Instigator / Pro
Points: 21

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

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
MagicAintReal
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Nature
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 19
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
Round 1
Published:
Intro

Thanks for accepting, Con.
I love to debate truisms that seem false...false falsisms I guess they're called?
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 and observe sunrises.
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 actually rises in the west (Los Angeles, USA).


*Sunset in Tokyo*

Tokyo, Japan is located in the eastern hemisphere of the earth.
The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness and observe sunsets.
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.

The sun actually sets in the east (Tokyo, Japan).


*Conclusion*

Therefore, to an observer on earth, the sun appears above the horizon in the western part of the specified area, the western hemisphere, and the sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the eastern part of the specified area, the eastern hemisphere, so I affirm.

Published:
If the 'East' of the Earth and 'West' of the Earth are what you really meant in your resolution and description's definitions then I will not only decimate your case from that angle but I'll further chip away until all that's left is regret for daring to troll a masterful debater as myself. Next time I accept your debate, debate properly or concede don't even attempt to make a joke of me and of debating itself with this approach.

The first thing I'm going to do is to point out that the 'West' of the map of Earth that Pro is clearly hinting at, is in fact closer to being east of the 'East' than Pro is making out. Now, there's no direct flights from the east of Asia to west of USA (I am not bringing any flat-earth theory into this, I'm stating facts) so what we find is they stop over at Middle East but what's quite undeniable, so long as we define Earth as the third planet from the Sun in the solar system support by NASA, is that Asia is, without a doubt, west of the Americas. It is also, indeed, East of the Americas if we want to be exact because the point here is it's both. So when Pro says 'East of Earth' or Eastern Hemisphere, Pro is coming up with a dichotomy that not even science supports. There's a Northern and Southern hemisphere on a Round-Earth, NASA-endorsed map because there's an 'absolute North Pole' and South pole whereby all points at the centre would theoretically be South and North (theoretically as we aren't taking into account the Magnetic north pole's distance from the centre of the actual North Pole and also because there's no magnetic south pole, again I'm not bringing Flat Earth theory into this, I'm stating facts endorsed by NASA).

The main reason we can say North vs South dichotomy is less relative than West and East is because of the Earth's Axis (but that again is an imaginary line, so it's all constructed in the end):

Axial Tilt

Some planets, such as Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter, have axes that are almost completely perpendicular, or straight up-and-down.

Earth's axis is not perpendicular. It has an axial tilt, or obliquity. Axial tilt is the angle between the planet's rotational axis and its orbital axis. A planet's orbital axis is perpendicular to to the ecliptic or orbital plane, the thin disk surrounding the sun and extending to the edge of the solar system.

Earth's axial tilt (also known as the obliquity of the ecliptic) is about 23.5 degrees. Due to this axial tilt, the sun shines on different latitudes at different angles throughout the year. This causes the seasons.

Uranus has the largest axial tilt in the solar system. Its axis is tilted about 98 degrees, so its north pole is nearly on its equator. Astronomers suspect that this extreme tilt was caused by a collision with an Earth-sized planet billions of years ago, soon after Uranus formed.

Axial Precession

Earth's axis appears stable, but it actually wobbles very slowly, like a spinning top. It takes Earth's axis about 26,000 years to complete a circular "wobble." This wobble is called axial precession.

Earth’s axis helps determine the North Star, and axial precession helps change it. Currently, for instance, Earth's axis points toward a star called Polaris. Polaris, which gets its name because it is almost directly above the North Pole, is the current North Star.

Polaris will not always be the North Star, however. The Earth's axis is slowly wobbling away from Polaris. In another 13,000 years, it will point toward the new North Star, a star called Vega.

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. There is a point on Earth where all points are South and this represents the centre of the Northern Hemisphere (obviously) and the same can be said for the South. On the other hand, no such thing is true for the 'Western Hemisphere' or Eastern one. This means the dichotomy Pro is relying on to win this debate is already up for questioning but my counter-case goes further than that. I am willing to play along with Pro's social construct and prove that when we talk about setting vs rising the ultimate 'rising' of the sun is on the East of Earth and the ultimate Setting is on the West. The way I am going to prove this is time-zones and what we did to make the socially constructed West and East operate with as equal daylight hours matching working hours as possible:

Let's start as to why time-zones exist and what this socially constructed Eastern vs Western hemisphere meant for the world:

Chronometers Changed the Game
The pendulum clock was developed during the 17th century. However, these clocks were not sufficiently accurate to be used at sea to determine longitude and for scientific time measurement in the 18th century.

