Earth is Flat

Thank you for refining your vote point allotments.

run-to-mod syndrome is a bit too extreme in this debate from both sides.

How the fuck is gish gallop even a possibly abusive strategy in a 500 character debate since you sacrifice so much in exchange for the many points?

You take away Conduct for gish gallop? I don't even factor that in.

I 100% stand by my vote but I will take away the conduct vote so this stays there as the reason for my decision is important for people to read.

Call it a Gish Gallop-lite if you wish.

The problem of any Gish Gallop is not about if the person offering it is right or wrong, or even if each bullet point is right or wrong, it's the style of argument. Certainly one could be done of chained fallacies, but it does not have to be.

"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

I wouldn't call it "Gish gallop" if none of the arguments were significantly flawed or fallacious. That would be like saying his Systemic Racism debate was Gish Gallop

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro (everything except legibility)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Good reasoning for arguments and sources, but the extra conduct award is excessive and getting close to vote bomb territory.

The extra conduct point is really unmerited given the character limit. Pro filled the first round with a Gish Gallop, if it won arguments fine, but to then penalize con extra for constructing a counter case instead of addressing each line it (of which any one would probably take more than the 500 characters)... Simply put, it's a low blow. This seemed enhanced further by really disliking their argument tactic, feeling personally offended they did not make the same flat earth arguments someone else would make; which would be impossible to wholly separate from how arguments are graded, such is understandable, but argument points are enough for that, conduct as well is overkill.

Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************

RationalMadman
Added: 8 days ago
#6
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
In this debate, Pro not only accepted the debate in 100% bad faith but did so lazily and in a humiliating manner not just to his opponent, no not at all, but to all flat-earthers. Too many clowns take the flat earth stance as a joke and misrepresent the logic within the theory, this goes beyond that and flat out humiliates the entire concept implying that Pro couldn't ever defend flat-earth theory itself so has to resort to nonsensical semantics to win.

On top of completely ignoring the debte description's definition of what the flat Earth model is, Pro furthermore claims Con has 'conceded' when Con did nothing of the sort. I take this personally, as I myself believe the Earth is flat and know just how much stigma there is against this theory because it indeed involves conspiracy theories regarding NASA and Roscosmos (other space stations all answer to them). I do not vote based on that bias, nonetheless I am telling you that I don't find this shit funny, it's debates like this that make people assume all flat-earthers are faking it or are morons, instead of that there are intelligent and genuine flat-earthers.

Con uses sources to back up every single point he makes, from that NASA claims to have travelled to space to even turning the satellite point against Pro (which Pro tried to weirdly turn against Con and used a NASA and Space.com source to back up flat-earth theory...) I don't know what more to say, Pro doesn't use sources close to as efficiently or without self-harm to his case as Con does.

Pro tries to make the debate about the Earth being curved in 'spacetime'. Spacetime is a concept strictly tied to round-earth theory and is based on us being in a massive universe with galaxies in it (such that lightyears exist as a unit of spacetime), as opposed to flat-earth theory that holds that the sky is largely an illusion and perhaps a destiny map with only the sun and moon being actual objects rotating around the Earth.

Now, I am aware this is me debating against Pro, it is therefore pertinent to notice that Con doesn't need to dismiss any of these ridiculous points because the debate description (which Pro agreed to upon accepting the debate) defines flat-earth model as the archaic model which I know is one with Antarctica as an outer edge/barrier and is by no means whatsoever a 'spacetime' semantic loophole.

Pro does NOT REPLY TO ANY of Con's arguments AT ALL!

He doesn't explain how refraction of light explains ships disappearing over the horizon (due to the 'falling effect' of distanct objects as they mesh with the ground up to a point of no distinction that's more blatant on sunny days due to mirage effects), in fact every single point Con makes in Round 1 hold true by the end of the debate because Pro is too lazy to address a single one in his (absence of) rebuttals.

This is not how to debate. I refuse to reward it.

"no scientific or scholarly source can debunk NASA."
That's because if it does debunk NASA, the writer gets fired and the company disassociates themselves with the article or removes it completely from view. You have a lot to learn.

My vote was reported for this?

"By Round 3 I've grown somewhat tired of trying to parse rebuttals completely detached from any context or information that would help understand what they are supposed to refute."

