricated."

Though it is indirect, Con appears to be saying that Pro's entire belief is ignorant, though no specific evidence is shown to prove that Pro is ignorant. Being wrong and being ignorant are not necessarily interchangeable terms.

"My opponent obviously believes in the spotlight sun garbage."

Again, just because something may be incorrect, it does not mean it is "garbage". Even if it is blatantly wrong, "garbage is a rather harsh and unnecessary term, especially if one wishes to present their argument in a professional manner without undue criticism.

Sources: Tied.

Arguments: Pro

"Curvature Argument"

Pro made the argument that mathematically, the curvature in the Earth is quite large, and should be more apparent than it is, if we indeed live on a spherical earth. While Con brings up the matter of the Verrazano bridge, and says that curvature is minor and cannot be seen accept from high distances, he does not offer any evidence that shows this, especially no mathematical equations like Pro.

"Gravity"

Con simply assumes that gravity exists, and uses it to support his arguments without showing any proof for why it exists. Why this might be acceptable if the BOP was on Pro, it was never specified whom the BOP belonged to, and so is by default shared. Pro points out that gravity is simply a theory, and must have proof to be valid.

"Solar Day"

Pro argues that the earth does not revolve around the sun at 360 degrees by the spherical earth model; rather, it revolves 361. He concludes that this is the result of scientists trying to make the spherical earth model "fit" into into scientific fact. Con's rebuttal to this is to ask how this proves anything about the earth being flat, and goes onto say that a day is 24 hours, not 8760, and that there are 4 seasons, not 2. However, he does not explain what this has to do with the matter at hand, he simply moves on to his next point. Thus, there is no clear explanation for his "rebuttal".

"Flight Patterns over Southern Hemisphere"

Pro argues that the rarity of straight, point-to-point flights are evidence for a flat earth, and the few point to point flights take long detours, supposedly out of their way. He also makes the point that there is no GPS tracking available for these flights. Though such detours make no sense on a spherical model, they make perfect sense on a flat one, he concludes. Con retorts that this ignores gravity, as on a flat earth, gravity would become like a steep hill. By making this point, Con again results to an appeal to authority on the subject of gravity, assuming that a flat earth must have gravity, though without showing why it must. As Pro is arguing for a gravity-less earth model, Con's point is invalid without proof of gravity.

Secondly, Con retorts that there are other reasons flights might take detours. Mountains, weather, etc. Pro retorts that Con presents no examples or proof of such an occasion, and claims that such an assumption is ridiculous due to the vast length such flights would go out of their ways to avoid such weather and mountains ("hundreds, if not thousands of miles out of the way"). Thus, Con's rebuttal is successfully rebutted, so to speak.

"Compass Argument"

Pro argues that compasses should have a harder time finding the north pole's magnetic field when they are near the south pole. Yet, they don't, nor do they point towards the ground, even though that is the most direct path to the pole. Con retorts that since Pro's earth model does not have poles (thus, no magnetic field), compasses don't prove the in-existence of a spherical earth. Pro then argues that since there are circular magnets, where the inside is south and the outside is north, there is certainly a possibility for a magnetic field within a flat earth model. This more or less successfully refutes Con's claims, so again Pro comes out on top.

Conclusion

Pro had a very strong debate, made solid points, and for the most part was on the offensive, arguing that various everyday observations provided far more evidence for a flat earth than a spherical one. Con, on the other hand, was more on the defensive, used an appeal to authority for the majority of his arguments, did not back up a few of his claims with sources, and generally had a somewhat weaker debate. For this reason, I give arguments to Pro.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to vote on this debate. I would enjoy seeing more debate from both of you in the future.
"Never thought I'd be sitting up at 9:20 at night discussing with a random stranger how to best acquire a goat carcass." ~Tree of Death

==================================================================

Check out my gaming channel if you are into that sort of thing:

https://www.youtube.com...
Stupidape
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2016 4:31:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
""Gravity"

Con simply assumes that gravity exists, and uses it to support his arguments without showing any proof for why it exists. Why this might be acceptable if the BOP was on Pro, it was never specified whom the BOP belonged to, and so is by default shared. Pro points out that gravity is simply a theory, and must have proof to be valid." Kescarte_DeJudica


This seems to be going too far. Expecting the spherical Earth side of the debate to prove gravity. If we had to prove every single scientific theory we would need more than 8,000 characters per debate.

Furthermore, it is readily apparent that the trains of thoughts between a flat Earth and spherical Earth debater are so vastly different, that is difficult to imagine having to provide evidence for such a commonly accepted notion. You might as well say, you have to prove humans exist or air planes exist. This is challenging very basic assumptions.

