Instigator / Con
21
1709
rating
25
debates
88.0%
won
Topic

Resolved: The Earth is flat in physical shape

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
6
Sources points
6
4
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
3

With 3 votes and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
16
1544
rating
25
debates
54.0%
won
Description
~ 761 / 5,000

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

General Rules:
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

Round 1
Con
RESOLUTION: The earth is flat in physical shape
POSITION: Con


OPENING STATEMENT: I will be brief, we have overwhelming evidence against the resolution, there is no reason to drag this out. We know the shape of the earth due to: Navigation, Lunar Eclispes, Video Footage - that is quite impractical to fake do to expensive amount of paperwork, etc, etc - how phone’s gps work, how internet signal bounce, and how come you can’t see Texas from Oklahoma. 


INTEPRETING (THE RESOLUTION): The planet, which we live on, is a circular object the nature of relating to things we can observe of the physical form. So - that the earth is not round, that it is circular or disk like. Notice specifically that the definition provided in the description is something which is like a circle - I simply  must demonstrate that the earth is not flat.


CONTENTION I - OBSERVATION:

To begin my argument, I will use the things we can readily observe to prove the shape of the earth. If the earth was flat, then the entire planet would be viewable from one position given the topography lines up - that means that from a beach or a gulf - one would be able to see the other side - as the elevation is roughly the same across oceans- sea level- however, it is impossible to simply see these faraway locations- even though we can see the Sun, which is 92,955,807 miles away [1], we can’t see something much closer - across an ocean something which is only 200 miles away. 

The size of the sun is around 860,000 miles in diameter [2] - dividing it by how far away we can see it and we get 0.008 of a mile, I am essentially taking the distance which something is viewable and the size of the object, and dividing the size of the object by the distance viewable, therefore attaining a ratio - 0.0089 miles in diameter for one foot - or around 40 feet. So multiplying that foot by 200, we get anything is viewable which is 1.7 miles in diameter - yet, even from the highest point in Egypt, unless you are in a radius of 20 miles from the Pyramids, you are unable to see them. Yet, from the Gulf of Mexico - you are unable to see the offshore oil rigs which are much closer than 200 miles and quite large. 

If the earth was flat, we would be able to see these places and objects - as only topography would be hindering you - and this is assuming a lot - after all, we can see stars and planets which are light years away - so that ratio would be a lot smaller - this is overestimating it. Moving on, the case of Lunar Eclipse - these phenomena occur whenever the earth, sun, and moon are aligned in a straight line, where the Earth blocks the light of the sun which casts Earth’s shadow over the moon [3], which has never failed to be round [4]- if the earth was a disk, then the shadow on the moon would have to be a straight line across the Moon, yet we can see the round shadow slowly overtake the moon, proving that the earth cannot be flat. 

Finally, navigation, the reason why we have GPS is because of satellites above the earth providing vantage and receivers for your devices [5] - if the earth was flat, then these things would not orbit, as the footage of them proves them doing - they would have to encircle [6] [7]. A single one of these contentions would be enough to demonstrate that the earth is not flat, but I have three (and many many more) ways that easily demonstrate the non-flatness of the earth. 


CONCLUSION:
I have more than fulfilled my burden of proof. 


SOURCES:

Pro
I've taken on another one of those debates where a poster argues against what is written in the title.
I will have to watch out for this in future. 
Round 2
Con
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?
Pro
Theweakeredge wrote in the short description that he/she was Pro

Theweakerage wrote...
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?
Theweakerage is indeed in red as Theweakerage says. However I do not concede, as Theweakerage actually made a huge error him/herself in his/her short description, which matches the title perfectly, and that error was to advertise that he/she was Pro for this debate.
Therefore I continue and claim a draw, or offer a cancellation based upon the fact that Theweakeredges short description was misleading, and as Theweakeredge is a reliable and honest trustworthy person and debater, I had no reason to doubt his/her words or double check.

Theweakeredge wrote...
Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con

Link to the The trustworthy Theweakeredge's description here www.debateart.com/debates

You will notice that the short description is the first thing anyone see's, and Theweakeredge has quite clearly announced himself/herself "Pro".

The earth is flat in physical shape

Theweakeredge's title says "The earth is flat in physical shape", and the short description says that Theweakeredge is "Pro" for this statement.

Why do I conclude from this that the error was the one made in the short description? Perhaps the error was announcing himself/herself Con instead of Pro within the Parameters of the debate? 

Either way, why should something as misleading as what is written in the short description be allowed to warrant a debate?

I claim that Theweakereddge should either agree to a cancellation, or be applicable to either drawing or even losing the debate on the grounds that Theweakerage wrote that he/she "is" a flat earther.

Whether or not he/she is indeed a flat earther or not is not the issue. It should not have been written anywhere and certainly not in the short description.

Short description is very important

What is written in the short description is very important as it contains the information that the contender is agreeing to. And that is what I agreed to.
Round 3
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? Furthermore, this is not the first time my opponent has made this error - in fact - another debate has already been canceled because my opponent did not read anything more than the short description. 

If my opponent is unable to read further than a short description, my opponent should not be accepting debates - the fact of the matter is that Nevets has made the greater error in greater number, therefore my opponent's attempt to argue that my position was "misleading" is obviously wrong. Point to me the part of TOC which states that the short description HAS to be in concordance with the debate itself? My opponent has conceded his position - 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 - so every other piece of evidence would SUPPORT that I simply made a single mistake, one which is not really impactful.