I was only remarking how difficult it was to understand some arguments, not that I actually skipped over anything.

I am not defending Flat Earth Theory, I am proposing that the Earth is flat, which it objectively is in spacetime, as well as the entire universe (depends on the rate of expansion). I don't need to address CON's arguments, because they relly on classical Newtonian physics that gravity exists as a force. CON actually conceded by admitting that "Earth surface is flat in spacetime".

Would you have rather liked the real flat earth theory to be discussed? If so, it would have been completely demolished. Defending Flat Earth Theory means to call all space programs a lie -- doing so would certainly lose the debate, as no scientific or scholarly source can debunk NASA.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Good reasoning for arguments and sources, but the extra legibility award is excessive and getting close to vote bomb territory. It's given for apparent confusion of a single word (while noteworthy in harming both his argument and sources, it is otherwise not an overwhelming mistake which made the debate harder to read). "It appears Pro is confused by his own source material" is clearly already penalized under sources, there's no need to toss extra points for anything at all related.

Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
**************************************************

fauxlaw
Added: 10 days ago
#5
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Con [initiator] presents 8 R1 arguments, all of which Pro fails to rebut in 3 rounds. Whereas, Pro offers argument “Gravity is not a force, in R1, but in R2 presents same argument with a citation that includes, “The force tugging between two bodies depends…” Tug, or pull, are forces, contradicting Pro’s argument that gravity is not a force. A non-supporting source of an opponent’s argument does not support, but combats an argument. Con may have used this source effectively, but as it contradicts Pro’s argument, the same purpose is achieved. Pro argued in R1 “P1: Moving in a straight line results in an orbit.” Con correctly rebuts that Pro’s source [1] does not say that, but the orbit is caused by a larger object’s gravitation pulls the otherwise straight-line motion of a smaller object [Newton Law #1] into an orbit, and not that the smaller object’s straight line inclination of motion creates the orbit motion on its own. Pro incorrectly argues in R2 the Con agrees in R2 “earth is flat.” Wrong interpretation of Con’s argument. Con said, “Earth *surface* is flat in space time, but does not prove that Earth itself is flat.” Con is clearly arguing against the flat-earth theory. Points to Con.

Sources: Con’s sources consistently support Con’s arguments such as Con’s 9 R1 arguments not rebutted by Pro. Pro’s conflict due to conflicting source use noted above, Con also wins source points.

Legibility: Pro provides one “logical proof” source [ScienceDirect] as a syllogism argument to “prove” an Con “concession” that used anisotropy as a basis for the argument. However, anisotropy is not a matter of consistency of an object’s property of shape, such as regarding a flat-earth. Rather, anisotropy is the property of an object which allows it to change properties, such as shape, in different directions of perception. It appears Pro is confused by his own source material, and, therefore, the legibility of his argument fails because it does not adequately describe his objective BoP of the exclusive shape of a flat earth. Point to Con

Conduct: Both opponents had proper regard for one another. Tie.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter seemed to find one side more compelling of a case, and cited in debate reasons for this. While not rebutting points is understandable in a 500 character debate, the voter being moved by a critical one is likewise understandable.

The only potential issue I'm seeing is labeling fallacies in a way that was not done in the debate. IMO this level of it does not seem to cross the line into outside content, as he's not generating his own arguments, merely using a shorthand for why he did not find one to be more convincing; which leaves it more in the realm of feedback to help improve future arguments.
**************************************************

Got pulled into something else, I'll get around to the rest of the reported ones.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Puachu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

Clearly the voter read everything and tried to be fair about grading it. That with 500 characters it was hard for him to follow it, is a fault which rests with the setup of the debate.
**************************************************

I've been procrastinating on handling reported votes...

While the premise may seem absurd, a casual glance at the arguments do not suggest it is a comedy debate or any other category of non-moderated debate.

vote bump

Thank you for voting.

Would you care to leave a vote?

thanks for the vote. XD

I am very interested both in the youth getting quality education and in whether or not the Earth is Round or flat.

This debate is concerning neither of these things, it is a means of flexing one's muscle at being more cunning than the opponent in a 500 char per round shitshow.

Voting on a 500-character debate that requires me to evaluate heavily source-dependent arguments? I'm not going near that one.

