By the 19th Century, Evidence Already Showed Earth is NOT Flat
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Pro and Con cannot use any evidence from after the year 1900 MD. I will prove the Earth is NOT flat using only proofs from before 1900, therefore making it impossible to rely on NASA.
Burden of Proof is shared.
Con must find evidence to the contrary that these ideas could not have been replicated before 1900.
NPFE = Not possible on flat earth
- Ships disappear over horizon NPFE (Far-reaching telescope-like lenses were invented before 19th century)
- Greek mathematician proved with different shadow length at time of year gives 7 degree curve of earth, and approx. circumference. NPFE.
- Great philosopher Aristotle also argued for the spherical earth, using the following ideas [Aristotle section]:
- Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere.
- Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
- The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.
- Even Medieval scholars: "...unanimously agreed that the Earth is spherical or round".
- Ferdinand's circumnavigation NPFE. To add upon this, Sir Francis Drake also successfully circumnavigated.
We can use discoveries after 19th Century began to analyse their evidence's actual capacity to 'show'.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Ships over horizon and all related phemonenon would (or do) occur on a flat plane.
Regardless of Earth's shape, things further away appear to move 'down', the sunnier the day is the closer and/or clearer the horizon appears (think of mirages),
Sources to help illustrate the illusion (first source has an excellent explanation):
Lunar Eclipses merely mean the moon is out of the sun's light-range, it doesn't prove the Earth is in between. Now, I'd like you to consider an eclipse that happened, it shouldn't on a Round Earth.
To help you envision the physics and shipping routes on a flat Earth as well as Sun/Moon rotations see the following:
The rules stipulate that neither debater can use evidence from after 1900 (or events that occurred after 1900 and cannot/were not replicated before such). Con has violated this rule; please deduct conduct points from him and ignore his argument. Con has failed to address any of my proofs. Extend them.
Even if voters buy con's argument, a non-NASA website explains how this occurred, stating "Due to atmospheric refraction, we can also observe the Sun and the Moon even if geometrically they are slightly below the horizon. Atmospheric refraction raises celestial objects close to the horizon upward by about 34 arcminutes or 0.57°. In the case of our lunar eclipse, atmospheric refraction raises the Sun, and the Moon upward by 0.57°. To simplify things, we add it to the figure of the dip of the horizon above." As you can see, con's argument is nonsense.
The rules stipulate that we can't use evidence from after that. However, if we aee to analyse what the evidence from before it shows, we need to be able to analyse it to the fullest extent.
If evidence from before a certain year showed you that a lie was true based on your misinterpretation of exactly what it showed, what then did it actually show you?
This debate is being held in 21st Century, we are analysing evidence from before 20th Century (the title implies before 18th but the word is 'by') to see whether or not it actually showed the Earth is not flat.
I am saying any and all interpretations of what was seen and happened failed to rule out a flat Earth, if people erroneously thought it didn't, thatst due to their ignorance, not due to what rhe evidence actually showed or didn't show.
What Pro is doing is called a red herring fallacy. Even if my evidence were espunged from my Round 1, the rest of the reasoning remains and Pro hasn't answered it. Circumnavigation works regardless.
Con says that the ship over horizon and very far things could give the illusion of moving down on a flat plane, but ignores the fact that extremely powerful telescopes would be able to see them -- yet they are unable.
Con thinks the lunar eclipse is impossible but doesn't tell us exactly how it's impossible, or how it counters Aristotle's reasoning or the atmospheric refraction explaining the strange sun-and-moon appearance.
Con also ignores Eratosthenes' proof, perhaps the strongest evidence because it also measures the circumference in addition to proving the roundness (NPFE)
Con claims that the circumnavigation process would still be possible under the flat earth assumptions, but even sailors in modern day would still use similar routes as details in the past (except slightly improved) in order to complete the circumnavigation. The extended length of navigation merely by going a few kilometers to the south means that the radius would be unacceptably massive, extending the circumnavigation by days, weeks, or even months! (Example image)
Evidence that Pro says proved (or 'showed') the Earth was flat:
- Things merge into the horizon and appear to go over it, espeically noticed with ancient ships.
- Ships also proved that if you keep sailing in one direction you go around the equator (or some equivalent axis to it more north of it) so there appeared to therefore be no edge and if we presumed the South to be identical to the North (since only the North was where full circumnavigation occured), it would lead one to presume a globe.
- Greek scientists and mathematicians hypthesised that certain angles of shadow implied curvature (this is identical in reasoning to point 1 and requires one to assume that Earth's curvature is at play, not simple refraction and perceptive illusions).
To counter the second, I provided a couple of images to help you envision both how the sun and moon work on a flat Earth and how circumnavigation is just as viable in the North as in a globe (even same proportions).
The rest I explained were illusions.
to be fair, this was not a direct challenge, but a trickier version of my last debate in case someone like Benjamin wanted to accept.
I am not as malicious as I seem -- think of me as a trickster.
Umm... this: "If you seriously want a debate with me on an in-deptg topic don't add asinine rukes and traps character limits." I gave you that opportunity you didn't take it, don't make excuses when you've literally been given everything you wanted and still refused to engage. Plus, its the principle of the matter.
I am not debating against you here so what does that matter?
Don't pull that shit bud - I gave you that opportunity and you failed to even try to accept it - don't think lying will go unnoticced.
If you seriously want a debate with me on an in-deptg topic don't add asinine rukes and traps character limits.
You're just looking for a cheap win and since most voters don't graso that ships going into the horizon isn't them going over the curve even on a curved Earth (because it's too near to be completely over) I don't see what exactly you wanted here other than a cheap victory. I don't appreciate how you've been talking to me in our past few debates and if you keep it up I'll just block you.
Makes you wonder what undedeatable's intentions were woth this debate. Just a rude and asinine tone throughout with a 1k character trap. Pathetic as fuck.
Obviously - the fact that its closer to 1900 means literally nothing, for example, 9/11 happened in 2001, the fact that it happened very closer to 1999 does not mean it happened in the 20th century. It happened in the 21st century, proximity to other centuries nonwithstanding
So if you prove something in 1898 that was proven by the 1800s?
They certainly aren't - in this context "by" means up until and including, etc, etc - which is fairly intuitive.
By and before are synonyms in that context.
Good thing the resolution is talking about BY the 19th century and not BEFORE the 19th century. Jesus, your so disingenuously semantic its really annoying
1899 is 19th Century, not before 19th Century.
Con can use evidence after 1900 alright. It is not like Con could provide any examples that actually stands.
Do you just... have a problem with reading - BEFORE 1900! As in evidence BEFORE the year of 1900, as in 1899 and back! Seriously, how hard is it for you to grasp? I legitimately do not think you ar being serious rn
the 19th century begins in 1800, not 1900.
Yes - why do you think he says he will only use evidence from BEFORE 1900?! You know, the 19th century? Are you actually READING, because it doesn't seem like you are. He doesn't say "the 1900s", he specifically says ONLY USING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE 1900
I wanted to make it 1500's but realized circumnavigation was after that, so 1800/1900 wouldn't matter in my opinion.
The resolution says 19th century which is the 1800s, not 1900s.
Um... because its the resolution? Yeah it does - because only by handicapping himself to this extent can he get you to actually try to prove your point
nice to see you concede that it matters.
". I will prove the Earth is NOT flat using only proofs from before 1900,"
Nah - its not like he stipulated that in his description or anything, that DEFINITELY didn't happen
19th century is 1800s by the way.
I cannot use NASA. What more could you ask for?