In 1764, the chronometer was invented. Chronometers measured time accurately in spite of motion or varying conditions, and became popular instruments among many merchant mariners during the 19th century.

Clocks Based on the Sun
Even after the chronometer many towns and cities set clocks based on sunsets and sunrises. Dawn and dusk occur at different times, but time differences between distant locations were barely noticeable before the 19th century because of long travel times and the lack of long-distance communications.

The use of local solar time became increasingly awkward as railways and telecommunications improved. Time zones were, therefore, a compromise, relaxing the complex geographic dependence while still allowing local time to be approximate with mean solar time.
Now that we know time-zones were created to help travel far distances without us as a species and international business-relating unified world need to constantly get confused about when to estimate the sun being in the sky vs the local time where we were as well as activity of workplaces vs that as well.

Let's get more into the 'how' and 'what' of it all:

You see, there's a centre of the sun's movement which, again for socially suitable purposes in our social construct of a world run by humans, ended up being determined to be in London or essentially UK's time-zone is the centre timezone for the world because it was calculated that it's the centre of the time-zones judging by when and when-not the sun was over it and comparing it to the 'East Hemisphere' that Pro refers to as well as the western counterpart.

GPS Shows Different Meridian
Since everyone is running around with their own GPS tracker or mobile phones with GPS capability, a visit to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London may have become a slightly disappointing affair for some. The observatory is home to the Airy Transit Circle, a telescope designed by George Biddell Airy in the 19th century, which marks the location of the prime meridian, the line running along 0° of longitude, where the Earth's western and eastern hemispheres meet.

However, if you follow your GPS device to 0° longitude, you will end up a good distance away from the famous line marking the meridian in the observatory's Meridian Courtyard. So, have they been luring tourists to the wrong place for decades?

Not Wrong, Just Different
Yes and no. It is true that the meridian that runs through the observatory has lost its status as the world's sole reference point for longitude. Navigation systems such as the GPS now use the IERS Reference Meridian (IRM), which runs about 334 feet (102 meters) east of the observatory.

However, although the world is now using an updated version, the location of the prime meridian is not wrong as such—it's just a different kind of meridian. It is defined by the location of the telescope, which was originally used to measure the passage of certain stars to feed data into an astronomical coordinate system, which, in its day, served as the basis for global navigation and timekeeping. Since the location of this original prime meridian is defined by the location of the telescope, it cannot be wrong: it is always where the telescope is.

Arbitrary Location
To understand how there can be two different prime meridians, both being in the correct location for their purposes, it's important to bear in mind that meridians and longitudes are a human invention, so there is essentially no right or wrong way to place them. While latitudes are defined by the Earth's shape and movement—the poles at 90° latitude are where the Earth's axis meets the Earth's surface and the equator at 0° latitude marks the middle point between the poles—there is no natural reason for any longitude to be used as the prime meridian.

At the International Meridian Conference in 1884, with multiple candidates to choose from, that honor was bestowed upon the longitude of the Airy Transit Circle in Greenwich. Apart from serving as a navigational reference point, the local mean time at the Greenwich Meridian now also served as the basis for the global time standard, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), before being replaced by UTC in the 1960s.

So, as a result of all this, we ended up making it so that the Sun first rises on 'the Earth' in the socially constructed map, on the East (this is why Asia, Australia and such have the earliest welcoming of a new day around the Earth) and sets in the West of the socially constructed Earth and this is why the Americas have the latest 'goodbye' to a former day out of the whole world. 

All that aside, even if we go along with Pro's logic, 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 so Pro's resolution is defeated by Pro's own trolling.
Round 2
Published:
Round 2

Thanks for that, Con; it was fun to read.
I like how after all of Con's nonsense gish gallop, irrelevant and unnecessary citations, and childish chest puffing, Con ends up conceding any way.
So thanks for that, Con.


Rebuttals

So...I'm just gonna rip Con line by line. Enjoy.


Con childishly whines:
"I will not only decimate your case, but I'll further chip away until all that's left is regret for daring to troll a masterful debater as myself."

My response:
Or you could just man up and admit that you were had by an alluring and unexpected resolution.
But by all means continue with the compensation for an inferior case...