"used an appeal to authority for the majority of his arguments" Kescarte_DeJudica

You don't explain how RainbowDash52 used an appeal to authority for the majority of his/her arguments.
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up. A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 3,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?
"Heck, I probably could have argued better for the flat earth- KthuluHimself"

"Yes, I'm a pseudoscientists; I don't know what an experiment is"-Ramshutu

Time is Running out
http://www.npr.org...
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?
Edlvsjd
Posts: 3,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 10:57:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

That's why you think the horizon supports a spherical earth.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

The Antarctic treaty

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?

The same think happens on a flat earth.
"Heck, I probably could have argued better for the flat earth- KthuluHimself"

"Yes, I'm a pseudoscientists; I don't know what an experiment is"-Ramshutu

Time is Running out
http://www.npr.org...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 3,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 10:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?

http://www.askamathematician.com...
"Heck, I probably could have argued better for the flat earth- KthuluHimself"

"Yes, I'm a pseudoscientists; I don't know what an experiment is"-Ramshutu

Time is Running out
http://www.npr.org...
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 12:10:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2016 10:57:06 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

That's why you think the horizon supports a spherical earth.

What's why?

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

The Antarctic treaty

Is that some sort of physical law?

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?

The same think happens on a flat earth.

I don't see how.

I would bring up pictures from space, but we all know that's a hornets nest.
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 12:12:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2016 10:59:12 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?

http://www.askamathematician.com...

It's garbage.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 3,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 1:16:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2017 12:10:17 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 10:57:06 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

That's why you think the horizon supports a spherical earth.

What's why?

Because you need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

The Antarctic treaty

Is that some sort of physical law?

Do you even Google?

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?

The same think happens on a flat earth.

I don't see how.

I would bring up pictures from space, but we all know that's a hornets nest.

I could bring up pictures of me with a duckbill too.
"Heck, I probably could have argued better for the flat earth- KthuluHimself"

"Yes, I'm a pseudoscientists; I don't know what an experiment is"-Ramshutu

Time is Running out
http://www.npr.org...
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 1:26:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2017 1:16:19 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 1/1/2017 12:10:17 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 10:57:06 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/31/2016 10:07:50 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/31/2016 5:55:55 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 12/29/2016 7:44:43 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would just like to point out the absurdity of a flat earth; we would actually appear to be viewing a negative rise in the earth if it were flat. In other words I could see China, but it would appear as though China were on a slope up.

You need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

I don't even know what that means.

That's why you think the horizon supports a spherical earth.

What's why?

Because you need a lesson on the laws of perspective, and refraction.

You need a lesson on the laws of gravity and incommensurability.

A horizon exists because the earth is round, if it weren't there would be no horizon or rather there would be one at precisely the point where the edge of the earth declines from the entirety of the surface of the flat plane.

This makes no sense, but I see you bring up the most misunderstood concept of flat earth theory, the edge. Why would there necessarily be an edge to consider a flat earth? Even so, how do you know you aren't being kept away from it?

And what would have us kept from the edge of the earth?

The Antarctic treaty

Is that some sort of physical law?

Do you even Google?

I'm sure no one can break the law of "Antarctic treaty." It is probably as inviolable as the incorrect law of gravity.

Again a horizon is apparent only because the earth is round, how else do you explain a horizon that we can cross only to find a further horizon?

The same think happens on a flat earth.

I don't see how.

I would bring up pictures from space, but we all know that's a hornets nest.

I could bring up pictures of me with a duckbill too.

I would like to see it for one.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 3:55:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2017 1:26:04 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would like to see it for one.

The problem I have is that the shape of the earth isn't something that a debate can decide. The world isn't waiting to see what gets most votes before convulsing into the winning shape, although it would be interesting to watch that happen from orbit!

I think the 'flat earth' thing is amusing, but it's real value is to point up how much we depend on secondary and tertiary sources for our information. If I want to know the diameter of the world I look it up in google, I don't attempt to measure it for myself.

We do rely on there not being a huge conspiracy intent on hoodwinking us that the world isn't flat, and about so much else we 'know'. I've never measured the perihelion advance of Mercury. I've never actually seen Mercury, full stop.

I think its sobering to think just how much we take - how much we have to take - on trust. Of course I think that trust is justified - there is just too much information and it is too consistent to have serious doubts about things like the shape of the earth and the basic facts (and most of the not so basic facts) of science.

But a debate about the shape of the earth wouldn't be about facts so much as 'what sources do you trust more?'. If you want to be sure what shape the earth is, build a rocket and take a look, don't wait for the end of the debate because the earth doesn't care how you vote.
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:40:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2017 3:55:58 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/1/2017 1:26:04 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I would like to see it for one.

The problem I have is that the shape of the earth isn't something that a debate can decide. The world isn't waiting to see what gets most votes before convulsing into the winning shape, although it would be interesting to watch that happen from orbit!

I think the 'flat earth' thing is amusing, but it's real value is to point up how much we depend on secondary and tertiary sources for our information. If I want to know the diameter of the world I look it up in google, I don't attempt to measure it for myself.