If my opponent can't read more than 4 words that's his issue
Pro
Theweakeredge admits to an error - terms and conditions

Theweakeredge wrote...
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?
So you do admit to an "error", yet you do not agree to a cancellation? Quite simply I am as good as a new user on here. I was a new user when I first turned up, had some quick debates and then had to go for personal reasons. 

However when I first return after one year I see a title that reads " The Earth is flat in physical shape" and this title is "supported" by what is written in the short description then I have reason to believe that you are a flat earther.

Had your title not been supported by the short description, which contains the terms and conditions of the debate, then yes, I would be at fault. But this is not the case.
You have "explicitly" stated in the terms and conditions that you are a flat earther, and therefore your very own terms and conditions. 
T&C cannot be ignored.

I also argue it is not a small error, and I am not arguing over absurd definitions. This is not an absurd definition, you have blatantly included in your terms and conditions that you are "Pro" for this debate.

If you wish to continue you better start providing some evidence which supports your title, and your terms and conditions, because what is written in round 1 does not.

I should have asked for clarification

Theweakeredge wrote...
 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.
But we are not talking about an absurd definition, nor something that could be misconstrued.
You actually wrote in your short description that you are pro flat earth and I am con.
So what we have is one error each. Not only this however, but what is written in your short description is supported by what is written in your title.
I understand it was an error, though a hard error to make, and you were not trying to be deceitful, however you should then also accept my error, and do the right thing and accept a cancellation, because I am not out to damage your reputation over an error, so you should not be out to damage mine, over an error. Errors happen.

Greater error

Theweakeredge wrote...
 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? 
Theweakerage is wanting to turn this in to an argument over which is the greater error.
The greater error would have to be what is in "writing".

Is what is written in the short description any less important than the what is chosen within the parameters?

Theweakeredge claimed to be a flat earther in the short description and this was supported by the title of the debate. Therefore Theweakeredge has made two errors to my one.

My other debate

My other debate is nothing to do with this, and in my other debate I held my hands up to my error and I offered to continue.
This is different however. My other opponent did not write anything that contradicted what was written within the parameters. And nor did I claim such.

RMM

Theweakerage wrote...
 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 - 

This has nothing to do with me. I am a new user back after one year and refamiliarizing myself with the site and your debate was amongst the first I came across, with a title which announced you are a flat earther and a short description which supported this.
I do not know your history, do not know your slang nor short cuts, and nor should I be expected to.
I genuinely do not know anything about your previous debates or comments to be able to "know" that you made an error.

If my opponent cannot read more than four words that is his issue

Theweakerage wrote...
If my opponent can't read more than 4 words that's his issue
Nowehere have I insulted my opponent nor suggested that my opponents error is due to anything else other than an error.
Round 4
Con
My opponent has dropped :
  • that my description was misleading
  • that he made this exact same error
  • the ACTUAL debateart TOS
My opponent seems to think that the short description means more than the actual POSITIONING SECTION of the debate itself. Again - this makes no sense - my position is clearly indicated by it's bright red color and obvious words of "Instigator/Con" - which my opponent has also dropped. Again voters, it comes down to whether you believe he or I made the greater mistake, and it clear that the one who has done this before and his ONLY supporting evidence that I was pro on this issue is that the short description said so - which is a relatively minor error given the ACTUAL POSITIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 

My opponent wants to make a big deal out of the fact that the resolution was in favor of the flat earth; however, the fact of the matter is that people write debates all the time which they take the negative side of a resolution they made - sometimes its more helpful to do so for their opponent. Again - it is simply not plausible for anyone to believe that the short description is a greater indicator of my position then the OFFICIAL POSITION in the debate. My opponent did not see fit to read anything in the debate, and so he suffered on the wrong side. 

I'd like to ask the voters a question then - should we allow people who "accidentally" accept a debate resolution that is unfavorable to them to simply cancel the debate? Of course not - it is the responsibility of the accepting debater to thoroughly read the debate before accepting - if they accept the debate, then they are accepting the positions which have been indicated by the red and green boxes respectively - they are agreeing to debate the resolution in FULL. If we allow this sort of precedent to be set, then any debater who is in unfortunate position would be allowed to opt out, but I would argue that is quite harmful to the integrity of this website.

The fact of the matter is that my opponent did misconstrue my position - he took a look at only one thing which highlighted my position and nothing else - it is much more clear that the color red and word "Con" is more attention-grabbing than a small description - my opponent would have to deliberately immediately click on the accept debate button, and not read a single thing in order to make such a mistake. My opponent even responded in the comment section where I had clearly indicated my position, my opponent had every opportunity to notice but did not do so - this is entirely on my opponent. 

My opponent is in the wrong, and has already conceded his position - the earth is not flat.
Pro
Debatie title - The Earth is flat in physical shape
Short description - Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con
Position - Con

The short description does not match the position.  Theweakeredgealso had no reason to write this in his/her short description as it would already have been included within the parameters of the debate description.

I have not offered to concede this debate, and Theweakeredge should have included in his first round argument, and argument which supported his original stance. And that was 75% pro flat earth and 25% round earth.

Theweakeredge has completely failed in his/her round 1 argument his/her concerns regarding the round earth theory which made him/her include in his/her short description that he/she was Pro flat earth.

Theweakeredge due to this error should have agreed to a cancellation and it was ungentlemanly not to.