Please point me towards a factual mistake in my argument. If you are only referring to the general cherry-picking of topic and information, then you must understand that I deliberately try to debate false statements. Like the Earth being flat. Of course, I cherry-pick in these kinds of debates.
Guess what, the Flat Earth Society hasn't been cancelled. Your argument that they are an inside job makes no sense. If powerful people wanted "the truth" hidden, then they would ban the truth, not manipulate it from the inside. Also, your definition of "the truth" is purely subjective. Scholars say the Earth is round, and that is proof enough for most people. If you accept the validity of scientific research then you better show me some scientific research supporting the claim that "the truth" is a flat Earth. If you don't, then that's fine. I am only here to disprove the model as illogical, not to prove why the Earth is round.
"""
You do understand that the most powerful people on the planet would be involved with keeping the truth hidden?
"""
Are you afraid of being executed by the FBI or something? The last time I checked, the Internet was the safest place on Earth to say controversial things. Actually, unless you live in China your privacy and safety is almost perfectly secure, especially if you use a VPN. Furthermore, your alleged "truth" is not at all dangerous to the most powerful people on Earth. Remember, the ones making the public believe in the round Earth are scholars and science professors, not Biden and Putin. Which person in power are you afraid of offending?
Furthermore, you claim that we haven't been to space. Yet you claim that the "truth" is that the Earth is flat. How do you know unless we have been to space?
I am not defending Flat Earth Theory, I am proposing that the Earth is flat, which it objectively is in spacetime, as well as the entire universe (depends on the rate of expansion). I don't need to address CON's arguments, because they relly on classical Newtonian physics that gravity exists as a force. CON actually conceded by admitting that "Earth surface is flat in spacetime".
Would you have rather liked the real flat earth theory to be discussed? If so, it would have been completely demolished. Defending Flat Earth Theory means to call all space programs a lie -- doing so would certainly lose the debate, as no scientific or scholarly source can debunk NASA.
I strongly disagree. Tha statment "Earth cannot speak, geology does" is NOT semantics, but a real argument. It was meant to be coupled with my argument that science cannot determine the start of the universe. But hey, regardless of what semantics you think I used, the conduct point is not justified. If you think I lost, then you can rather give the sources point.
"
""Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking""
I showed why SCIENCE, not EARTH, says that earth is 4.3 billion years old. Science cannot speak either, so I don't know how PRO can make this accusation.
"
I am not really attempting to use semantics, I am trying to expose the fallacy of equating current scientific methods to "Earth says", while geology is the actual factor and speaker, not the Earth itself. The Earth is not saying that it is old, because YEC also would create an Earth as we see it today, just not through evolution.
Secondly, what does one expect when going into a debate where the rules are literally forbidding every type of argument I could make except the one I made?
I showed why PRO's rules were unreasonable, and that not even PRO could keep them. Not all of my arguments in this regard need to be true and to give PRO the conduct point simply because he made me object to such a humongous list of rules is not in the spirit of the conduct point. Please remove it, I have never even heard of such a conduct violation as "semantics" -- that is a part of the arguments point.
However, you must revote and remove the conduct vote.
Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating. Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation.
"
I understand if my accusations of breaking own rules were annoying, but they are not a sound basis for such a vote.
Plot twist: 25 years into the future, the resolution is true, which causes a multidimensional time paradox in the mind of the evil AI ruler, ultimately saving humanity.
There is a VERY clear way to figure out what the Bible says about the age of the Earth: the genealogies. So my argument holds. He also doesn't mention how I proved that the naturalistic worldview is self-contradictory anyways.
Ridiculous semantics. "Reasonable punishment" is by definition reasonable to have in public school. The only question is WHAT is reasonable punishment.
I think it is so funny that you have these topics about serious issues, and then you need to put up a rule against things like:
--quantum mechanics
--simulation
--Bible
Winning a debate about the shape of the Earth without contradicting science. This debate proves that no amount of logical flaws will make it impossible to win.
