Resolved: The Earth is flat in physical shape
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Physical - "relating to things you can see or touch, or relating to the laws of nature:" [A]
Shape - "the particular physical form or appearance of something:" [B]
Earth - "the planet third in order of distance from the sun, after Venus and before Mars; the world on which we live:" [C]
Flat - "a flat, circular object:" [D]
[A] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/physical
[B] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/shape
[C] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/earth?q=Earth
[D] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/disk
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared
Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it - If you notice - my profile picture and name is in a red rectangle, if a position is against the stated resolution that rectangle will be red, if you are for the resolution the rectangle will be green.Do you then concede?
Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con
I will respond to my opponent's mistake -- I say the voters decide - which would you find the greater indicater of my position - the small description which I wrote in error, or the quite obvious red color of my profile picture with the words "Instigator/Con" on them?
It is clear then that if my opponent had actually read the description, or asked for clarification before accepting the debate this could have been easily avoided.
Why should I be punished be deleting a debate where I have already made an argument whenever my opponent is the one who made the greater error?
he admits that the earth is not flat, and took this debate out of error. There was no misleading, only an error, a single glance at the comment section will reveal that I had originally made this debate for RMM, with a different resolution, and I changed it to fit his preference -
If my opponent can't read more than 4 words that's his issue
- that my description was misleading
- that he made this exact same error
- the ACTUAL debateart TOS
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While 7 points can be justified, it risks a vote being labeled a votebomb. In this case it does not rise above that being a fair declaration.
Arguments are well reasoned.
Sources are borderline, but fair when factoring in the argument assessment.
Conduct is on thin ice, with the gist of it being a disagreement with pro's offered kritik (already well covered under arguments). This alone I would probably just call it borderline but let it stand.
Legibility is what seals the deal. How it is used here is clearly something the argument point is for, with there being no difficulty in understanding what his case (or lack thereof) was.
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.
• 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.
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.
Added: 7 days ago
Better spelling and grammar
Argument: Con presented clear evidence of Earth's physical shape as not being flat; his appropriate BoP as being a contender, though initiator of the debate. Thge best evidence, in my opinion, came from the lunar eclipse argument, demonstrating by shape of the Earth's shadow a full coverage of the lunar surface, rather than a single sliver of shadow across the Moon's surface were the Earth flat. By contrast, Pro never properly addressed his BoP, arguing instead, over four rounds that Con made an error in the short description of Theweakeredge being Pro; an error which, first, never appears in the debate page itself, and which, by Description and first argument, at least, clearly left notice to Pro which side of the argument Con was positioned before Pro ever had to produce an argument. Full reading of the debate information provided by Con, other than the erroneous Short Description, should have made clear to Con which opponent was to take which side of the argument. Con even advised Pro in R2, "Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it..." giving Pro ample opportunity to see the positioning in the debate and respond accordingly for the balance of the debate. Even given this clear warning, Pro continued arguing the posiitn structure of the debate, rather than the debate Resoltuion, itself. By clear default, Con wins the points.
Sources: Con offered clear, numerous supporting sources, even sourcing definitions sources, and then sources supporting the argument of physical shape of Earth. Con had no sources supporting no arguments for the Resolution. Con wins the points.
Legibility: Con's texts on all rounds were clearly understood. Pro's text were also understood as bering entirely off-topic. point to Con.
Conduct: Pro's error, even after being told in R2 that his assumption of position was wrong, continued in arguing the position issue, which
pro refused to acknowledge, and was entirely off-topic relative to the Resolution. If Pro was so certain his position should have been pro, he failed to offer a single argument for the Resolution. Poor conduct by attitude throughout the debate loses the point. Point to Con.
I make a habit of not removing tied votes, unless they're obviously melicious. In this case the vote gave good feedback, explaining why neither side came ahead in the eyes of that voter.
RMM - do you think I treat you like an asshole? Then I need you to take a step back and seriously question why I treat you like that - someone who I should agree with on a majority of subjects - and not Fauxlaw? Have you ever considered that perhaps *you* are at fault here? Have you ever considered that *you* are the one that are so intellectually dishonest I find myself angry at you for continuing on as if you've done nothing wrong? Have you ever considered that *you* are the fucking dick? I never assume I'm an angel, I do what I do to come to the most amount of good, that means fighting against transphobia, which means expecting nothing more than intellectual honesty from my interlocutors, I don't care if I'm not nice in the moment, that's not the point of what I do. So throw your tantrums all you like - I feel completely justified - the moment you take responsibility for the claims you make I'll start feeling bad, until then you stay on the shit list bud.