Con continues:
"Debate properly or concede don't even attempt to make a joke of me..."

My response:
Too late.
You were already made a joke of by having to defend the idea that the Japanese don't observe sunsets or that Californians somehow miss out on sunrises, plus I think you end up making the case that longitudinal coordinates don't exist, or something equally stupid, and this further makes a joke of you.



Con starts planning:
"The first thing I'm going to do is..."

My response:
Reference the agreed-to definition of "west" in the debate so as not to equivocate the word "west" with some other word, like its antonym "east?"



Con furthers:
"...point out that the 'West'...is in fact closer to being east of the 'East'"

My response:
Ugh.
You know you have a solid case when you start telling people that "west" is actually "east," especially when you've already agreed to the definition of both words, namely that they both denote western and eastern parts of specified areas, and, since the earth itself is a specified area and so are the conceptual constructs called hemispheres, running with this equivocation doesn't impact the resolution at all.



Con lies:
"Now, there's no direct flights from the east of Asia to west of USA"

My response:
Except for these nonstop flights from the Haneda and the Narita airport in Tokyo, Japan to LAX in Los Angeles, USA.
1. Delta 10h 30m
2. United 9h 45m
3. American 9h 45m
4. Singapore Airlines 10h



Con continues:
"I'm stating facts, so what we find is [flights] stop over at Middle East"

My response:
You mean to tell me that on all those NONSTOP flights, the flights STOP at the Middle East?
You're losing it Con.



Con admits:
"What's quite undeniable is that Asia is, without a doubt, indeed, East of the Americas if we want to be exact."

My response:
Ok, so then since Japan is an Asian country AND Con agrees that Asia is "east of the Americas," Con NECESSARILY agrees that Tokyo, Japan is in an area denoted by Con to be the eastern part of the specified area, the distance between the Americas and Asia.

So Con, do you admit that Tokyoites observe sunsets east of the Americas?
Sure sounds like you do.
Therefore Con agrees that the sun sets in the east, in the specified area that Con even corroborated to be eastern.



Con points out:
"We can say North vs South dichotomy is less relative than West and East"

My response:
I'll actually agree with Con here and say that West and East are more relative than North and South because of earth's objective axis, but denoting an eastern or western part of a specified area doesn't require any lack of relativity; relative or not, the denoted eastern part of a specified area would satisfy the resolution.
Con concedes the broader point of this later any way.



Con mentions:
"You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct."

My response:
I read this and I was like, "Yeah, point for me."
The fact that Con concedes that both the Eastern Hemisphere and the Western Hemisphere are invented and constructed by humans means that Con is necessarily saying that humans have denoted these specified areas as eastern and western, precisely in line with the agreed-to definitions of east and west.

Nothing in the definitions mentions that the specified areas have to be objective/lack relativity.
Tokyo, Japan and Los Angeles, USA are in specified areas DENOTED BY HUMAN CONSTRUCTION TO BE eastern and western respectively.
Thanks Con.

Con, at this point pastes swaths of quotations from articles that mention the movement of the prime meridian and the need for time zones, non of which have ANY impact on the resolution because they don't negate that Tokyoites observe sunsets in the denoted Eastern area and Californians observe sunrises in the denoted western area.

But the best part is Con sidesteps all of his case and concedes the debate.


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


Voters

Voters CANNOT ignore this concession and will have their vote removed if they vote for the side that conceded.
Thanks for conceding Con.
Published:
R = Round

In R1 Pro opens with:
I love to debate truisms that seem false...false falsisms I guess they're called?
I also love that scientific concepts can be looked at differently.
However, this is not a debate whereby I am Pro 'On Earth, the Sun actually rises in the East and sets in the West.' but is one where Pro on the inverse topic cannot afford to liquidate the meaning of West and East. Furthermore, I will fully explain how I conceded nothing about the resolution here due to the dynamics in the quote that Pro gives in the ending of their R2 arguments.

Do note, however, that when it comes to conduct you can hardly ignore the mockery of Con that Pro does which renders my R1 chest-puff all the less bad.

