Instigator / Pro
40
1461
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#40
The earth is a not a spheroid
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 9 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Type1
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
44
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description
Natural science, which is rightfully the foundation of science, is the observation, measurement, and testing of the natural world around us. Valid science involves scalable, empirical, measurable and testable experiments and observations. Using this as a pretext, please prove that the earth is a ball beyond all doubt. I will argue that the earth is not a spheroid.
Round 1
The spherical earth is considered as fact by institutions, scientists, and about 2/3 of the plane's inhabitants. This widespread "fact" that debatably nobody has empirically observed contradicts another fact that nearly everyone has empirically observed, that the surface of water is flat and level when unmanipulated. If 66% of the earth's surface consists of water, and that water is always measurably flat, it follows that the earth is not a spheroid. Unless the opponent has conclusive evidence against this fact that is.
The reason why the oceans appear to be "flat" is because from our perspective, we are too close to the earth and too small to notice any curvature. A common analogy for this is the ant on the balloon, which I'm sure you've heard before, wherein the ant can traverse a curved surface without noticing any curvature because it is simply too small relative to the balloon to notice that it is walking across a round object.
Here is a video of analysis which indicates that there is indeed curvature of the ocean's surface.
Round 2
The ant on a ball is a valid analogy, when the ant is on the surface, but if that ant was raised, he would see a horizon that slowly drops and start to curve. Yet all unedited amatuer balloon footage show an eye level and flat horizon, even at over 100,000 feet. (1)
Saying that the earth is too big to see the curve is an attempt to make the ball earth model unfalsifiable, because of perceived lack of scalability. When in fact the curve should be very measurable. My opponent doesn't seem to know how much curvature there should be.
The ant, were he of comparable intelligence to the average human, and were on a ball comparable to the earth, would be aware of the convexity of the surface. The opponent omits any measurements in his argument, outside of posting a 40 minute video with no explanation outside of “here is the elusive curve”, paraphrasing of course.
After a few minutes investigation, the YouTuber that made the analysis admits he made a critical error in his analysis and moves to dismiss it with the statement: “back to the drawing board!”.(2)
The original video actually proves the earth is flat, for an ironic twist!
NASA has a live video feed from the ISS which shows the earth, and they are clearly not using a fish eye lens because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles.
Saying that the earth is too big to see the curve is not an attempt to make the globe unfalsifiable, because you really couldn't detect the curvature with your bare senses if the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size.
Here is an approximation of the earth's curvature but the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere so this is not 100% accurate (the curvature varies in different regions because the earth is flatter towards the poles and bulges at the equator)
Round 3
"[email protected]@NASA has a live video feed from the ISS which shows the earth, and they are clearly not using a fish eye lens because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles.
The opponent drops his argument from the video that failed to show curved water, understandably, and now gives us another video, not of the earth as a ball, but alleged curvature from the ISS. He claims that "because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles" it cantc be a fisheye lens. Upon viewing the link, it is clear that the video is filmed with a fisheye lens, because fisheye lenses curve straight lines. Literally within seconds, I saw a solar panel that was curved, amongst other things that should be straight. Don't just take my word for it, see for yourself. Here is the screenshot I took about three seconds after I clicked the link.
"Saying that the earth is too big to see the curve is not an attempt to make the globe unfalsifiable, because you really couldn't detect the curvature with your bare senses if the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size. "
Again we see no numbers or math, just an appeal to popularity fallacy. The video of the earth from over 100,000 feet was also ignored.
"Here is an approximation of the earth's curvature but the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere so this is not 100% accurate (the curvature varies in different regions because the earth is flatter towards the poles and bulges at the equator)
And the argument is capped off with a "the earth is an oblate spheroid because Wiki and Quora say so", paraphrasing of course. No evidence, just an appeal to false authority fallacy.
He claims that "because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles" it cantc be a fisheye lens. Upon viewing the link, it is clear that the video is filmed with a fisheye lens
Then why isn't the curvature of the earth distorted in the image you provided?
Again we see no numbers or math, just an appeal to popularity fallacy.
That wasn't an appeal to popularity fallacy. IF the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size, you wouldn't notice any curvature from the ground with just your senses.
The video of the earth from over 100,000 feet was also ignored.
If you look closely, you can actually see the curvature but it's hard to notice with the camera tumbling through the vacuum of space from just above the atmosphere.
Also, what do you think surrounds the earth? Many flat earthers believe in some type of firmament or dome.
And the argument is capped off with a "the earth is an oblate spheroid because Wiki and Quora say so", paraphrasing of course. No evidence, just an appeal to false authority fallacy.
