Instigator / Pro
0
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Topic
#2992
Flat Earth is physically viable/plausible, if space agencies are lying (especially NASA and Roscosmos)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
4
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1760
rating
92
debates
77.17%
won
Description
Plausible and viable mean that nothing about it is impossible or self-contradictory. It doesn't mean that it has to match things like gravity or the standard world map's southern hemisphere's proportions (especially of Antarctica).
Round 1
Con
#2
Thank you, RationalMadman, for having this debate.
I wish you good luck, may the better debater win.
Reaction to the forfeit
PRO forfeited 2 hours after last having logged in. I wish PRO would have at least explained to me what model of Flat Earth he supports. As he has made crystal clear, he is of the opinion that Flat Eart Society is somehow infected by false flat earthers, imposters working to ridicule the real flat earth theory. Not only does he believe in the conspiracy theory of a flat earth, he believes that the proponents of the conspiracy theory are themselves conspiring against it. Basically, PRO goes one step further in the conspiracy scheme.
Not only did he uncover the lies of the government, but also the lies of those lying about the lies of the government.
This leaves me clueless as to what he actually supports, as Flat Earth Society is literally the only group willing to claim the Earth as flat. Speaking for myself, I have a severe lack of faith in PRO's ability to find sources that don't contradict his belief. Regardless of this obstacle, I demand PRO send me the model of Earth he is willing to debate. A picture, a description, some clue as to how PRO perceives the flat earth, the sun and other important objects.
KRITIK
PRO, through the nature of his belief, asserts that all space agencies are lying and that all governments are lying. I just cannot see how that would be possible. How long can the government hide a bad decision before Wikileaks eventually gets the documents out, how long can space agencies farm money from the government and rich people before the lie becomes an economic impossibility? Scientists discover the nature of reality, quantum mechanics, and alike. How long until they prove that the earth is flat? Knowing that the answer to these questions isn't "forever", how would anyone intelligent enough to make this complot be stupid enough to continue lying? The answers to these questions seem to be more important for human society than this particular debate. They reveal either the stupidity of humanity as a whole or the severe lack of reasoning behind the flat earth theory. PRO's belief in a double conspiracy seems even more illogical. As far as I am concerned, nobody who isn't a madman should believe in flat earth theory. I understand that PRO has his reasons, and won't continue dismantling the conspiratorial part of PRO's position.
INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:
Flat Earth is physically viable/plausible, if space agencies are lying (especially NASA and Roscosmos)
We can divide the resolution into a resolution and a rule:
- Resolution: Flat Earth is physically viable/plausible
- Rule: CON can't use any evidence collected in space
This is the most forgiving interpretation for PRO. Not only does he avoid CON proving the validity of space agencies (destroying PRO with a Kritik), but it also removes the entire field of science that is traditionally used to disprove flat earth theory. However, the interpretation needs to take into account more than this division.
Plausible and viable mean that nothing about it is impossible or self-contradictory.
Self-contradictory: consisting of two contradictory members or parts
This is simple to decode. Physically contradictory means that you describe reality using physical forces that contradict each other. If the physical forces needed for flat earth to be true are self-contradictory, it means that they would not be able to maintain their stable state. If the same force doing x prevents y, and both x and y are needed for flat earth to exist, then the flat earth is physically self-contradictory.
Impossible: incapable of being or of occurring
This is harder to decode. "Incapable of being or occurring" cannot be easily defined. At least we know one thing, we are talking about something that is "physically" impossible. Appealing to aliens, god, the matrix simulation, magic, fifth dimensions, doctor who or any other form of non-physical force is not a valid way for PRO to prove the resolution. He must show why physical laws (that aren't contradictory) can explain how Earth works and exists as flat. Failing to do so will leave flat earth theory as merely a conspiracy theory with no actual theory about the shape of the earth. Remember, an hypothesis has to fit experimental data to be called a theory.
It doesn't mean that it has to match things like gravity or the standard world map's southern hemisphere's proportions (especially of Antarctica).
The problem with this appeal by PRO is that he asserts that the flat earth doesn't need to be our earth. I strongly disagree. The flat earth must account for what we observe. Accounting for observations is literally the defining difference between what is and isn't physically plausible, the defining difference between science and mysticism. PRO, or his sources, must show that the flat earth can account for our reality. If it can't then flat earthers are the ones denying the truth, not the government or Nasa.
I will summarize and conclude
CONCLUSION -- HERE ARE THE INTERPRETED GUIDELINES FOR OUR DEBATE:
- PRO is the maker of claims and the bearer of BoP.
- Resolution: The flat earth can account for our observations, without being physically impossible or based on self-contradictory physics.
- Rule: CON can not use the evidence collected in space
- Rule: PRO cannot appeal to forces outside our realm, like a god or alien simulators.
- Definition of PHYSICS: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions
I hope all voters can agree that this is the fairest and most accurate interpretation of the debate topic.
I wish PRO good luck.
Round 2
Con
#4
Unfortunately, PRO has once again forfeited. Luckily, he sent me this picture in the comments: flat-earth-model2. Please take a look.
Since PRO has not made any arguments as to why this is physically possible, I have nothing to rebut. I will thus initiate my argument.