We do rely on there not being a huge conspiracy intent on hoodwinking us that the world isn't flat, and about so much else we 'know'. I've never measured the perihelion advance of Mercury. I've never actually seen Mercury, full stop.

I think its sobering to think just how much we take - how much we have to take - on trust. Of course I think that trust is justified - there is just too much information and it is too consistent to have serious doubts about things like the shape of the earth and the basic facts (and most of the not so basic facts) of science.

But a debate about the shape of the earth wouldn't be about facts so much as 'what sources do you trust more?'. If you want to be sure what shape the earth is, build a rocket and take a look, don't wait for the end of the debate because the earth doesn't care how you vote.

I agree with you full stop on this one. Trusting authorities makes us stuff down our pride; I would rather put my faith in better and more experienced minds to answer questions I have no other evidence for. Not to harp on a scanned wound, but the evidence on this one is clear; photographs of earth are available. We can believe whatever we want to believe, merely believing does not make truth.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 5:21:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2017 4:40:51 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I agree with you full stop on this one. Trusting authorities makes us stuff down our pride; I would rather put my faith in better and more experienced minds to answer questions I have no other evidence for. Not to harp on a scanned wound, but the evidence on this one is clear; photographs of earth are available. We can believe whatever we want to believe, merely believing does not make truth.

This really comes to a head when it comes to the climate debate. My guess is that no-one on DDO has taken his own measurements of temperature in their garden for the last 150 years nor developed their own climate model for their PC.

We have no choice but to trust what other people tell us, unless we are going to base our opinions on our personal memories of what the weather was like five or ten year ago, and we all know how unreliable that sort of thing is!

Be clear - we have been lied to in the past. There was the nonsense about Saddams' WMD a few years ago. But it turned into a fiasco. Abraham Lincoln had it right about not being able to fool all the people all the time. Conspiraracy theorists like to think they are 'ahead of the curve' and able to spot such 'fooling' before the 'sheeple' do, but of course most of the time there simply is no fooling to spot.

We don't live in a post-truth world, but we do live in a post-trust world. We assume 'Everyone has an angle'. Climate change deniers are all shills of big oil and the scientists are all just looking for job security and bigger grants. Sometimes it seems we are not deciding between truth and lies but between big lies and, well, bigger lies.

Between them, media manipulation and prejudice have pushed poor old reason out into the cold - except in our particular case of course. It's only other people who fall for propagada, isn't it?
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 7:13:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2017 5:21:06 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:40:51 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I agree with you full stop on this one. Trusting authorities makes us stuff down our pride; I would rather put my faith in better and more experienced minds to answer questions I have no other evidence for. Not to harp on a scanned wound, but the evidence on this one is clear; photographs of earth are available. We can believe whatever we want to believe, merely believing does not make truth.

This really comes to a head when it comes to the climate debate. My guess is that no-one on DDO has taken his own measurements of temperature in their garden for the last 150 years nor developed their own climate model for their PC.

We have no choice but to trust what other people tell us, unless we are going to base our opinions on our personal memories of what the weather was like five or ten year ago, and we all know how unreliable that sort of thing is!

Be clear - we have been lied to in the past. There was the nonsense about Saddams' WMD a few years ago. But it turned into a fiasco. Abraham Lincoln had it right about not being able to fool all the people all the time. Conspiraracy theorists like to think they are 'ahead of the curve' and able to spot such 'fooling' before the 'sheeple' do, but of course most of the time there simply is no fooling to spot.

We don't live in a post-truth world, but we do live in a post-trust world. We assume 'Everyone has an angle'. Climate change deniers are all shills of big oil and the scientists are all just looking for job security and bigger grants. Sometimes it seems we are not deciding between truth and lies but between big lies and, well, bigger lies.

Between them, media manipulation and prejudice have pushed poor old reason out into the cold - except in our particular case of course. It's only other people who fall for propagada, isn't it?

None of us are immune to indoctrination, unfortunately with extreme positions it takes more contoversal evidence to prove one's claims. A person can literally believe anything they want. When it comes down to it the more absurd the arguments, the more unflinching one has to apply them. Some things to look for to see if someone is attempting to fool you, and perhaps themselves, is claims that don't appear to be accurate, double standards of evidence and reducto ad absurdism of conflicticting arguments.

If something seems to good to be true it probably is. For instance if someone says you won $100,000 dollars in a contest you never answered, it probably is fraud. Flat earth era could possibly be right, however the evidence needed to prove it goes against everything we know to believe.

The problem is we can know something, but we cannot know we know something. This is what conspiracy pushers prey on. Which is more likely; there is an Antarctic Treaty preventing people to go too far south, or people have been to the South Pole and have returned to tell the tale. People abiding by such s treaty seems much less likely than people have been to the South Pole. The less logical a theory is, the less likely it is to be true.

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