My vote here isn't troll but that vote I linked to, two posts below is irrefutably troll and malicious.
You just think because you're so pro-trans, pro-BLM pro-this pro-that,it means you can be as cruel and as much of a dick to other users as you please and get zero backlash.
You have one fucking delusional high horse you sit on. Start to question how you speak to and treat others before assuming you're an angel.
I am progressive too and support BLM and many other causes just as much as you. I also would never misgender a trans or queer individual nor tease them or passively sit by while someone else does.
You think your positions on topics give you some kind of authority to remove votes or talk shit on other users as you please. Fuck off, you are not some special god. My vote is absolutely valid and you didn't even report the other user who tied you guys for even less reason and poisoned the well one vote earlier than mine. You just think your anger and arrogance are some protective shield against all other users.
What? No - these were not "troll vote" you simply don't like it when I vote against you, but every chance I give you to explain why my vote was wrong you fail to explain. You calling me a "poser" isn't actually evidenced by anything, this is you having a vendetta against me because I don't accept your shit whenever you try to throw it at me.
Explain how my votes were troll, because I gave a *lot* of fucking reason why you lost that vote. You see - I even talked about how you almost won, but the only evidence you cited was *MOVIE SCENES*, how do you expect that to convince anyone? You should stop blaming me for your failings and just improve your evidence you show, you see - you've failed to actually account for the debate, which is extremely clear.
^ don't leave this vote and virtue signal about the sanctity of RFDs. You're a poser.
Weakeredge, you're looking for beef over an unrated debate where you genuinely screwed up.
You voted against me on a Rated debate where you wrote that kung fu was argued better than wrestling but you don't buy it because of some 'proof'. I accepted it. You voted on a debate I had against gugigor that I didn't obey some rule and lost a rated debate. That vote is still up there because Ragnar let your troll vote remain. I don't cry about it. I toughen up and adapt.
I asked you for a cancellation. I have even requested voters not to give me a win and call it a draw. If I thought I made a serious enough mistake to warrant actually losing I would say so. Fact is, "I did" read your short description. You are only guessing that I didn't. Also, you "cannot possibly miss" your short description. It is the first thing everyone sees. Just go to voting and look at the debate link you will see what I mean.
I'm not proposing that we do, I am arguing for what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the facts presented. Do you think we should give up on the truth merely because it seems inconsequential?
We can't argue about this forever.
No, that other debate is *evidence* that you are at fault. While I have never done this before, and therefore ought to be given the benefit of the doubt - this is the *second* time you've done this. It is clear that you are at fault here.
"Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation."
The voter in question deliberately made an appeal to who they thought would win without assigning a winner, and that appeal to who they thought was win was not at all thorough in evaluating the debate, thereby poisoning the well for anyone who would read the voting section in the future for or against this debate. To me the action is clear - one should delete the vote on the grounds that it is deliberately trying to poison the well, pointing to who they think ought to win while voting tie is simply a case in superficial rule-following, not to the interests of the rules themselves.
LOL reporting my vote
My other debate is totally seperate from this debate and circumstances seperate. To begin with on my other debate I noticed my error instantly and I "asked" for a cancellation. However with this debate with you I did not notice my error instantly and this is because I did not check the features as you had already wrote in your short description that you were Pro flat earth. I felt I had no reason too. It is mere coincidence that just the day before I made a similar error and has nothing to do with our debate.
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: zero
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
No - he did not read - you did not read either apparently - because I gave plenty of argument for his being wrong - and the fact that he has set a precedent of doing this before means that I WAS MUCH more justified than he was. You are just wrong here. He misinterpreted a clear coloring and labeling in the debate itself, because of a single mistake on my part - FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. which you never took - so if anything - I actually blame you for that.
Maybe it's spite, but I still fail to see you trying on the full BoP of your claims
As it was my first time back in a while I think what I have done is looked at the title, then the short description, and then seen the word Contender/pro in the green and due to a few tipples (i am over 18) have mistaken "contender" for "Con". That is probably why I did not contend at the time.
The debate may only be removed if both sides consent.
In future, I highly suggest discussion of any pro/con confusion (or other matters of clarity) in the comment section before accepting challenges.
Regarding requesting people vote: So long as it's not clearly slanted (such as 'hey, vote for me and I'll vote for you on one of your debates'), vote requests are allowed. Further, someone in a "friends" list here, does not equate to being real friends; heck often people who are listed here as friends outright dislike each other.
