On Earth The Sun Actually Rises In The West And Sets In The East
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
*Rules*
1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.
2. All votes *must* have thorough reasons for voting.
3. Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased.
4. Death23 and his related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate.
------
*Full Resolution*
On earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east.
Pro
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Pro also has the BoP to show that on earth, the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east.
Con
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.
------
*Definitions*
on - physically in contact with and supported by.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/on
earth - the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars at an average distance of 149.6 million km from the sun, on which we live.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/earth
sun - the star around which the earth orbits.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sun
actually - as the truth or facts of a situation; really.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/actually
rises - appears above the horizon (to an observer).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rise
west - denoting the western part of a specified area.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/west
sets - appears to move toward and below the horizon (to an observer).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/set
east - denoting the eastern part of a specified area.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/east
Axial TiltSome planets, such as Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter, have axes that are almost completely perpendicular, or straight up-and-down.Earth's axis is not perpendicular. It has an axial tilt, or obliquity. Axial tilt is the angle between the planet's rotational axis and its orbital axis. A planet's orbital axis is perpendicular to to the ecliptic or orbital plane, the thin disk surrounding the sun and extending to the edge of the solar system.Earth's axial tilt (also known as the obliquity of the ecliptic) is about 23.5 degrees. Due to this axial tilt, the sun shines on different latitudes at different angles throughout the year. This causes the seasons.Uranus has the largest axial tilt in the solar system. Its axis is tilted about 98 degrees, so its north pole is nearly on its equator. Astronomers suspect that this extreme tilt was caused by a collision with an Earth-sized planet billions of years ago, soon after Uranus formed.Axial PrecessionEarth's axis appears stable, but it actually wobbles very slowly, like a spinning top. It takes Earth's axis about 26,000 years to complete a circular "wobble." This wobble is called axial precession.Earth’s axis helps determine the North Star, and axial precession helps change it. Currently, for instance, Earth's axis points toward a star called Polaris. Polaris, which gets its name because it is almost directly above the North Pole, is the current North Star.Polaris will not always be the North Star, however. The Earth's axis is slowly wobbling away from Polaris. In another 13,000 years, it will point toward the new North Star, a star called Vega.
Chronometers Changed the GameThe pendulum clock was developed during the 17th century. However, these clocks were not sufficiently accurate to be used at sea to determine longitude and for scientific time measurement in the 18th century.In 1764, the chronometer was invented. Chronometers measured time accurately in spite of motion or varying conditions, and became popular instruments among many merchant mariners during the 19th century.Clocks Based on the SunEven after the chronometer many towns and cities set clocks based on sunsets and sunrises. Dawn and dusk occur at different times, but time differences between distant locations were barely noticeable before the 19th century because of long travel times and the lack of long-distance communications.The use of local solar time became increasingly awkward as railways and telecommunications improved. Time zones were, therefore, a compromise, relaxing the complex geographic dependence while still allowing local time to be approximate with mean solar time.
GPS Shows Different MeridianSince everyone is running around with their own GPS tracker or mobile phones with GPS capability, a visit to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London may have become a slightly disappointing affair for some. The observatory is home to the Airy Transit Circle, a telescope designed by George Biddell Airy in the 19th century, which marks the location of the prime meridian, the line running along 0° of longitude, where the Earth's western and eastern hemispheres meet.However, if you follow your GPS device to 0° longitude, you will end up a good distance away from the famous line marking the meridian in the observatory's Meridian Courtyard. So, have they been luring tourists to the wrong place for decades?Not Wrong, Just DifferentYes and no. It is true that the meridian that runs through the observatory has lost its status as the world's sole reference point for longitude. Navigation systems such as the GPS now use the IERS Reference Meridian (IRM), which runs about 334 feet (102 meters) east of the observatory.However, although the world is now using an updated version, the location of the prime meridian is not wrong as such—it's just a different kind of meridian. It is defined by the location of the telescope, which was originally used to measure the passage of certain stars to feed data into an astronomical coordinate system, which, in its day, served as the basis for global navigation and timekeeping. Since the location of this original prime meridian is defined by the location of the telescope, it cannot be wrong: it is always where the telescope is.Arbitrary LocationTo understand how there can be two different prime meridians, both being in the correct location for their purposes, it's important to bear in mind that meridians and longitudes are a human invention, so there is essentially no right or wrong way to place them. While latitudes are defined by the Earth's shape and movement—the poles at 90° latitude are where the Earth's axis meets the Earth's surface and the equator at 0° latitude marks the middle point between the poles—there is no natural reason for any longitude to be used as the prime meridian.At the International Meridian Conference in 1884, with multiple candidates to choose from, that honor was bestowed upon the longitude of the Airy Transit Circle in Greenwich. Apart from serving as a navigational reference point, the local mean time at the Greenwich Meridian now also served as the basis for the global time standard, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), before being replaced by UTC in the 1960s.
