Puachu

I spent 3 days writing my original 8,030-character RFV only to find the limit is 5,000. It is easier to rewrite it from scratch then squeeze it to fit, so here I go:

Ultimately what the debate boiled down to, for me, in the final round was the strength of Pro's 3 examples versus Con's 1 example, the definition of "and" in the phrase containing the word "singly", and whether it's an overstatement that validating the trial also implies extending Congress' power to our doorsteps.

I find Con's argument against the 3 examples excessively semantic because they appear to force Pro into a catch-22, even though that isn't the term Pro used: Do not use examples of trials which failed to materialize as precedent for failing to materialize trials.

Con accused Pro of trying to read Reid's mind but Pro provided the only viable explanation for his actions.

At least technically, Pro is correct regarding whether the trial of private citizen Trump implies Congress has gained the power to try private citizens.

Pro's quotes most explicitly supported their own position.

For these reasons I give Pro argument points, and for their 3 examples versus Con's singular, inferior (at least in quantity) example, I also give Pro source points.

My original 8,030-character RFV can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5782-my-original-rfd-for-resolved-the-impeachment-trial-of-donald-john-trump

Con opens with a list of short and to-the-point evidences of Earth's curvature. Disappointingly, most of them have zero explanation but presumably following the links would lead to an explanation from an authoritative source.

Pro replies by completely ignoring these evidences and providing a formal syllogism. I do not say "logical" syllogism because it appears to be a complete non-sequitur, but who am I to judge? I am the voter, that's who I am to judge, and I hereby judge this argument completely incoherent. However, it lies on Con to refute the claim that Earth is flat according to objective spacetime.

Conveniently, Pro's sources are labeled with website names so it is easy to judge the reliability of them, but I shall not award source points since he did not maintain this style through future rounds.

Con highlights the fact his opponent ignored all his evidences, and displays some easily-relatable confusion at the "syllogism". Confusingly, Con goes on to concede that Earth's surface is indeed flat, although they maintain this does not prove Earth itself is flat.

Their warning about Pro taking the spacetime argument possibly too far, out of the bounds of the debate which prohibit appeals to simulation, is noted, but I don't think Pro has crossed the line yet since it's not clear that they've actually made any spacetime argument that transcends mainstream science.

Pro's first rebuttal is too hard to follow. They list 3 points but I don't know what they're supposed to be rebutting, or even what round they're arguing against; the ones they forgot in the first, or the second round?

The idea that gravity isn't a force, thereby proving Earth is not round, seems like another non-sequitur.

There appears to be another malformed syllogism consisting only of a single premise with a fallacious conclusion about velocity through time and straight lines that I can't make sense of. However, Pro does gain the upperhand by pointing out how Con has "basically" conceded with the "flat surface" concession. This I agree with.

By Round 3 I've grown somewhat tired of trying to parse rebuttals completely detached from any context or information that would help understand what they are supposed to refute. I do think the point about search results downplaying spacetime is an interesting take, but not exactly clear.

Pro has never accused anyone of lying so it's kind of presumptuous of Con to pretend otherwise. But this isn't important; what is important is that Con fails to even deny that he has conceded the entire debate with this "flat surface" concession. I am eagerly awaiting his explanation of how a globe with a flat surface can physically or logically exist, or at least a clarification that he was being hyperbolic and the surface is only "relatively" flat at small scales, but his is the last round so I fear such a clarification shall never materialize.

I am taken aback by Pro's closing syllogism A (if it can be called such). I have spent what feels like an eternity staring at the "Volume = sum of layers" argument trying to make sense of it but I am apparently not in possession of the necessary mental faculties to do so. The second syllogism (labeled B) appears to be a mere rephrasing of the first, except it's actually coherent this time. I don't it's fair to raise new arguments at this point, but they did reiterate and reemphasize how Con did indeed forfeit but admitting that Earth's surface is flat.