Instigator / Con
21
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Topic
#2949

Resolved: The Earth is flat in physical shape

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
16
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Description

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

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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. Pro had no relevant arguments for the Resolution, and no sources for any arguments relevant to the Resolution. Con wins the points.
Legibility: Both opponents offered legible text. Tie
Conduct: Both opponent’s conduct toward one another was good. Tie.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

LOL! This is unrated so I feel less pressure to leave it as a tie but I'll leave it as a tie anyway.

I will tell you why it's a tie. I actually buy Nevets' counterargument more. The CoC of this website (or ToS or ToU whatever) do not truly mean the to-the-letter hierarchy of what voters value. After all, abusive descriptions at times are upheld by voters and punish the contender, at other times the opposite.

In this instance the instigator was screwed over by his own lack of foresight as Nevets had a huge justification for assuming he was Con and that rather than the short description being erroneous, he easily could justify (and did justify) assuming the red vs green was an irrelevant error on Theweakeredge's part.

If Nevets had offered a single argument in favour of the Con side, he would have won this debate had weakeredge not countered him, in my eyes.

He unfortunately did not.

Both sides played dirty. Therefore Conduct is tied.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This debate is quite odd because Nevets argued he should be able to claim a draw -- but only in round 2, rather than noting the strange difference and proactively looking ahead over time. I would argue that it is equally likely that you would accidentally select pro while you are con, as well as forgetting to change the short description. Therefore, Nevets should have taken it upon himself to notice this difference early on. I find it rather odd that he didn't comment before accepting, or question why the selection choice of position differed from the actual positions.

I'm tempted to give conduct points to Con because Nevets took action later than necessary, but accidentally wrong debates are often rare and I think he was not certain what to do.