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
Better arguments
12
15
Better sources
10
16
Better legibility
9
9
Better conduct
9
4

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.

-->
@David

Thank you. It wasn't a big deal but I was just stating something fmpov

-->
@Vader

Fair enough. Your vote is sufficient for me now.

-->
@David

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

-->
@Vader

*******************************************************************
>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.

-->
@Tejretics

Proof that typos make RFD better

-->
@RationalMadman

==================================================================
>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.
==================================================================

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>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?
************************************************************************

-->
@drafterman

*******************************************************************
>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.

-->
@RationalMadman

How was conduct awarded?

That is an abstractly justified statement.

-->
@RationalMadman

Truth is an abstract quality meant to describe something concrete.

Truth is abstract,

-->
@RationalMadman

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

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

Someone, right?

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@drafterman

So there are no facts in your life, you're a solipsist.

-->
@Flatearth

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.

-->
@drafterman

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.

-->
@Flatearth

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?

-->
@drafterman

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.

-->
@Flatearth

"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.

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@Thoth

Would you like to debate your statement? Give an example of a true and purely mathematical statement.

-->
@Thoth

So you're saying that there are no facts. You are suggesting solypsism?

-->
@Type1

Small Correction: by inhabitants, I mean humans.

Nothing can be proven beyond ALL doubt except for the truth value of a purely mathematical statement.

-->
@drafterman

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.

-->
@drafterman

What would be a more reasonable way to state that?

-->
@Flatearth

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.