When the Japanese observe sunset, it is on the West of their maximal range of vision. It sets past the Western horizon and conversely rises up above the East. The rising and setting are defined as visual to the Horizon in the debate description, since I agreed to those definitions and only those, it's incorrect that Pro assumes I agree that setting or rising suddenly has to ignore which Horizon between the Compass-directions, is the one the sun rises or sets past. Nowhere in the debate so far has Pro negated that the Sun visually rises past the East Horizon apparently 'upwards' or at least diagonally/curved in such a manner and then sets 'downwards' into the Western Horizon. In fact, just to establish this as a fact I will bring proof. Note that it's not 'Exactly West' or 'Exactly East' since it fluctuates the precise angle throughout the year and such so my sources will explain how it tilts a little North and South in its 'crossing' of the sky but it's always on the Eastern side and Western side meaning that since I am Con to the resolution and not Pro to the inverse of it, Pro has to prove that it sets to the West and rises at the East since setting and rising are defined as 'visually on the Horizon' and not any absolute regarding Earth.

Imagine a tiny version of yourself standing in the middle of the wooden disk. And imagine that the outside rim of the disk represents your horizon. On Summer Solstice, you would see the Sun rise on your "horizon" at the eastern point of the longest track. It would follow the track high in your sky, and eventually set on the western horizon. It would be up for about 17 "hours", thus making summertime days long and warm. On the Winter Solstice, you would observe the Sun rising at the western end of the smallest track. It wouldn't rise high in the sky, and would be up for only about 6 or 7 hours, making your days short on daylight and cold. At the Spring and the Fall equinoxes, the Sun would rise at the east end of the middle track and set at the west end. Your days would be exactly half daylight and half nighttime and you would experience typical warm/cool spring and fall climates.
The Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all rise in the east and set in the west. And that's because Earth spins -- toward the east.

For a moment, let us ignore Earth's orbit around the Sun (as well as the Sun's and solar system's revolution around the center of the Galaxy, and even the Galaxy's journey through the universe). For the moment, let us just think about one motion - - Earth's spin (or rotation) on its axis.

Earth rotates or spins toward the east, and that's why the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars all rise in the east and make their way westward across the sky. 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!

Now, let's attack and reinforce our stance regarding this 'West-half of the Earth' and 'East-half of the Earth' dynamic as well as bringing that dynamic to win us the debate irregardless of its validity.

In R1 I explain how the "Western Hemisphere" is undeniably East of the Eastern part of the Eastern Hemisphere and how the inverse is true as well. What this means is that unlike North vs. South, there's no point on Earth where all directions you can take from that point are East and the same goes for West. It is, in actual fact, directly due to this that there ever could be a point on Earth where all directions point South and equally so for there to be a "South Pole" where all directions point North. If there were actually a West and/or East to Earth in any non-constructed manner revolving around the North Pole (and its inverse) then we'd have a West Pole and East Pole. Let's ignore compasses just for now as Magnetic North is quite a few km away from visual or 'true North' map-wise. Let's instead keep to a Globe's model and explore what North would be. When you go North on your map or compass that would operate in a world where magnetic and 'true North' are not some km apart, you'd essentially guarantee you end up on North. The point is that you'd get to a place where no matter where you move, everywhere points behind you when ti comes to the N (red arrow) on a compass. The same is conversely true for South but since compasses and magnetism is built around the North, you'd basically end up at a place where every step you take leads to the compass pointing in front of you towards N (which means it's saying you're moving away from South). Absolutely no such thing happens if you keep travelling West or East. You never ever will get to a place where this occurs. Consequently, if all four poles existed and there really was a West to Earth or East to Earth, you'd find the places where this phenomenon occurs (the compass points away or towards no matter where you move from that point to a direction) it would be North-East, South-West etc. that make the said positions instead of N-S poles or imaginary N-E-S-W poles. 

Aside from that, even if we play along with the social construct of a Western and Eastern hemisphere being remotely valid. In R1 I gave a backstory to explain that timezones are directly based on making international transport and business able to plan itself out and be efficient by operating when most humans are awake (or specialising in night-time flights) by making the world consistently dark at certain hours relative to the places that have that timezone and vice versa. What happens, as a result of both the socially constructed West and East Hemisphere and the socially constructed timezones based upon them, is that on all days of the year the sun rises on the East and sets on the West when it comes to the 'rising for the world' dynamic that Pro is trying to alter the definition to be.

