Instigator / Pro
21
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#274

On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
3
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
1
4

After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

MagicAintReal
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1702
rating
569
debates
68.1%
won
Description

*Rules*

1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.

2. All votes *must* have thorough reasons for voting.

3. Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased.

4. Death23 and his related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate.
------

*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*

on - physically in contact with and supported by.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/on

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/definition/earth

sun - the star around which the earth orbits.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sun

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

rises - appears above the horizon (to an observer).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rise

west - denoting the western part of a specified area.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/west

sets - appears to move toward and below the horizon (to an observer).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/set

east - denoting the eastern part of a specified area.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/east

Block's RFD:

It is clear that this debate was meant to troll anyone willing to participate in it. The debate topic was ridiculous prima facie and i can not see how a serious point could have ever been made from either side. This was made clear throughout Pro's arguments and i must take those statements into account when voting in the over all debate, however I will try to be as objective as possible when it comes to awarding points.
Points for convincing argument: (TIE) I can not award either side full points for their arguments due to the simple fact that neither had an argument that was good or serious enough to convince me that their argument is in anyway more valid than the other. It is exceedingly difficult to make a serious argument on a ridiculous topic.
Reliable Sources: (CON) While the merit of both Con's and Pro's arguments are dubious at best, Con did manage to use sources that have a reputation for being reliable, objective, and substantive in his argument; and did so in a way that didn't muddy up his stance.
Spelling and Grammar: (TIE) Based on my understanding, in regards to spelling and grammar, i can not categorically state whether or not one side's was significantly better then the others.
Conduct: (CON) When engaging in an amicable debate it is imperative that both sides refrain from using devious tactics which could taint the overall debate. This is especially true when it is the sole reason for instigating a debate. Debates should be used as a method of exchanging ideas in an effort to grow both parties understanding on a given topic. However even though Con seems to have accepted this debate in good faith, it seems that Pro's original intent was simply to score points. Neither side benefited from this debate and that is a fault i attribute to Pros conduct and therefore must award this point to Con.

-->
@Block19

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to show the conduct violation was "excessive." Sources was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to analyze any source in particular and as the voter failed to make any comparative statement regarding each debater's use and/or quality of sources.
************************************************************************

-->
@David
@bsh1

Weird, two people in the last two days have both put up a vote on this debate, and for both of them it's their only activity...
Block19
BossChick_23

-->
@BossChick_23

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con for arguments, sources, s/g and conduct
>Reason for decision: cause yeah
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************

I have nothing against MagicAintReal, we had a very pleasant conversation before i cast this vote and must ask that people not judge his character based on this one debate.

-->
@Block19

It's ok!

-->
@David

I apologize for the way in which i submitted my vote. I was informed after i posted my vote that i did so in a way that went against the rules of this forum.

-->
@Block19

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for decision: Con addressed both sides of the issue properly and behaved more honorably than Pro did when they instigated this discussion. Con also used better and more objective sources, for these reasons i have awarded the following points.
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

Sorry but I don't vote unless I'm a judge. I just don't care who wins.

-->
@BrutalTruth

Did you read the actual arguments or just focus on some words?

I read Pro's opening argument, and immediately understood that he's a troll, and then read the beginning of both Con's opening argument, and Pro's R2, and realized they're both ad hom trolls, and this debate is useless and unworthy of reading, much less voting for. Good day.

-->
@secularmerlin
@Mopac
@Paul

Would appreciate a vote here thanks.

-->
@ethang5
@blamonkey
@Logical-Master

Would highly appreciate a vote here.

Well this is not replying to anyone specific, though it may seem directly relevant to things that have been posted here, I assure you it is not, but if Con were to have shown how the japanese are not in the east then why didn't the voter mention that?

I showed how the Japanese are not in the East and that there is no East or West of Earth in actuality.

-->
@Block19

Hey person I just first talked to in the comments section of my debate on Conifers being superior organisms to humans.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your vote and explain how Con showed that the Japanese don't experience sunsets...

-->
@Castin
@bsh1
@blamonkey
@whiteflame
@Logical-Master

Would be interested in your votes here. Cheers.

-->
@RationalMadman

"To Raltar, and myself, there is genuinely a direct link between what my source said and what I was getting at."

This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:
"Just observe the following video in the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct whereas Northern and Southern hemisphere are arguably undeniable so long as the Earth is as presented to us by NASA."