ARGUMENT 1 - NEWTONS LAWS OF MOTION [1]
Newtons laws have been attested and proven true through centuries. These laws are still being used today, a testimonial to their validity. My source has this to say:
Newton’s first law states that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. [Britanica - ibid]
In other words, movement doesn't change unless a force is exerted. In the image that PRO sent me, the sun and the moon hover above the Earth like a UFO. This is virtually impossible. If the sun and moon are made of matter, they have mass and would fall down like literally anything else. Even if they could hover above the Earth, their velocity would not change and they would crash right through the "bubble" that is the universe in PRO's perception of the world. Furthermore, PRO fails to take into account such a basic fact as gravity. If PRO's model is true, the universe would collapse and crush us under its weight. As a result of these absurd predictions that PRO's model necessarily makes, it becomes dubious to assert that this model is even trying to describe OUR earth as opposed to the earth as described in ancient text like the Bible.
ARGUMENT 2 - DISTANCES AND MOVEMENT PATTERNS
The distance between the sun and the earth suggest that planes would be able to study the sun and moon when flying above the clouds. This phenomenon must necessarily occur for PRO's model to be plausible. I challenge PRO to show me footage of this phenomena. If he can't do this, his model is essentially making false predictions, meaning it is exposed as a pseudoscientific theory and not even possible in theory. The movement patterns of the moon also don't make sense. And good luck explaining how solar and lunar eclipses occur without affecting the tides.
ARGUMENT 3 - MOVEMENT OF LIGHT
PRO's model asserts that the sun is in close proximity to the earth and that the surface of the earth is always facing the sun. However, we know for a fact that the surface of the earth doesn't always face the sun. This becomes apparent in the day-night cycle and how the sun rises and goes down in the horizon.
CONCLUSION
I have no words. PRO's model does not make the slightest sense whatsoever. It is neither viable nor plausible, and it definitely requires self-contradictory physics or magic.
The resolution is thus proven false.
I eagerly await PRO's response.
SOURCES:
Round 3
Pro
#5
For now, I cant bring myself to put the effort into this debate. Of every 9ndebates I put effort into, 6-7 go unvoted ties even if I stomped the opponent in general. That's mg current ratio for the past 20 or so. It's brutal and tiring.
Not at all, just tired and busy with other debates and things.I also don't think thsi will get decent votes. It's extremely annoying to oht all the effort in for no-vote ties. I'll address this later when I've had more time to anakyse voters. I definitely want to save arguments for then. I also noticed innthe past that people's brains are sonhardwired to peeceive things like sun and moon rotating as the Earth itself spinning as well as us being onnthe ground as proof of gravity that I am struggling to forn the new wording that makes the eureka moment happen. I also may want to earn money for it if the writing is that good so I may save some of my drafts for later on.
If you do actually care about the topics DM/PM me. I've posted before about this on forums so there'll be some posts to read and videos to watch.
Con
#6
A 16-year-old can look at a picture of the flat earth and point out physical contradictions, impossibilities and false predictions. The flat earth theory is seriously over-rated by PRO, but in reality, it doesn't meet any standard for viability. The resolution was proven false by me, and PRO is not willing to defend this absurd model of Earth at this time.
I am the victor of this debate.
Thank you RationalMadman for your efforts.
I wish you good luck and I look forward to debating you in the future.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Another issue is Crocodile's and TheWeakerEdge's takes. I feel I'd put the effort in and they'd say I didn't prove it was flat. At this point, this is not the debate worth investing effort into put of those I'm in.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Over 40% of the debate was forfeited by Pro. Con was present for all.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con was the only one who had arguments.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con has provided arguments regarding Physics to point out that the flat earth model wouldn't be physically possible. Pro hasn't got any arguments at all.
Pro gave up. Con didn't. It is all that is needed to have the win given to Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
What had potential to be a good debate failed miserably, and both opponents had issues. Forfeiting the first two rounds [and effectively waiving the third and fourth by entry of extraneous verbiage neither in support of, nor negating the resolution, is a virtual full forfeit by Pro in my book.
While Con does offer evidence negating the Resolution, and that evidence is actually plausible and viable in both R1, R2, and I therefore declare that, in Argument, Con has successfully defeated the Resolution, also providing valid sourcing supporting the arguments, and, therefore, wins the debate, Con also offends in R3 and R4. IN R3, Con declares victory with a round yet to be completed. An infraction in my book, but there is no actual voting policy to support that conclusion. However, in R4, Con steps over the Conduct line by taunt regarding Pro's next "3K debates." This was ill-advised and unnecessary, particularly in a debate in which it would be a stretch to say Pro participated. As these factors do not specifically apply in a declared winner vote, in these regards, my comments outside of argument stand as merely casual commentary as a cautionary tale for both participants in future debates. Con wins the debate.
The debate that Benjamin asked to engage in was that he firmly believes the flat earth theory itself is contradictory and implausible. I have not deceived or dodged anything, he and many round earthers believe that. I am handling that specifically in this debate.
You are angry about nothing, I didn't even do anything to you yet you have been nonstop hostile to me the past few days.
Sure.
Here you arguing that the flat earth is PLAUSIBLE - not that it exists - but that its a POSSIBILITY. Then, you added on a stringet "Especially if NASA cant be trusted" yet you didnt at all word it to include that within your BoP. It seems to me like you can't actually PROVE that the earth is flat or that NASA can't be trusted
I don't understand what you are even saying.
Is plausible? And you want to get uppity about biased debates? Are you seriously that unselfaware?
how many do you want, it will become extremely in-depth as we clash on many points and explain things.
30 000 characters
are you kidding me
your debate's wording and structure seems very strange to me, I will prefer this topic and dynamic. I have left it as an open challenge.