Once again, I am not appealing to anything. I am establishing how much curvature there should be and the shape of the earth according to mainstream science because you said I don't seem to know how much curvature there should be.
Round 4
He claims that "because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles" it cantc be a fisheye lens. Upon viewing the link, it is clear that the video is filmed with a fisheye lens
Then why isn't the curvature of the earth distorted in the image you provided?
It is. It is distorted so that the flat horizon line appears curved. This was the original point. NASA uses fisheye lenses in their cameras, so that we almost never see a flat horizon. Again, in the original video that I posted of a high altitude balloon that got over 110,000 feet, there are two cameras, a wide angle lens (fisheye) and a standard camera, even then, all lenses are curved glass, so, depending on the location of the line relative to the center of the camera, you may experience distortion. Then you have various trick photography like green screens, where NASA takes high altitude drone footage background and put it on a backdrop with a model ISS in the foreground.
Again we see no numbers or math, just an appeal to popularity fallacy.
That wasn't an appeal to popularity fallacy. IF the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size, you wouldn't notice any curvature from the ground with just your senses.
The claim is given no supporting evidence, and is an opinion. Alternatively, when looking across miles of water, say, 60 miles, objects should be hidden behind the alleged curve of the earth.
The video of the earth from over 100,000 feet was also ignored.
If you look closely, you can actually see the curvature but it's hard to notice with the camera tumbling through the vacuum of space from just above the atmosphere.
No, sorry, as I pointed out, if you saw a curved earth it was from the fisheye camera, which was mounted opposite the extended pole from the standard camera.
Also, what do you think surrounds the earth? Many flat earthers believe in some type of firmament or dome.
Yes, I believe there is a dome covering the earth, some call it the firmament. There is extensive evidence that suggests this including many observations.
And the argument is capped off with a "the earth is an oblate spheroid because Wiki and Quora say so", paraphrasing of course. No evidence, just an appeal to false authority fallacy.
Once again, I am not appealing to anything. I am establishing how much curvature there should be and the shape of the earth according to mainstream science because you said I don't seem to know how much curvature there should be.
So how much curve should there be in just 3 miles? 57? What about 273 miles?
Forfeited
Round 5
Forward all points to the next round. I hope the contender is well. God bless.
Forfeited
Thank you. It wasn't a big deal but I was just stating something fmpov
Fair enough. Your vote is sufficient for me now.
An dropping of all arguments result in complete concession, therefore it would cause all of PRO's arg to go extended without any answers going into the final round. My RFD was sufficent fmpov due to practical debate laws, but I resubmit
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Forefeit the debate
Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full forfeit so the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
1st debate I saw where the party that forfeit probably will win.
Close debate. I wonder who will win.
Proof that typos make RFD better
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up. The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this. Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does provide some assessment of Pro's arguments and Con's responses, though it is mainly focused on Pro's arguments. While more explanation may be warranted (especially with regard to Con's positive argumentation), the voter provides sufficient detail to meet the standards by explaining that Con's material relies on trusting NASA data.
==================================================================
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Both sides had extremely biased and/or unreliable sourcing. Voting tied by both sides being equally poor with Pro having a slight edge but such a small percent of their sources were reliable to deserve the vote.
Con forfeits because Pro brought enough reason to suspect what NASA says and why we should blindly trust what someone says when what we see inside Earth defies what we are told to not dare question because a more qualified bunch of shadowy figures in a government agency says we are wrong about it.
Con keeps trying to make it clear that Pro is a conspiracy theorist who has to prove more but it is actually equal BoP on the round earther as the flat earther and Pro never met his BoP beyond giving an extremely strange vision of a flat earth from a supposed satellite which Pro attacks with grace.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate does not meet the definition of a full-forfeit, and so can be moderated. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments in the debate, assess their relative strength, and explain how that strength imbalance led to a determination to award points. These elements are met for the most part. What is missing however, is necessary detail on how the voter assessed the relative strength of Pro's key argument, namely, "Pro brought enough reason to suspect what NASA says." This is not an analysis of Pro's argument itself. For instance, how do Pro's reasons convince the voter to suspect what NASA says?
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drafterman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con really did not put forth much of an effort in what should have been a slam dunk debate. Also, forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points were insufficiently explained. It is not enough to simply say that Con failed to put in enough effort. Specific arguments and counterarguments must be analyzed and weighed. That is not done here.
************************************************************************
Challenge me to this debate.
How was conduct awarded?
That is an abstractly justified statement.
Truth is an abstract quality meant to describe something concrete.