"I will not only decimate your case, but I'll further chip away until all that's left is regret for daring to troll a masterful debater as myself."
"Debate properly or concede don't even attempt to make a joke of me..."
"The first thing I'm going to do is..."
"...point out that the 'West'...is in fact closer to being east of the 'East'"
"Now, there's no direct flights from the east of Asia to west of USA"
"I'm stating facts, so what we find is [flights] stop over at Middle East"
"What's quite undeniable is that Asia is, without a doubt, indeed, East of the Americas if we want to be exact."
"We can say North vs South dichotomy is less relative than West and East"
"You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct."
"All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on [the west] and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
I love to debate truisms that seem false...false falsisms I guess they're called?I also love that scientific concepts can be looked at differently.
Imagine a tiny version of yourself standing in the middle of the wooden disk. And imagine that the outside rim of the disk represents your horizon. On Summer Solstice, you would see the Sun rise on your "horizon" at the eastern point of the longest track. It would follow the track high in your sky, and eventually set on the western horizon. It would be up for about 17 "hours", thus making summertime days long and warm. On the Winter Solstice, you would observe the Sun rising at the western end of the smallest track. It wouldn't rise high in the sky, and would be up for only about 6 or 7 hours, making your days short on daylight and cold. At the Spring and the Fall equinoxes, the Sun would rise at the east end of the middle track and set at the west end. Your days would be exactly half daylight and half nighttime and you would experience typical warm/cool spring and fall climates.
The Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all rise in the east and set in the west. And that's because Earth spins -- toward the east.For a moment, let us ignore Earth's orbit around the Sun (as well as the Sun's and solar system's revolution around the center of the Galaxy, and even the Galaxy's journey through the universe). For the moment, let us just think about one motion - - Earth's spin (or rotation) on its axis.Earth rotates or spins toward the east, and that's why the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars all rise in the east and make their way westward across the sky. Suppose you are facing east - the planet carries you eastward as it turns, so whatever lies beyond that eastern horizon eventually comes up over the horizon and you see it!
"You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct...I am willing to play along with Pro's social construct...I am going to prove what we did to make the socially constructed West and East operate...Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on it."
"I say that if you are on the Western Hemisphere, the sun both rises and sets for you"
"The Japanese observe sunsets...Asia is, without a doubt, indeed, East of the Americas."
"if you are on the socially constructed Eastern Hemisphere, [the sun both rises and sets for you]."
"The rising and setting are defined as visual to the Horizon in the debate description."
- Pro has to prove that the sun actually rises on 'the west' and actually sets on 'the east' on Earth. There is no 'East' or 'West' on Earth in absolute poles or hemispheres beyond social construct meaning it is not 'actual' at all. Thus, the only forms of west and east are either relative to your current position or socially constructed ones that hold the Greenwich Median as their centre and which timezones revolve around.
- In the definitions that the debate description has (which are the only ones sacred to the debate if a later one conflicts them since both debaters agreed to the description, not to later content) says that the West is the 'Western part of a designated area' and East is the 'Eastern part of a designated area'. Thus, following from 1, we see that every day in the socially constructed West and East, the Sun actually rises first and foremost to the Earth/world in the East (due to socially constructed timezones and world spinning anti-clockwise around itself AND ALSO anticlockwise around the sun according to NASA as previously shown, if you need a source for both here: https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/anticlok.htm, https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ1.htm#q26) and that the Sun actually sets on Earth/world on the West due to the exact same reasoning as why it rises on the East.