I'm more interested in anything than the flat earth hypothesis.

come on gang, what's going on? More interested in K-12 education than Flat Earth theory? XP

vote bump

I knew you weren't, but you never know.

giggity

I am simply a guy that wants to use advanced science to confuse random people.

So do you discribe yourself as a flat earther ?(someone who believes that the planet, Earth, is a flat disc)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flat-earther

This is for someone else. You are right, I have been reading too many of EtrnlVw's comments. I actually think you are an intelligent person. My point was 360 circles placed within each other, one degree apart would give the appearennce of a sphere.

You are right, I have been reading too many of EtrnlVw's comments. I actually think you are an intelligent person. My point was 360 circles placed within each other, one degree apart would give the appearennce of a sphere.

I am fairly certain that you have no proof my intellect is low. You merely are trying to make me feel bad.

Circles have 360 degrees. Additionally degrees aren't 'proven' by circling the Earth and then dividing it by 360, that is still proof it's circular, not necessarily spherical by any means of genuine deduction.

What's going on here? I made the same argument con made in my debate similarly arguing from 4th dimensional space. Doesn't pro make the same argument here that observation (shift of perspective) isn't the same as the actual reality? "Surface" =/= volume

Your low intellect doesn't allow you to see that if you can circle the earth from 360 circles 1 degree apart, you will see a sphere.

Care to toss a vote? Pretty short stuff

LOL.

Winning a debate about the shape of the Earth without contradicting science. This debate proves that no amount of logical flaws will make it impossible to win.

I understand how my arguments were incoherent, which was kind of the point.

volume = sum of layers ||||
This is a principle of geometry where the only way to REALLY know the volume of a non-perfect shape is to divide that shape into an infinite amount of 2d layers and then adding them together.

VOTE REMOVED: Pucachu

Pro completelyed ignored every one of Con's opening arguments with their first response, replying with a confusing syllogism that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. It's literally impossible for Con to lose, unless he goes out of his way to concede his opponent's viewpoint that Earth is flat.

Which incredibly, he does, by admitting that Earth's surface is indeed flat.

What?

In spite of all the incoherence and multiple non-sequiturs from Pro, Con never recovers from this grievous concession and I am forced to give Pro points for more convincing arguments.

Regarding sources, I'm disinclined to hover or visit every hyperlink to judge the veracity of all of them, but I'm almost tempted to give Pro source points just because he helpfully labeled them in the first round with the names of the websites. But I won't.

Reason: Requested by voter

He is so unlucky. People abusing relativity and quantum mechanics against his quest against old myths.

I noticed, I think Undefeatable is just tired, lol

For example, the source I used to "prove" that all layers of Earth have the same shape - that source also proved Earth is round. LOL. My arguments show a textbook example of how cherry picking "evidence" is effective enough to make CON concede without needing to do so.

I never proved anything, but due to the "reliability" of my evidence CON simply accepted the surface of Earth being flat in spacetime (which is not true btw).

Mmhm, your sources were reliable, yes I agree; however, they did not actually support your argument. Considering that this debate was so small in terms of character limit - your sources providing valid impact for your arguments were essential in proving your point.

My sources were definitely reliable.

However, as you point out, I had to cherry-pick them and connect them in an ambiguous way.

Lol, fun to try such a challenge.

Thank you for voting.

Thank you for voting

I think they give you a couple of hours to delete your vote and recast it

This is my first vote ever cast on this site and I made the mistake of submitting it before proofreading it. It has at least one embarassing typo and and I would have liked to flesh it out some more but that is apparently not an option.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
Con's statement of Ships disappear over horizon is proof of a curved surface. Airplanes have started in one spot on the world and flown straight until they were back at the same point. This shows that the curve is a circle.

>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a pure vote bomb.

To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************

It's definitely a vote bomb. I'll take care of it soon.

I am reporting both because I fully understand flat-earth theory and because the vote is simply unacceptably short and blatantly a result of confirmation bias.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2838/vote-links/6424

I report FLRW's vote (I have had my ability to 'click-report' removed) and I report it because not only is it entirely insufficient to even begin to justify the 7 points (let alone the 3 for arguments) but because it highlights a classic bullshit tactic of round-earth proponents against the flat Earth's physical plausibility.

A plane will end up where it began on a circular flat Earth that has Antarctica as an outer edge (rather than an island).