Instigator / Con
28
1476
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#956

Is the earth flat?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...

King_8
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
12
1467
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Serious flat earther conspiracy theorists only. Not a troll debate. Doubt anyone would accept this, but I'm giving it a shot. Looking forward to debunking this theory as I have done several times before. I will be arguing for the earth NOT being flat and my opponent will be arguing in favor of the earth being flat. As I said, serious flat earther debaters please. If you are a troll, do not accept. If you plan to play devil's advocate, then take that risk if you must and come up with some compelling arguments.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is primarily an honor thing, as it would be shameful for a flat-earther to win a true debate.

HOWEVER, the arguments provided by Con absolutely destroyed the logic of Pro, which can be paraphrased to "A dead guy wants this thing, so therefore the universe will defy all logic to be so."

I have some of my own rebuttals that disprove the arguments by Pro that prove I am not swayed as much as I am with con.

1.) Pro contradicts themselves greatly by continually saying the same thing. Specific examples of this are:
>>Because when Jesus' creation get to the edge of the earth, they immediately go to the other side without knowing it.
So, basically they completed one revolution of the earth. This logic would work at the equator and nowhere else, because the other side would mean that if somebody left Russia and went north, they would they find themselves going north from Antarctica rather than reaching Canada.
>>Firstly, I am sure that there is more than two times that ships have sailed the oceans to the other side, agreed? That being said, this is easily done because Jesus allows it
Basically says that the "Impossible thing" sailing from one side to the other is possible because jesus allows it. It's not jesus, just physics.

2.) Con directly said: The debate is about the earth, not religion. Let's stick with science and facts shall we?, followed by pro basing their ENTIRE ARGUMENT on quotes from the bible that hardly fit.
>>“So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” (John 4:48)
The context for this quote was a passage about Jesus healing a sick prince, not causing satellites to work correctly. In my opinion, it can't even be applied.

3.) Con was able to, at the end, simply state that his argument still stands and still convince me that he was correct.
Because of these things, it has become an argument similar to 1kg of steel versus 1kg of feathers. Con was able to hit every point quickly and concisely, whereas pro made every reasonable and unreasonable connection to the bible that he could. My final bias, however was an easy argument to make. The earth was discovered to be SPHERICAL in 1492. Also, the universe is always changing behind our backs, therefore science needs to change to catch up. Back in 1492, medicine was still just trying everything that might work and ignoring the mass casualties.

"My godly answer"---"Your ungodly satanic quote"
No need to go all messiah on us, dude, that's a point off for conduct. Pro was very rude to the readers and their opponent, and cannot prove otherwise. They treated Con like an ignorant child rather than the intelligent instigator of an online debate.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con made several arguments, such as the seasons and gravity ones, that are perfectly valid and were never addressed, much less refuted by Pro.
Pro's arguments consisted of quoting unscientific sources like 'Jesus said the Earth is flat' and stuff of the like. These are incorrect because they are OT quotes, not actually Jesus, and also because they are merely assertions. If Mahatma Gandhi told me that my hair was purple, despite all evidence otherwise, then despite my respect for Mahatma Gandhi, I would not be convinced.

Arguments to Con.

Pro calls Con "ungodly," "Satanic," etc., and was overall ignoring valid arguments to go in for Ad Hominem attacks. Con kept a mostly civil tone and did not use derogatory language, other than calling Pro a "troll," which is a legitimate claim and not derogatory so much as descriptive. This is neither a Mere Insult or Hate Speech under the CoC.

Conduct to Con.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Com laid out clear and concise arguments for his position, relating to gravity, seasons, time and the lunar eclipse.

These points went wholly unrefuted. Directly or indirectly: so these must stand.

In addition: pro offers only A few sparse points related to biblical passages, arguing the appearance of being spherical is down to mirages and optical effects and offers no actual positive support for his position; there is no susbtance to any of the positions and so I must reject cons arguments as being insufficient.

Arguments to con

Pros entire approach was obvious trolling, a deliberate attempt to argue in bad faith, and utterly derailed any semblance of what the debate should have been about. Con attempted to stay on topic initially despite this. Pros behaviour was clearly toxic and antithetical to reasoned debate, and massively disrespectful to his opponent. As a result, Conduct goes to con too

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con has good arguments like Gravity,Time,Seasons,Lunar Eclipse and Other planets.

Pro responds with Biblical verses which is not evidence nor rebuttals to any of Con's points.

Arguments-Con

Sources:Tie

S&P:Tie

Conduct:Pro frequently mentions Con's arguments as "UNGODLY SATANIC" and"DECEIVING"