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.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
The Resolution: By the 19th Century, Evidence Already Showed Earth is NOT Flat
Note:
While the use of non-previous 19th century evidence will not influence the arguments, any evidence from after 1899 will result in that user getting penalized for conduct
Arguments:
Primarily the two discuss two principles, as such, these will be the main points covered in the vote.
Ships Disappearing over Horizon: Pro argues that ships wouldn't disappear over the horizon if the earth wasn't flat, and Con responds back that regardless of shape things would appear smaller as they get farther. Pro points out that strong telescopes prove that, no, this isn't the case - but Con doesn't respond... he merely repeatedly asserts that conclusion to be a mirage. As for those pointing out that Con had sources, they had zero methodology or actual sources backing them - they were youtube videos. This point goes to Pro
Lunar Eclipses: Pro argues that the shape of the shadow of the earth would be impossible if the earth was flat, and Con argues that eclipses mean that the earth is out of range? I don't follow Con's arguments, and he provides no substantiation nor elaboration for the claim- he tacks on that there was an impossible eclipse in 2011... but the source that his source cites, literally explains why the eclipse is indeed possible - and Pro pointed this out as well it was atmospheric reflection, and Con also doesn't respond to this. This point goes to Pro
Dropped Arguments: Con literally drops half of Pro's proofs from the first round such as: Circumnavigation, mathematical calculation of the shape of the earth, the argument of shifting constellations, the argument of the compression of spheres, and so on and so forth - even if Con successfully rebuked the two primary points of discussion he would still have lost hands down thanks to this basket full of proofs. Pro wins arguments by a landslide.
Sources:
While Con employs *only* youtube videos and images, Pro actually provides substantive sources which effectively link and prove his claim... Con's only source that actually has a source sourced (remember youtube videos) actually contradicts the idea of the video, so, Pro wins this one. Though he also has a youtube video, most of his sources are non-video sources which are properly sourced themselves, in contrast, the only "real" source Con has refutes the claim that he's trying to make.
Conduct:
As I mentioned previously, and Pro pointed out, Con provided evidence that was recorded in the 2000s, no ifs, and, or buts about it - one of his sources is literally an experiment conducted by non-professionals in tennis courts, as Con broke the resolution he is being penalized.
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.
RMM
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?
RMM
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.
RMM
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?
RMM
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.
RMm
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.
Rmm
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.
Rmm
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.
RMM-
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.
RMM
". 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?