You get source points for this video because "when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that*

This isn't misinterpreting.
This is just someone trying to vote your side arbitrarily and making up points where there aren't any.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Between the two of us, I was the one who manned up by accepting this debate and fighting it how I did. We both know who the coward was here. I don't think you respect people's ability to interpret (and misinterpret) things. To Raltar, and myself, there is genuinely a direct link between what my source said and what I was getting at. To me, there's a direct link between there being no actual East or West area of Earth to 'be in' and the resolution being proven false via Kritik.

To three of the four voters, my angle was too weak, to me it was indomitable. I am not here crying about them.

-->
@RationalMadman

I repeat the vote:
"when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that***."

The link you just gave, which isn't the one you gave for "social constructs" in the debate, only mentions axis and never mentions anything socially constructed or the word hemisphere.

Man up, sir.

-->
@MagicAintReal

You are quoting a source I used to add to it, the source he's referring to is this:

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/axis/

which has in it proof that only north and south are actual poles or 'the north' or 'the south' actual dichotomy-relevant things to consider on Earth.

-->
@RationalMadman

No I'm serious.
If he gave you source points for linking to something that said EXACTLY "the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs" and your link did none of the sort, then why can't you own that and have him remove the vote.

-->
@MagicAintReal

You have 3 voters lying for you since they don't understand how I won by liquidating there being 'the west' or 'the east' so between the two of us, you're not the one who should be salty.

-->
@RationalMadman

I want you to know that Raltar lied and I have the proof, please be honest about it and ask him to not vote.

Your boy Raltar said:
"For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says *exactly that*."

Are you aware of the source you provided for that?
Do you wanna make a bet if it mentions social constructs?
I do.
Here's the link that says "exactly" what you said about social constructs.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html

Man up and admit he's lying for you.

Also not mentioned in that vote, shockingly!

Con:
"All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on it and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."

Con doubled down on this too.

Vote:
"he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."

What Pro actually said:
"The sun appears above the horizon in the west because observers, who live in Los Angeles, live in the west and experience sunrises everyday."
"The sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the east because observers, who live in Tokyo, live in the east and experience sunsets everyday."

Now, I couldn't figure where the voter had gotten this idea of *facing* the sun, as I NEVER used that at all in my argument, and I found it.

Con, NOT Pro had said R2:
"Suppose you are facing east - the planet carries you eastward as it turns, so whatever lies beyond that eastern horizon eventually comes up over the horizon and you see it!"

Then I decided to look in the comments, and there it was, biased voter spouting HIS reasoning to not vote arguments in the debate ,not based on the performance of the debater.

Voter in comments after vote:
"I reasoned that if I were standing on the beach in Los Angles and looking at the sunset, *I would be physically facing*the direction west, but would also be looking across the sea to where the Eastern hemisphere."

Not Pro's args voter!

Oh this is not directed at anyone.
But let's examine one of the votes and the debate and see if they match up.

Vote:
"Pro built a very brief argument that the rising and setting of the sun has a different perspective depending on if one is located in the Eastern or Western Hemisphere. "

What Pro actually said:
"The people who live in California, Californians, witness and observe sunrises.'
"The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness and observe sunsets."

No perspective was ever mentioned by either debater ever.
"To an observer" is a reference to the definition the voter was supposed to understand and gauge the debate with.

I'll agree not to talk to you, but I just want to know why showing coordinates are not proving the veracity of my claims.
That's all.

-->
@David

Fair enough then. Still, my vote was found to be compliant with the rules. So I would appreciate not being further harassed about it by Pro.

Virtuoso was not calling it a troll debate in his official capacity as a mod. This is not a troll debate as it does not meet the definition to be one.

-->
@Raltar

"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." -Virtuoso
A moderator has already declared this a troll debate. According to the rules, troll debates aren't moderated.

I really should have worded my RFD better. I was calling it a troll debate from a voter/reader POV and not necessarily from a vote moderation POV. That being said, we do look at the rules to determine what actions to take. In this case the rules stated:

Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased

Thus for purposes of vote moderation we will see it as a normal debate.

-->
@Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Raltar

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Declan25

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Declan // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: Pro uses very unreliable sources while Con uses resources like NASA. Con provides good reason for his debates and explains it through science. The was bad conduct on both sides so I am leaving that a tie.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently ground both sources and argument points. To award sources points, the voter must explain the impact of the sources on the debate, which they do not do. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments of the debate and weigh them to produce a decision. The voter does neither of these things. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter must explain the impact sources had on the debate, must survey the main arguments, and must weigh those arguments to determine a winner.
************************************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman
@David
@nmvarco
@Declan25

Final point I'm going to add here;

"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." -Virtuoso

A moderator has already declared this a troll debate. According to the rules, troll debates aren't moderated.