I understand how my arguments were incoherent, which was kind of the point.
volume = sum of layers ||||
This is a principle of geometry where the only way to REALLY know the volume of a non-perfect shape is to divide that shape into an infinite amount of 2d layers and then adding them together.
For example, the source I used to "prove" that all layers of Earth have the same shape - that source also proved Earth is round. LOL. My arguments show a textbook example of how cherry picking "evidence" is effective enough to make CON concede without needing to do so.
I never proved anything, but due to the "reliability" of my evidence CON simply accepted the surface of Earth being flat in spacetime (which is not true btw).
Is this the time for giving up?
Please point me towards a factual mistake in my argument. If you are only referring to the general cherry-picking of topic and information, then you must understand that I deliberately try to debate false statements. Like the Earth being flat. Of course, I cherry-pick in these kinds of debates.
Thank you for the compliment, Theweakeredge.
"""
Definition of cherry-pick [merriam-mebster]
intransitive verb
: to select the best or most desirable
"""
If you used the word in a negative sense, please elaborate on what I am doing wrong.
Guess what, the Flat Earth Society hasn't been cancelled. Your argument that they are an inside job makes no sense. If powerful people wanted "the truth" hidden, then they would ban the truth, not manipulate it from the inside. Also, your definition of "the truth" is purely subjective. Scholars say the Earth is round, and that is proof enough for most people. If you accept the validity of scientific research then you better show me some scientific research supporting the claim that "the truth" is a flat Earth. If you don't, then that's fine. I am only here to disprove the model as illogical, not to prove why the Earth is round.
"""
You do understand that the most powerful people on the planet would be involved with keeping the truth hidden?
"""
Are you afraid of being executed by the FBI or something? The last time I checked, the Internet was the safest place on Earth to say controversial things. Actually, unless you live in China your privacy and safety is almost perfectly secure, especially if you use a VPN. Furthermore, your alleged "truth" is not at all dangerous to the most powerful people on Earth. Remember, the ones making the public believe in the round Earth are scholars and science professors, not Biden and Putin. Which person in power are you afraid of offending?
Furthermore, you claim that we haven't been to space. Yet you claim that the "truth" is that the Earth is flat. How do you know unless we have been to space?
30 000 characters
are you kidding me
"I agreed with PRO until I read the description"
This is what Trump fans seeing this will say.
Objection accepted. There are as said, many ways to interpret the passages, and this debate only considers one option.
Voters, DO NOT count my round 4 arguments a forfeit, because I was only following PRO's own pleading.
PRO personally asked me to wait until the last moment before posting my argument.
Round 4 argument:
--PRO has not supported his resolution with any expert sources, he has just given his personal opinion and made emotional assertions.
--I on the other hand have shown the resolution to be false and backed my position with expert evidence and concise logical syllogism's.
I am not defending Flat Earth Theory, I am proposing that the Earth is flat, which it objectively is in spacetime, as well as the entire universe (depends on the rate of expansion). I don't need to address CON's arguments, because they relly on classical Newtonian physics that gravity exists as a force. CON actually conceded by admitting that "Earth surface is flat in spacetime".
Would you have rather liked the real flat earth theory to be discussed? If so, it would have been completely demolished. Defending Flat Earth Theory means to call all space programs a lie -- doing so would certainly lose the debate, as no scientific or scholarly source can debunk NASA.
My vote is very short, and I wish to get it removed.
I still have some hard learning work to do.
Well, then I see. You're right.
thank you for the vote
I strongly disagree. Tha statment "Earth cannot speak, geology does" is NOT semantics, but a real argument. It was meant to be coupled with my argument that science cannot determine the start of the universe. But hey, regardless of what semantics you think I used, the conduct point is not justified. If you think I lost, then you can rather give the sources point.
Firstly, I never admit anything.
"
""Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking""
I showed why SCIENCE, not EARTH, says that earth is 4.3 billion years old. Science cannot speak either, so I don't know how PRO can make this accusation.