Truth is abstract,
Then you have no distinct relationship to anything in reality, therefore, it is an abstract thought, and cannot be true.
But the person who said it was said pure math
Right, either way, the math, even though it adds up, because it doesn't accurately represent a physical object(s) is not truth beyond all doubt.
Thank you for your lies babygirl
Rational Madman told me in PM that he is gay and has a boyfriend, just putting that out there.
Yes I am https://www.debateisland.com/profile/someone234 I thought that was obvious.
If you had a penny more and were mistaken you would be having sound logic and wrong input.
Someone, right?
What if I weren't lying? What if I had just a penny more, and was just mistaken? It still doesn't make the maths fact. And we see our conundrum as you have stated yourself: "This is based on the further truism... the comprehension of what =, - and + represent." whether they be dollars miles, apples, etc. If they don't accurately represent something in reality, they can not be held as fact.
I think you probably mean he is an epistemological nihilist, a solipsist is someone who thinks the only truth is they exist.
So there are no facts in your life, you're a solipsist.
I've made my critique, and it is what it is. Beyond "all" doubt is an unreasonable standard you won't find in use anywhere.
Maybe my example was a bad one. A better example would be to say "sometimes, it rains" or, "rainbows are in the sky opposite the sun" In the context of a debate, this is an empirically validatable fact. Something that is commonly accepted as fact is empirically validatable, for example, "You can see the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan" would be validatable. A commonly accepted fact, for those in or around Michigan, and anyone can empirically validate that fact, if they so felt necessary, aside from unbiased accounts.I could even take a picture of it raining. It's 2018, and there's not one single way to empirically validate any facts that conclusively point to a spherical earth? Didn't they go in 1969 with the 8 bit room size computer that we can fit several times squared that into our pocket? We should all be able to empirically validate the spherical earth by now, while drinking a McDonald's Frappe on the moon.
In the context of a debate, if you say something and my only recourse is to empirically validate it myself, then you have failed your side of the debate.
Can you convince me, through argumentation alone, without me having to empirically validate it, that it is raining beyond ALL doubt?
Or are you suggesting that Con could simply say: "The Earth is round, check it out for yourself" and you'd be satisfied with that as a win for Con?
I disagree, in any case other than solipsism, and any other obscure projected reality btheories you might cook up, facts exist. I can walk in to a room and say "It is raining outside" you can take several steps to determine "beyond ALL doubt", that is it raining outside. Empirically observable facts are what makes reality.
"Beyond all doubt" is an inherently impossible standard. Remember, it's basically saying that if anyone has any doubt about anything the Contender says, they've lost the debate.
No area involved in the search for truth or fact uses that as a standard, not science, not the justice system, not philosophy. You mention solipsism and have it somewhat on the nose: you can't discount - for example - a malicious powerful demon who has constructed a false reality, or a brain-in-a-vat scenario. Not beyond *all* doubt.
A better course would simply to have stated that the burden of proof in this debate is shared, and that the winner is simply whoever provided the most convincing case for their position. Because, note that the "beyond all doubt" is only on the Contender's side, not yours. Technically speaking, you don't even have to argue your position, just present ANY amount of doubt in the contender's.
It does represent reality if you're not lying.
That is also not a purely mathematical statement because dollars are not mathematical but physical and/or economical.
I agree, but stress that what those numbers represent must also be facts. For example, I have $1,724.84 in my bank account. If I go and buy a $324.76 stove, what's left in my bank account is only as true as what I have in my bank account, here, you make an assumption that my bank account was exactly as I said: $1,724.84 But in reality, this is not the amount that is my account. So from a purely mathematical standpoint, I would be correct to say that my account is left with $1400.08, but this does not represent reality, so it isn't true, and I don't have a bank account.
Example of that Thoth means.
If 1 = 2-1
then 1+1=2
This is based on the further truism that 1=1 and 2=2 as well as the comprehension of what =, - and + represent.
Would you like to debate your statement? Give an example of a true and purely mathematical statement.
So you're saying that there are no facts. You are suggesting solypsism?
Small Correction: by inhabitants, I mean humans.
Nothing can be proven beyond ALL doubt except for the truth value of a purely mathematical statement.
I mean, lot's of people consider the spherical earth a fact. A truism. It shouldn't be hard to prove something beyand all doubt that is taught to children from the first day of school.
What would be a more reasonable way to state that?
The criteria that the Contender must prove the Earth is a ball "beyond ALL doubt" is a ridiculous standard. No one can win under such a stipulation.
Good luck. I agree but you'll lose.