When I say that if you are on the socially constructed Western Hemisphere, the sun both rises and sets for you everyday and that if you are on the socially constructed Eastern Hemisphere, the sun does the same, this is not me conceding the debate because it is Pro who has to uphold that it actually rises on the West and actually sets on the East and if it does both, this negates the resolution since I'm not Pro here for the inverse resolution but able to Kritik the dynamics and win on that alone since I'm Con/Opp.
Round 3
Published:
Wrappin' It Up

Well thanks for the debate, Con.
With Con's concessions, honest, thorough, resolution-impact-and-debate-definitions-considering voters with integrity shall have no problem with this.
If any voter DOES have an issue with being honest, thorough, and considerate of both the definitions and points that impact the resolution then their vote will be removed.
It is a site policy, that if a voter votes for the side that conceded, that vote will be removed.
Just be a good voter.


*Review*

All voters must reference the definitions, agreed to by both debaters, in the "Full Description" of the debate, in order to determine if the terms of the resolution have been affirmed AS THEY ARE DEFINED.
Therefore, voters must consider Pro's burden.

Pro has to affirm that 1) on the earth, 2) in a specified area denoting the western part, 3) the sun appears above the horizon to an observer, and, 4) in a specified area denoting the eastern part, 5) the sun appears to move toward and below the horizon to an observer.

This does not say that the words "west" and "east" modify the word "horizon," because "horizon" is not one of the resolution's terms.
The words "west" and "east" clearly modify the event of "appears above the horizon to an observer" not the horizon itself.



1. I gave two examples of places ON THE EARTH, Los Angeles, USA and Tokyo, Japan, and I provided a link to their sunrises and sunsets, but I will also supply their global coordinates.





2. Con concedes:
"You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct...I am willing to play along with Pro's social construct...I am going to prove what we did to make the socially constructed West and East operate...Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on it."
By Con conceding that the sun rises on the west, just as much as it sets on it, this satisfies #2 and #3 of Pro's burden and cannot be overlooked.
If it's the case that the western hemisphere is invented by us, then we necessarily DENOTE THOSE PARTS OF THE SPECIFIED AREA, THE EARTH, TO BE WESTERN.

How could we have a construct of western without indicating or denoting it to be western?
How is it that I can use these accurate coordinates above, with that big W representing West, to have everybody reach the same location (Los Angeles) on earth if this location is not denoting the western part of the earth?

By Con conceding "western" to be a human construction/invention, he concedes that the "western" used to describe the location of Los Angeles is being used to denote the western part of a specified area without any need for scientific objectivity.

Also, nothing in the definitions says ANYTHING about scientific, objective, or non-relative western, so that argument about objectivity, relativity, and all directions going north and south garbage cannot be used as it ignores agreed to definitions of denoting western.
Conceptual western is still denoting the western part of a specified area, follow the coordinates.



3. Con concedes:
"I say that if you are on the Western Hemisphere, the sun both rises and sets for you"
I mean this is just perfectly in line with the definitions, and affirms #3 quite clearly.
I agree the sun both rises and sets for everyone, no matter their location, so again, one has to affirm.
That the sun rises and sets in other locations does not negate whether or not the sun rises in the western denoted location.
All are indeed true.



4. Con concedes:
"The Japanese observe sunsets...Asia is, without a doubt, indeed, East of the Americas."
Since Japan is located in Asia, and Con concedes Asia is east, then for the specified area, Con concedes that the Japanese observe sunsets in the east.



5. Con concedes:
"if you are on the socially constructed Eastern Hemisphere, [the sun both rises and sets for you]."
Con admitting to the rising and setting affirm that, in the area denoting the eastern part of the specified area the earth, the sun sets in the east and Con openly admits it.



Last Bits

Con gets errant:
"The rising and setting are defined as visual to the Horizon in the debate description."

My response:
Nope.
They're defined as visual TO AN OBSERVER, check the definitions.
rises - appears above the horizon (to an observer).
sets - appears to move toward and below the horizon (to an observer).

Nothing in the definition says visual to the horizon and nothing says that eastern and western modify the word "horizon."
Therefore "the sun appears above the horizon to an observer in the western part of earth and the sun appears to move toward and below the horizon to an observer in the eastern part of earth" is true.
Con conceded this.
Twice.


Conclusion

I put in place many safeguards to shield this debate from crappy votes.
Voters CANNOT overlook the concessions made by Con and I've requested ensuring from and maintained contact with moderators about the integrity of the votes on this debate and how voting for the side that conceded warrants vote removal.

The sun demonstrably rises for Angelinos in the west and sets for Tokyoites in the east.
The sun rises in the west and sets in the east...just ask Con.
Published:
Boys, girls, ladies, gentlemen and all genderfluid variation as well as wild divas and savage beasts opposed to ladies and gentlemen... There's a topic at hand here:

Since I've already provided sufficient sourcing and elaboration I'm gonna stick to bullet point as I'd just be copy-pasting if I elaborate on the points.

This is a story-line of how Pro tried to trap Con into a troll-trap but Con maintained composure and didn't let Pro use abuse of semantics to win:

  1. Pro has to prove that the sun actually rises on 'the west' and actually sets on 'the east' on Earth. There is no 'East' or 'West' on Earth in absolute poles or hemispheres beyond social construct meaning it is not 'actual' at all. Thus, the only forms of west and east are either relative to your current position or socially constructed ones that hold the Greenwich Median as their centre and which timezones revolve around.
  2. In the definitions that the debate description has (which are the only ones sacred to the debate if a later one conflicts them since both debaters agreed to the description, not to later content) says that the West is the 'Western part of a designated area' and East is the 'Eastern part of a designated area'. Thus, following from 1, we see that every day in the socially constructed West and East, the Sun actually rises first and foremost to the Earth/world in the East (due to socially constructed timezones and world spinning anti-clockwise around itself AND ALSO anticlockwise around the sun according to NASA as previously shown, if you need a source for both here: https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/anticlok.htm, https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ1.htm#q26) and that the Sun actually sets on Earth/world on the West due to the exact same reasoning as why it rises on the East.
  3.  If one then points at me, Con, and says 'hold up, they don't actually count as there is no actual East or West on Earth other than relative to your position' then I win further as I point out the definition of 'set' and 'rise' are such that no matter where you are, the Sun rises on your East and sets on your West but that the resolution is what Pro has to uphold as absolutely correct and not incorrect.
  4. The Western Hemisphere is both east of and west of the Eastern Hemisphere which alone decimates Pro's case as Con wins if the Earth has no true West or East.