- If one then points at me, Con, and says 'hold up, they don't actually count as there is no actual East or West on Earth other than relative to your position' then I win further as I point out the definition of 'set' and 'rise' are such that no matter where you are, the Sun rises on your East and sets on your West but that the resolution is what Pro has to uphold as absolutely correct and not incorrect.
- The Western Hemisphere is both east of and west of the Eastern Hemisphere which alone decimates Pro's case as Con wins if the Earth has no true West or East.
This was not even a debate, it was more “who could provide the best definition for things.” Pro brings up a point, then Con argues that east doesn’t have to be west or something because it’s a social construct, and then pro just goes with that and it ends up as debating what’s north east south and west. Arguments to Pro because he actually made a valid point before it descended into semantic nonsense.
Sources go to Con. Con was providing sources like NASA and other reliable organizations while pro seemed to copy and paste his search history. S&G are tied.
Both debaters had poor conduct but since Pro kept calling out Con for “childish Chest puffing” and “Gish gallop,” this category goes to Con.
This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates. It's obvious Pro set up the resolution and definitions as a trap in hopes for an easy win. This is proven in round 2 when Pro said: "Or you could just man up and admit that you were had by an alluring and unexpected resolution." and "You were already made a joke of by having to defend the idea that the Japanese don't observe sunsets or that Californians somehow miss out on sunrises, plus I think you end up making the case that longitudinal coordinates don't exist, or something equally stupid, and this further makes a joke of you." Conduct thus goes to con.
Now onto arguments. I didn't find pro's twist of the definitions to be all that compelling. Pro's entire argument rests on the idea that people on the eastern hemisphere observe sunsets and people on the western hemisphere observe sunrises. I'm not convinced at all by this semantics.
Con jumps in on round 1 and argues east and west are relative terms and the hemispheres are social construct but blunders when he states "All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on [the west] and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
The resolution is "on the earth the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east."
The resolution states nothing about whether or not the inverse can be true or not. Con thus drops and concedes a major part of the resolution.
One of the biggest holes in pro's construct of the debate is that he fails to define the word in. Con should have immediately pounced on this word and define it as "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else."
If con would have argued that from an observer in Tokyo the sun appears to rise in the East, then he would have had a solid case. Because con fails to do this, he loses the argument.
Conduct to con: This debate was an exercise in semantic f**kwittery, it was presented as a reasonable debate, and as such it appears pro deliberately set up through the use of definitions and the specific rules to be excessively unfair to whoever accepts the debate. As such, this warrants a loss of conduct points. Bad form pro.
Arguments to pro. The individual definitions pro set up initially in the debate, almost tender the debate proposition tautology. Pro proves the locations are in the east and west, and by the chosen definitions, observers see the sun rise there. At this point pros arguments are merely reinforcing that tautology - there’s not a lot more to pros position other than arguing that Japan is in the east and LA is in the west. Pro establishes that with his sources and literally did not need to do anything else to establish the premise.
If con attempted to mount a poor defense primaril by haggling over whether calling. Japan and la as east and west - but as pro showed they are accepted as east and west by the definitions - he’s proven his contention.
Literally the ONLY way con could have won on arguments here, is if he had argued the definition of “in”, and attempted to argue that while the sun rises FOR observers in the east/west, the “in” refers to the direction of observation - which is always east/west. As con does not do that. He loses.
This was a horrible debate, and pro should feel bad about himself. If I could have awarded -5 conduct points I would have.
This had to be one of the overall "worst" debates I've read on this site. It wasn't amusing in the way you expect a troll debate to be, but although the instigator claimed it was a serious debate, it eventually collapsed into chaos more so than any other debate I've seen.
Spelling and Grammar: Tie.
There wasn't anything to write home about in this category.
Conduct: Bad all around... But a tie.
Before casting this vote, I asked a moderator if behavior in the comments section could be used to justify conduct points in voting. I was told usually not, so that made it more difficult to render a verdict on this category. Since Pro insulted me and tried to influence my vote in the comments, that alone would have tipped this category to Pro. But if the comments don't count, then this category falls to a tie based on what happened in the actual debate. Con accused Pro of trolling during his arguments in the first and last rounds. Pro retaliated by insulting Con repeatedly in round 2, as well as repeatedly claiming that Con forfeited even when he explicitly stated that he did not. It was poor all around.
Convincing Arguments; Tie.
Pro opened his argument by claiming that the widely accepted scientific fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a "false falseism" (which would be a double negative that seems to negate itself). He then built a very brief argument that the rising and setting of the sun has a different perspective depending on if one is located in the Eastern or Western Hemisphere. If I'm understanding his obscure argument correctly, he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere. Basically, the argument is clever wordplay based on the location of the hemispheres.
Con's rebuttal was to point out that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs. Unlike the Northern and Southern hemispheres which are based on the objective scientific fact that the earth has northern and southern magnetic poles. If the socially constructed hemispheres are ignored and we notice that the rising and setting of the sun are based on the rotation of the earth on it's axis, then we know that the sun will always rise and set in the same direction without regard for where one is located. As such, any argument based on the rising and setting of the sun which requires consideration of hemisphere must be scientifically irrelevant.
Beyond these initial opening arguments, everything else just became a mess as Pro repeatedly insisted that Con had forfeited and Con was forced to repeatedly deny this. Nothing else meaningful ever got accomplished. Ultimately, I feel this category must remain a tie because although Con gave an effective rebuttal of Pro's initial argument, the initial argument was really just wordplay to begin with and it wasn't really clear what was being argued at all. I think a tie may even be generous here.
Sources: Con.
This is the only category where points to one side are clearly warranted.
Pro both began and ended his argument with sources. However, it was never clear what those sources were meant to accomplish. Pro repeatedly used the examples of Los Angles and Tokyo, so in the first round he linked to a Google page showing the time of sunrise and sunset in those locations. However this debate wasn't about what time the sun rises or sets, but what direction these events take place in. The Google page Pro linked to says nothing about direction and thus fails to support his argument.
Conversely, when Con made any argument, he would provide a source (and often quote from that source) which explicitly said the same thing as the argument he was making. For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says exactly that. As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro.
I have already been threatened with having this review removed if I voted against Pro in any way. However, before casting this vote I consulted with the moderators and received one on one coaching regarding how to ensure a vote meets all the requirements outlined in the rules. I cast this vote confident that it is compliant with the rules and welcome anyone who feels otherwise to report it and see what response the moderators provide.
Block's RFD:
It is clear that this debate was meant to troll anyone willing to participate in it. The debate topic was ridiculous prima facie and i can not see how a serious point could have ever been made from either side. This was made clear throughout Pro's arguments and i must take those statements into account when voting in the over all debate, however I will try to be as objective as possible when it comes to awarding points.
Points for convincing argument: (TIE) I can not award either side full points for their arguments due to the simple fact that neither had an argument that was good or serious enough to convince me that their argument is in anyway more valid than the other. It is exceedingly difficult to make a serious argument on a ridiculous topic.
Reliable Sources: (CON) While the merit of both Con's and Pro's arguments are dubious at best, Con did manage to use sources that have a reputation for being reliable, objective, and substantive in his argument; and did so in a way that didn't muddy up his stance.
Spelling and Grammar: (TIE) Based on my understanding, in regards to spelling and grammar, i can not categorically state whether or not one side's was significantly better then the others.
Conduct: (CON) When engaging in an amicable debate it is imperative that both sides refrain from using devious tactics which could taint the overall debate. This is especially true when it is the sole reason for instigating a debate. Debates should be used as a method of exchanging ideas in an effort to grow both parties understanding on a given topic. However even though Con seems to have accepted this debate in good faith, it seems that Pro's original intent was simply to score points. Neither side benefited from this debate and that is a fault i attribute to Pros conduct and therefore must award this point to Con.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to show the conduct violation was "excessive." Sources was insufficiently justified as the voter failed to analyze any source in particular and as the voter failed to make any comparative statement regarding each debater's use and/or quality of sources.
************************************************************************
Weird, two people in the last two days have both put up a vote on this debate, and for both of them it's their only activity...