"
I am not really attempting to use semantics, I am trying to expose the fallacy of equating current scientific methods to "Earth says", while geology is the actual factor and speaker, not the Earth itself. The Earth is not saying that it is old, because YEC also would create an Earth as we see it today, just not through evolution.
Secondly, what does one expect when going into a debate where the rules are literally forbidding every type of argument I could make except the one I made?
I showed why PRO's rules were unreasonable, and that not even PRO could keep them. Not all of my arguments in this regard need to be true and to give PRO the conduct point simply because he made me object to such a humongous list of rules is not in the spirit of the conduct point. Please remove it, I have never even heard of such a conduct violation as "semantics" -- that is a part of the arguments point.
Thank you for voting!
However, you must revote and remove the conduct vote.
Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating. Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation.
"
I understand if my accusations of breaking own rules were annoying, but they are not a sound basis for such a vote.
I understand. You do what you see as right.
Plot twist: 25 years into the future, the resolution is true, which causes a multidimensional time paradox in the mind of the evil AI ruler, ultimately saving humanity.
Just imagine the nemesis lists of someone like Seldoria or Rationalmadman.
Why are you calling your "nemesis's" to vote?
Also, if I win, do I get to be on your "nemesis" list?
There is a VERY clear way to figure out what the Bible says about the age of the Earth: the genealogies. So my argument holds. He also doesn't mention how I proved that the naturalistic worldview is self-contradictory anyways.
Ridiculous semantics. "Reasonable punishment" is by definition reasonable to have in public school. The only question is WHAT is reasonable punishment.
would you like to vote on this debate?
Craziest back-and-forth I have ever experienced.
vote bump
Thank you for voting
vote bump
Thank you for voting.
I got recked.
Thank you.
Yes. But this debate I already knew I would win, seeing the debate rules.
Isn't the debate counted into the W/L ratio?
Actually, if you are willing to give an actual vote you have to vote on me.
""failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default."" - voting policy
PRO offered no arguments or evidence. Therefore, he looses by default.
I think it is so funny that you have these topics about serious issues, and then you need to put up a rule against things like:
--quantum mechanics
--simulation
--Bible
Like, who is going to use such an argument?
Would you care to leave a vote?
To trap Ragnar or Oromagi to their defeat.
Easy win.
Unless PRO hasn't noticed himself he has lost by definition.
: )
Aren't women at home, until they star in kindergarten? Does your Far fetched society necessitate a rejection of such social structures as schools?
Evolution has been conquered by humans. Soon we will change our DNA and optimize functions - rejecting the ways of evolution.
Why obey an impersonal force on a personal level?
Would any of you be interested in reading this debate?
Ok. I just finished my more urgent debates.
He is actually a good debater, he is Undefeatable.
I am simply a guy that wants to use advanced science to confuse random people.
LOL.
Winning a debate about the shape of the Earth without contradicting science. This debate proves that no amount of logical flaws will make it impossible to win.
I understand how my arguments were incoherent, which was kind of the point.
volume = sum of layers ||||
This is a principle of geometry where the only way to REALLY know the volume of a non-perfect shape is to divide that shape into an infinite amount of 2d layers and then adding them together.
12 or 13 years
I am a bit tired as of now, I have some debates that are more urgent, so you will have to wait a bit.
He is so unlucky. People abusing relativity and quantum mechanics against his quest against old myths.
For example, the source I used to "prove" that all layers of Earth have the same shape - that source also proved Earth is round. LOL. My arguments show a textbook example of how cherry picking "evidence" is effective enough to make CON concede without needing to do so.
I never proved anything, but due to the "reliability" of my evidence CON simply accepted the surface of Earth being flat in spacetime (which is not true btw).
My sources were definitely reliable.
However, as you point out, I had to cherry-pick them and connect them in an ambiguous way.
Lol, fun to try such a challenge.
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting