Earth is Flat

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.

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: Both opponents had proper legibilty. Tie.

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

Both debaters have agreed to the definition of a "Flat Earth"
"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk."

PRO's case relies solely on a kritik on perception, that as the universe sees it we are living on a plane. Problem is, they've never challenged the definition above... CON of course challenges that we're talking literal geography. I'm buying this because if we're talking about the physical shape of the Earth as a disk as seen in archaic models, it's a given we're referring to literal geography. I'm also missing a reason from PRO as to why we would prefer the perception of empty abstract realms over the perception of physical actors, he only implies that we should.

Even if that weren't the case, the claim that the Earth specifically looks like a flat plane relative to the rest of the universe has a pretty high BoP that I don't think PRO even approaches fulfilling with their vague syllogism.

On the other hand, CON gives us some things to work with in his R1, including arguments about ships going over the horizon and NASA photographic evidence, that are intuitive and uncontested by PRO.

Args to CON.

Pro opens R1 with basically what you would expect a normal person would argue: to our perception, earth is round. However, there is no mentioning that it must be to our own perception, and as a result, Con’s mentioning that the universe is a flat thing resulting in Earth flat in the spacetime continuum or something like that. Con has the upper hand as it reasonably defeats pro’s traditional stuff.

Pro after R2 says that Con’s objective perception is wrong as it is oddly similar to “simulation”, which I don’t find sound at all. Then, he says that earth’s surface being flat doesn’t equate to earth being flat, which I find completely absurd as objectively in the universe, anything traveling like Earth would be flat as a whole, non-rebutted by Pro.

Pro ends by still struggling with our own eyes’ view, despite taking a fallacy of appealing to tradition, as well as ignoring that the objective view of the universe is valid. Con drags this away.

Overall, Con wins.

Con opens with a list of short and to-the-point evidences of Earth's curvature. Disappointingly, most of them have zero explanation but presumably following the links would lead to an explanation from an authoritative source.

Pro replies by completely ignoring these evidences and providing a formal syllogism. I do not say "logical" syllogism because it appears to be a complete non-sequitur, but who am I to judge? I am the voter, that's who I am to judge, and I hereby judge this argument completely incoherent. However, it lies on Con to refute the claim that Earth is flat according to objective spacetime.

Conveniently, Pro's sources are labeled with website names so it is easy to judge the reliability of them, but I shall not award source points since he did not maintain this style through future rounds.

Con highlights the fact his opponent ignored all his evidences, and displays some easily-relatable confusion at the "syllogism". Confusingly, Con goes on to concede that Earth's surface is indeed flat, although they maintain this does not prove Earth itself is flat.

Their warning about Pro taking the spacetime argument possibly too far, out of the bounds of the debate which prohibit appeals to simulation, is noted, but I don't think Pro has crossed the line yet since it's not clear that they've actually made any spacetime argument that transcends mainstream science.

Pro's first rebuttal is too hard to follow. They list 3 points but I don't know what they're supposed to be rebutting, or even what round they're arguing against; the ones they forgot in the first, or the second round?

The idea that gravity isn't a force, thereby proving Earth is not round, seems like another non-sequitur.

There appears to be another malformed syllogism consisting only of a single premise with a fallacious conclusion about velocity through time and straight lines that I can't make sense of. However, Pro does gain the upperhand by pointing out how Con has "basically" conceded with the "flat surface" concession. This I agree with.

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 do think the point about search results downplaying spacetime is an interesting take, but not exactly clear.

Pro has never accused anyone of lying so it's kind of presumptuous of Con to pretend otherwise. But this isn't important; what is important is that Con fails to even deny that he has conceded the entire debate with this "flat surface" concession. I am eagerly awaiting his explanation of how a globe with a flat surface can physically or logically exist, or at least a clarification that he was being hyperbolic and the surface is only "relatively" flat at small scales, but his is the last round so I fear such a clarification shall never materialize.

I am taken aback by Pro's closing syllogism A (if it can be called such). I have spent what feels like an eternity staring at the "Volume = sum of layers" argument trying to make sense of it but I am apparently not in possession of the necessary mental faculties to do so. The second syllogism (labeled B) appears to be a mere rephrasing of the first, except it's actually coherent this time. I don't it's fair to raise new arguments at this point, but they did reiterate and reemphasize how Con did indeed forfeit but admitting that Earth's surface is flat.

Arguments:
Pro attempts to argue that due to the relativity of spacetime the earth is technically flat, beyond the generally unimpressive argument, none of the sources cited by Pro support his conclusion; furthermore, Con easily points out the non-sequitur even giving us reason to not prefer Pro's unsubstantiated argument. Even more conclusively one of Con's round 1 argument: that mathematics demonstrates the roundness of the earth, is never refuted by Pro. Let's say I buy that all arguments from Con regarding how we perceive the earth to be round are incorrect, that does not account for the fact that we can mathematically arrive at the same conclusion.

Sources: Actually investigating the sources provided by both debaters, Con's sources directly demonstrate the claims he makes in the round - in contrast, Pro's only tangentially relate, and can only be interpreted to some of the positions he concludes. If you don't buy the first syllogism, then you can't even get that far. Con's sources actually provide impact and linkage for the argument, Pro's do not.