Block19
BossChick_23
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con for arguments, sources, s/g and conduct
>Reason for decision: cause yeah
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
I have nothing against MagicAintReal, we had a very pleasant conversation before i cast this vote and must ask that people not judge his character based on this one debate.
It's ok!
I apologize for the way in which i submitted my vote. I was informed after i posted my vote that i did so in a way that went against the rules of this forum.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Block19 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
>Reason for decision: Con addressed both sides of the issue properly and behaved more honorably than Pro did when they instigated this discussion. Con also used better and more objective sources, for these reasons i have awarded the following points.
>Reason for Mod Action: None of the points are explained and thus is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Sorry but I don't vote unless I'm a judge. I just don't care who wins.
Did you read the actual arguments or just focus on some words?
I read Pro's opening argument, and immediately understood that he's a troll, and then read the beginning of both Con's opening argument, and Pro's R2, and realized they're both ad hom trolls, and this debate is useless and unworthy of reading, much less voting for. Good day.
Would appreciate a vote here thanks.
Would highly appreciate a vote here.
Well this is not replying to anyone specific, though it may seem directly relevant to things that have been posted here, I assure you it is not, but if Con were to have shown how the japanese are not in the east then why didn't the voter mention that?
I showed how the Japanese are not in the East and that there is no East or West of Earth in actuality.
Hey person I just first talked to in the comments section of my debate on Conifers being superior organisms to humans.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your vote and explain how Con showed that the Japanese don't experience sunsets...
Would be interested in your votes here. Cheers.
"To Raltar, and myself, there is genuinely a direct link between what my source said and what I was getting at."
This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:
"Just observe the following video in the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct whereas Northern and Southern hemisphere are arguably undeniable so long as the Earth is as presented to us by NASA."
You get source points for this video because "when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that*
This isn't misinterpreting.
This is just someone trying to vote your side arbitrarily and making up points where there aren't any.
Between the two of us, I was the one who manned up by accepting this debate and fighting it how I did. We both know who the coward was here. I don't think you respect people's ability to interpret (and misinterpret) things. To Raltar, and myself, there is genuinely a direct link between what my source said and what I was getting at. To me, there's a direct link between there being no actual East or West area of Earth to 'be in' and the resolution being proven false via Kritik.
To three of the four voters, my angle was too weak, to me it was indomitable. I am not here crying about them.
I repeat the vote:
"when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that***."
The link you just gave, which isn't the one you gave for "social constructs" in the debate, only mentions axis and never mentions anything socially constructed or the word hemisphere.
Man up, sir.
You are quoting a source I used to add to it, the source he's referring to is this:
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/axis/
which has in it proof that only north and south are actual poles or 'the north' or 'the south' actual dichotomy-relevant things to consider on Earth.
No I'm serious.
If he gave you source points for linking to something that said EXACTLY "the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs" and your link did none of the sort, then why can't you own that and have him remove the vote.
You have 3 voters lying for you since they don't understand how I won by liquidating there being 'the west' or 'the east' so between the two of us, you're not the one who should be salty.
I want you to know that Raltar lied and I have the proof, please be honest about it and ask him to not vote.
Your boy Raltar said:
"For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says *exactly that*."
Are you aware of the source you provided for that?
Do you wanna make a bet if it mentions social constructs?
I do.
Here's the link that says "exactly" what you said about social constructs.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html
Man up and admit he's lying for you.
Also not mentioned in that vote, shockingly!
Con:
"All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on it and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
Con doubled down on this too.
Vote:
"he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."
What Pro actually said:
"The sun appears above the horizon in the west because observers, who live in Los Angeles, live in the west and experience sunrises everyday."
"The sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the east because observers, who live in Tokyo, live in the east and experience sunsets everyday."
Now, I couldn't figure where the voter had gotten this idea of *facing* the sun, as I NEVER used that at all in my argument, and I found it.
Con, NOT Pro had said R2:
"Suppose you are facing east - the planet carries you eastward as it turns, so whatever lies beyond that eastern horizon eventually comes up over the horizon and you see it!"
Then I decided to look in the comments, and there it was, biased voter spouting HIS reasoning to not vote arguments in the debate ,not based on the performance of the debater.