I could have written "Con eats dog lips and drinks kool-aid" as my rationale for voting and it wouldn't matter. The same goes for the votes cast by Declan25 and all other voters. Con aught to be happy that at least some people are treating his debate seriously and giving serious votes. Instead, he wants to argue with and harass everyone who casts a vote he doesn't like, which shows what kind of scheme he is running here.

-->
@Declan25

You should really explain why you're ignoring Con's concession, twice done in the debate, and you should really explain all of the points that impact the resolution per the rules of the debate.

-->
@David

Hey everyone including moderators, this is the private message I sent Raltar that made him block me:

"I don't necessarily want you to change your vote, but we need to talk about some of your reasoning for your vote, and I'll give you the option to talk about it here or in the comments."

That's all I said.

Once Raltar became public about blocking me, our private conversation became public, and now we can all see why he is actually running away...he knows his vote is flawed.

Ok, well let it be known that all I did was ask to talk to Raltar about something in his vote and he is choosing to run away.
I'm asking Raltar nicely to please explain why he doesn't think coordinate sourcing was appropriate, after all he gave Con points because "As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."

Why does the time of the sunset not prove that Japan experiences sunsets and why do coordinates with the western denotation not support my point according to Raltar's vote?

I'm asking nicely, so if you run from this, you're admitting dishonesty.
Moderators, take note.

I would like to point out a few things which were said about this debate in the votes;

"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." (This comment was from a moderator too!)

"This was a horrible debate, and pro should feel bad about himself. If I could have awarded -5 conduct points I would have."

In comparison to comments like these, what I had to say in my vote was downright complimentary!

In spite of that fact, 'Magicaintreal' is still harassing me and has now escalated to sending me unsolicited private messages demanding I talk to him. As such, I'm adding him to my block list and will no longer respond to this comment thread.

-->
@RationalMadman

You did well for your position, I must admit...applause.

-->
@RationalMadman

MADMAN is supreme.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Even when I lose the crowd screams "MADMAN is supreme."

-->
@Raltar

"Rising and setting of the sun which requires consideration of hemisphere must be scientifically irrelevant."

Where in the definitions does it say that rising and setting are based on hemispheres?
If you cannot find it, you must change your reasoning.

-->
@Raltar

" As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."

Did you address my sources for coordinates on the eastern and western hemispheres indicating they were west and east?
You can't see how showing that the sunset occurred via the time it occurred is bolstering the point that in that location the sunset occurs?
How else would I have sourced a sunset in Japan?

Also, in your reason for voting, you lied about my argument.

"If I'm understanding his obscure argument correctly, he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."

Dude, this isn't even close.
I never said anything about facing any horizons, you made that crap up.
All i said was that people IN THE EAST observe sunsets and people IN THE WEST observe sunrises. It's really simple and you know that.
What did you think I meant by Tokyoites seeing sunsets?
I didn't mention which way anyone faces.

Why did you ignore the concession from Con?
Or at least why did you not address what he said as impactful?

-->
@Raltar

well, thanks, I have no shame in this debate tbph.

-->
@RationalMadman

Seriously though RM, don't take what I said the wrong way. Usually you are the guy pouncing on the noobs and getting an easy win, but this time you really did some poor noob out there a favor by fighting this trap rather than letting some other person fall into it. And you fought it well. I still think you won on the basis of sources if nothing else.

I mean, notice that Pro is suddenly no where to be found now that everyone is wise to his scheme. It honestly looks like some variant of this approach is his central strategy in every debate, where he wants to nitpick the definitions of words and the way they are used, rather than address actual scientific or philosophical issues related to the issue.

-->
@Raltar

If I focused on 'in' he'd say you are located 'in' the East or West I didn't make a single mistake in this debate it is just people process language different to me, I assume. I believe 'actually' means something different to what most do. Even the definition supports the way I see 'actually'.

-->
@RationalMadman

I didn't say you were an idiot or suicidal. I legitimately think you did a good job. And after thinking it over more, I also agree with you that Pro was trolling.

His overly aggressive act of threatening people with reprisal from the moderators was part of the game too. I actually feel bad having "fallen for" that part of the troll by assuming he was serious, when he knew he was BSing me all along.

Seriously, you did us all a favor by taking this one on. Can you imagine what would have happened if a new debater ended up in this mess?

-->
@David

In round 2 i do exactly what you say i didn't do