Added:
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.
#86
Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#85
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @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
Instigator
#84
Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#83
Added:
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.
#82
Added:
--> @Block19
It's ok!
#81
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
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.
#80
Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#79
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Sorry but I don't vote unless I'm a judge. I just don't care who wins.
#78
Added:
--> @BrutalTruth
Did you read the actual arguments or just focus on some words?
Contender
#77
Added:
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.
#76
Added:
--> @secularmerlin, @Mopac, @Paul
Would appreciate a vote here thanks.
Contender
#75
Added:
--> @ethang5, @blamonkey, @Logical-Master
Would highly appreciate a vote here.
Contender
#74
Added:
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?
Instigator
#73
Added:
I showed how the Japanese are not in the East and that there is no East or West of Earth in actuality.
Contender
#72
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This was not even a debate, it was more “who could provide the best definition for things.” Pro brings up a point, then Con argues that east doesn’t have to be west or something because it’s a social construct, and then pro just goes with that and it ends up as debating what’s north east south and west. Arguments to Pro because he actually made a valid point before it descended into semantic nonsense.
Sources go to Con. Con was providing sources like NASA and other reliable organizations while pro seemed to copy and paste his search history. S&G are tied.
Both debaters had poor conduct but since Pro kept calling out Con for “childish Chest puffing” and “Gish gallop,” this category goes to Con.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates. It's obvious Pro set up the resolution and definitions as a trap in hopes for an easy win. This is proven in round 2 when Pro said: "Or you could just man up and admit that you were had by an alluring and unexpected resolution." and "You were already made a joke of by having to defend the idea that the Japanese don't observe sunsets or that Californians somehow miss out on sunrises, plus I think you end up making the case that longitudinal coordinates don't exist, or something equally stupid, and this further makes a joke of you." Conduct thus goes to con.
Now onto arguments. I didn't find pro's twist of the definitions to be all that compelling. Pro's entire argument rests on the idea that people on the eastern hemisphere observe sunsets and people on the western hemisphere observe sunrises. I'm not convinced at all by this semantics.
Con jumps in on round 1 and argues east and west are relative terms and the hemispheres are social construct but blunders when he states "All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on [the west] and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
The resolution is "on the earth the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east."
The resolution states nothing about whether or not the inverse can be true or not. Con thus drops and concedes a major part of the resolution.
One of the biggest holes in pro's construct of the debate is that he fails to define the word in. Con should have immediately pounced on this word and define it as "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else."
If con would have argued that from an observer in Tokyo the sun appears to rise in the East, then he would have had a solid case. Because con fails to do this, he loses the argument.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to con: This debate was an exercise in semantic f**kwittery, it was presented as a reasonable debate, and as such it appears pro deliberately set up through the use of definitions and the specific rules to be excessively unfair to whoever accepts the debate. As such, this warrants a loss of conduct points. Bad form pro.
Arguments to pro. The individual definitions pro set up initially in the debate, almost tender the debate proposition tautology. Pro proves the locations are in the east and west, and by the chosen definitions, observers see the sun rise there. At this point pros arguments are merely reinforcing that tautology - there’s not a lot more to pros position other than arguing that Japan is in the east and LA is in the west. Pro establishes that with his sources and literally did not need to do anything else to establish the premise.
If con attempted to mount a poor defense primaril by haggling over whether calling. Japan and la as east and west - but as pro showed they are accepted as east and west by the definitions - he’s proven his contention.
Literally the ONLY way con could have won on arguments here, is if he had argued the definition of “in”, and attempted to argue that while the sun rises FOR observers in the east/west, the “in” refers to the direction of observation - which is always east/west. As con does not do that. He loses.
This was a horrible debate, and pro should feel bad about himself. If I could have awarded -5 conduct points I would have.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This had to be one of the overall "worst" debates I've read on this site. It wasn't amusing in the way you expect a troll debate to be, but although the instigator claimed it was a serious debate, it eventually collapsed into chaos more so than any other debate I've seen.
Spelling and Grammar: Tie.
There wasn't anything to write home about in this category.
Conduct: Bad all around... But a tie.
Before casting this vote, I asked a moderator if behavior in the comments section could be used to justify conduct points in voting. I was told usually not, so that made it more difficult to render a verdict on this category. Since Pro insulted me and tried to influence my vote in the comments, that alone would have tipped this category to Pro. But if the comments don't count, then this category falls to a tie based on what happened in the actual debate. Con accused Pro of trolling during his arguments in the first and last rounds. Pro retaliated by insulting Con repeatedly in round 2, as well as repeatedly claiming that Con forfeited even when he explicitly stated that he did not. It was poor all around.
Convincing Arguments; Tie.
Pro opened his argument by claiming that the widely accepted scientific fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a "false falseism" (which would be a double negative that seems to negate itself). He then 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. 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. Basically, the argument is clever wordplay based on the location of the hemispheres.
Con's rebuttal was to point out that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs. Unlike the Northern and Southern hemispheres which are based on the objective scientific fact that the earth has northern and southern magnetic poles. If the socially constructed hemispheres are ignored and we notice that the rising and setting of the sun are based on the rotation of the earth on it's axis, then we know that the sun will always rise and set in the same direction without regard for where one is located. As such, any argument based on the rising and setting of the sun which requires consideration of hemisphere must be scientifically irrelevant.
Beyond these initial opening arguments, everything else just became a mess as Pro repeatedly insisted that Con had forfeited and Con was forced to repeatedly deny this. Nothing else meaningful ever got accomplished. Ultimately, I feel this category must remain a tie because although Con gave an effective rebuttal of Pro's initial argument, the initial argument was really just wordplay to begin with and it wasn't really clear what was being argued at all. I think a tie may even be generous here.
Sources: Con.
This is the only category where points to one side are clearly warranted.
Pro both began and ended his argument with sources. However, it was never clear what those sources were meant to accomplish. Pro repeatedly used the examples of Los Angles and Tokyo, so in the first round he linked to a Google page showing the time of sunrise and sunset in those locations. However this debate wasn't about what time the sun rises or sets, but what direction these events take place in. The Google page Pro linked to says nothing about direction and thus fails to support his argument.
Conversely, when Con made any argument, he would provide a source (and often quote from that source) which explicitly said the same thing as the argument he was making. 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. As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro.
I have already been threatened with having this review removed if I voted against Pro in any way. However, before casting this vote I consulted with the moderators and received one on one coaching regarding how to ensure a vote meets all the requirements outlined in the rules. I cast this vote confident that it is compliant with the rules and welcome anyone who feels otherwise to report it and see what response the moderators provide.