Instigator / Pro
0
1697
rating
556
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
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
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
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).

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.