The earth is a not a spheroid
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 9 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Forfeit in the debate results in all arguments going extended and no answer/rebuttals. I prefer PRO
Alright guys nice debating.
Here's my voting.
Arguments
Pro is arguing that the earth isn't a spheroid because water surface is flat and this is the only argument for the resolution in the opening round. Con says water surface appears flat because like ant on balloon, walking along balloon seems like walking on flat surface, but balloons are not flat surfaces similar to the water surface of the earth. If the balloon can be mistaken, so can the earth...this analogy made it very easy to understand how Pro's only argument that "water looks flat" is explained by a spherical earth. Pro says "The ant on a ball is a valid analogy, when the ant is on the surface." Pro concedes that Con's analogy is valid, which makes me think that every time I've looked out on a flat ocean vista, I'm just a tiny old critter trying to traverse this water covered balloon of an earth. So Pro says asks why unedited amatuer balloon footage show an eye level and flat horizon, even at over 100,000 feet to which Con replied with the live stream from the ISS from the Official NASA Website which impressingly shows a quite spherical earth.
My vote is hanging on this last point, because if Pro doesn't give me any good reason to doubt NASA, the live video I watched from NASA's actual website seals this up for Con. So Pro has to dig deep and...he plucks out the idea that NASA is using a fish eye lense. Con says that in the live shot they are not using fisheye because of the lack of perturbations from each angle, so I clicked on this link twice to see the ISS at different times of day and Con was correct, what one would usually see from a fisheye lens is a perturbation of the different angles and you simply don't see that on this live feed when you actually look at different angles at different times. The earth is clearly a massive sphere being captured by the ISS camera. As for Pro's "100,000 feet" footage, when Con said "if you look closely, you can actually see the curvature," he was right...it took me like three close watches, but the curve is definitely there, and this was Pro's own source. Even though Con forfeited two rounds, which is why they're being hit with conduct, they managed to convince me with their sources and valid analogies that what Pro was telling me about water doesn't refute a spherical earth at all, and Con showed Pro's source to prove curvature right along with Con's source.
I have to buy that water surface looks flat like surface of balloon to ant on balloon...look at live feed of a spherical water covered earth.
Arguments to Con
Sources
Con's ISS live feed is near insurmountable, and the fisheye point was won by Con BECAUSE of the source's credibility when I went to inspect it. It was used by Con to make his case that one can easily see the curvature of an earth covered in water and one need not worry about fisheye lenses, because the ISS provides other angles that are not fisheye perturbed. Pro never battled that point and what was worse is that Pro's source Pro used to show a flat earth when looking from 100,000 feet showed a little curvature and Con mentioned that. Since Con's ISS feed proved a curved earth and Pro's 100,000 feet source proved a curved earth, Con wins sources for using them to make his case and because Pro used sources counter to his claim Con wins sources.
Conduct
Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited twice, which is viewed as poor conduct. Pro on the other hand kindly posted every argument maintaining proper conduct throughout.
Con forfeit twice. This is poor conduct and evidence that Pro's arguments were convincing.
Pro argued well, but the arguments still fail to convince me because the claim being made was very specific and most of the arguments were simply implying that Con (and by extension his sources) are lying. I'm no fan of NASA, but even if they are lying, that by itself doesn't prove Pro's claim. It seems he got too busy attacking his opponent to remember the original point of his claim. Plus, most of his citations were screenshots he took himself and I'm definitely not seeing the same thing in those screenshots that he was. Sad that Con forfeited at the end.
Why would nasa lie they have no reson to
The whole basis of this argument by the Pro is that NASA is lying. Even if they were there are plenty of others space agencies. There all also lots of private companies. If you still say they are all lying then this is a conspiracy theory, not an argument of fact.
Though Pro seems to have not learned kindergarten science, they constantly provided higher quality sources, facts, and arguments than Con, while Con rebutted all those sources and facts by playing the “What if?” game.
Conduct to Pro for Con’s forfeit.
Conduct to pro for forfeit.
Arguments to con. Con raised the argument that effectively the earth is very large, and as a result gives the appearance of being flat. Pro concedes this is a valid argument, and then suggests that this can’t be the case as balloons at altitude show no curvature - proceeding to show a video of a high altitude balloon that clearly shows curvature. This means con shows evidence to support an argument he claims is valid - and which refutes his position. That was devastating for pro. This was pointed out - and pro dismissed this as being from one camera (which he should have clarified) - however curvature is clearly visible in both the left and right hand aide camera.
Most of the remaining arguments from pro concern arguing about fisheye lenses. This argument can be discounted as pro makes no effort to explain his reasoning or providing any justification as to why his claims are true - specifically he claims that all video evidence can be explained by a fish eye lense, simply because the fish eye lense will curve images - he himself posted a video of a fish eye lense curving and straightening lines - as pro makes no effort to establish how fish eye lenses can produce the images he claims they can, merely establishing that they distort, this argument can largely be ignored.
As a result of pros self refutation, and lack of establishing much of a sensible argument to support his position: arguments go to con.
Sources go to con too: while con had a source that didn’t claim what he said, his source didn’t refute his position. Pro posted a citation that not only showed the opposite of what he said it did, but showed the very thing he said would invalidate his position. The remainder of pros sources appear to be mainly conspiracy videos - which inherently casts some doubt on the veracity of the claims.
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.
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.