Which position have I changed?
You pivot awfully quickly, never defending your position if someone insists on it for long enough. Interesting.
You are right. I will never argue another debate again out of embarrassment if I lose a debate to a flat earther lol (I'm being serious haha).. no seriously. That is how bad it is. Arguing for flat earth? Errrr no.
What the hell? Are you seriously that conceited, no, he was acknowledging that trying to argue in favor of the flat earth is dumb, you wouldn't win unless you were a top tier debater, and no offence, but I haven't seen that from you.
And just to let you know I am not claiming a victory. I am claiming a draw. Votes for either of us should be removed.
Oh, that was undefeatable that made that comment. I see what he means now. So it was common knowledge you were "rigging" the debate.
Comments 7 and 8, its right there :\
I spoke to undefeatable about the positions? Errr I have not spoken to anyone about this. So you are mistaken. I have never spoken to Undefeatable about anything in my life. Been absolutely no contact anywhere. (I hope claiming no contact is not breaching confidentiality).
wow - first of all - to assume MisterChris and I are "friends" is reeeeaaaaallly stretching it. I could ask for Fauxlaw and Fruit_Inspector too if it would fit your fancy? But yes - it is pretty usual to use this section to ask for people to vote. Though I actually called out MC for your side of the debate, I thought he'd be more inclined to see your side - but also - I called Undefeatable because he KNOWS that you're being at least a tad dishonest, given how you talked with him about the positions.
Should the comment section be used to ask friends for votes?
The debate was a tad unorthodox, but I'd appreciate some votes, lmao
My apologises this debate wasn't for you - it was for someone else - and I was changing the resolution to meet their specificities, however, I would argue that you are at fault here. The positions in the debate itself CLEARLY dictate me as con - I do not consent to canceling the debate - this is the second time you have made this mistake and are clearly at repeated fault for doing so.
I claim another cancellation on the grounds that the Weakerage wrote in his/her short description that he/she was Pro "Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con". https://www.debateart.com/debates
That is what he/she advertised in the short description.
How is it rigged towards Con? Because its nearly a truism?
My past experience was good.
It was the fact I run my own business and need to be at the beck and call of my customers 24/7 that made debates impractical. But Covid has gave me some free time. And as embarrassing as it is going to be to lose a debate regarding the shape of the earth, I like to pay my way, but I forget where the donations page is. Where is it?
I'm surprised you're taking this debate essentially rigged towards Con, considering your past experience. Excited to see what ace you have up your sleeve.
That's my compromise bud.
- you say that my sources are "authoritc" but thats up to you to DEMONSTRATE why should anyone accept your claims if you can't even back up why we shouldn't trust the ones that say opposite. It reads more to me that you can't demonstrate something without semantics. You want to argue that "it's possible that the earth is flat", because you can't demonstrate the earth is actually plausibly round.
Tell ya what - I'll change a few things, not how you want it because that would be definitionally biased, but a compromise. You'll have to demonstrate more than the possibility - you will have to prove the flat earth if you want to win.
Truth is truth regardless of voting outcome. The same isn't true for debates. I also wouldn't do this even if it were unrated because at the true depth of the conspiracy comes things that aren't appropriate to type (especially not as now anything can suddenly be twisted to be a conspiracy about Covid, which is separate but too hot a topic).
I'd be much more open to an unrated debate about the feasibility of flat earth working physically (including me debunking newton's laws of mass vs force and gravity as an absolute truth).
If you're willing to have the debate where you prove flat earth physically unfeasible, I'd be open to it. This debate as it is now can't be won by Con due to bias and source authority.
And you should know by my debates that I am interested in arriving at the truth at debate. That is my win-condition
Firstly, a formal debate is about reducing your opponent's persuasion of the audience, not at all about persuading the opponent.
Secondly, I have taken debates and lost enough to tell you that I know when a debate is unwinnable or not (if both sides play correctly). You will win this debate because I cannot and will not type out deep conspiracy theories.
This is not the place to do it. If you want to discuss and understand me or any flat earther, you need to first do so in an environment that doesn't allow gaslighting or 'my source has more authority than yours' dynamics. This environment always favours the round-earther.
There you are - why not try convincing me in a debate? You can use solipsism, the bible, whatever you want to try to argue against the resolution - you have 120,000 characters to do that - I do believe that is sufficient, no?