Voter in comments after vote:
"I reasoned that if I were standing on the beach in Los Angles and looking at the sunset, *I would be physically facing*the direction west, but would also be looking across the sea to where the Eastern hemisphere."
Not Pro's args voter!
Oh this is not directed at anyone.
But let's examine one of the votes and the debate and see if they match up.
Vote:
"Pro built a very brief argument that the rising and setting of the sun has a different perspective depending on if one is located in the Eastern or Western Hemisphere. "
What Pro actually said:
"The people who live in California, Californians, witness and observe sunrises.'
"The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness and observe sunsets."
No perspective was ever mentioned by either debater ever.
"To an observer" is a reference to the definition the voter was supposed to understand and gauge the debate with.
I'll agree not to talk to you, but I just want to know why showing coordinates are not proving the veracity of my claims.
That's all.
Fair enough then. Still, my vote was found to be compliant with the rules. So I would appreciate not being further harassed about it by Pro.
Virtuoso was not calling it a troll debate in his official capacity as a mod. This is not a troll debate as it does not meet the definition to be one.
"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." -Virtuoso
A moderator has already declared this a troll debate. According to the rules, troll debates aren't moderated.
I really should have worded my RFD better. I was calling it a troll debate from a voter/reader POV and not necessarily from a vote moderation POV. That being said, we do look at the rules to determine what actions to take. In this case the rules stated:
Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased
Thus for purposes of vote moderation we will see it as a normal debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Declan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro uses very unreliable sources while Con uses resources like NASA. Con provides good reason for his debates and explains it through science. The was bad conduct on both sides so I am leaving that a tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently ground both sources and argument points. To award sources points, the voter must explain the impact of the sources on the debate, which they do not do. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments of the debate and weigh them to produce a decision. The voter does neither of these things. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter must explain the impact sources had on the debate, must survey the main arguments, and must weigh those arguments to determine a winner.
************************************************************************
Final point I'm going to add here;
"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." -Virtuoso
A moderator has already declared this a troll debate. According to the rules, troll debates aren't moderated.
I could have written "Con eats dog lips and drinks kool-aid" as my rationale for voting and it wouldn't matter. The same goes for the votes cast by Declan25 and all other voters. Con aught to be happy that at least some people are treating his debate seriously and giving serious votes. Instead, he wants to argue with and harass everyone who casts a vote he doesn't like, which shows what kind of scheme he is running here.
You should really explain why you're ignoring Con's concession, twice done in the debate, and you should really explain all of the points that impact the resolution per the rules of the debate.
Hey everyone including moderators, this is the private message I sent Raltar that made him block me:
"I don't necessarily want you to change your vote, but we need to talk about some of your reasoning for your vote, and I'll give you the option to talk about it here or in the comments."
That's all I said.
Once Raltar became public about blocking me, our private conversation became public, and now we can all see why he is actually running away...he knows his vote is flawed.
Ok, well let it be known that all I did was ask to talk to Raltar about something in his vote and he is choosing to run away.
I'm asking Raltar nicely to please explain why he doesn't think coordinate sourcing was appropriate, after all he gave Con points because "As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
Why does the time of the sunset not prove that Japan experiences sunsets and why do coordinates with the western denotation not support my point according to Raltar's vote?
I'm asking nicely, so if you run from this, you're admitting dishonesty.
Moderators, take note.
I would like to point out a few things which were said about this debate in the votes;
"This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates." (This comment was from a moderator too!)
"This was a horrible debate, and pro should feel bad about himself. If I could have awarded -5 conduct points I would have."
In comparison to comments like these, what I had to say in my vote was downright complimentary!
In spite of that fact, 'Magicaintreal' is still harassing me and has now escalated to sending me unsolicited private messages demanding I talk to him. As such, I'm adding him to my block list and will no longer respond to this comment thread.
You did well for your position, I must admit...applause.
MADMAN is supreme.
Even when I lose the crowd screams "MADMAN is supreme."
"Rising and setting of the sun which requires consideration of hemisphere must be scientifically irrelevant."
Where in the definitions does it say that rising and setting are based on hemispheres?
If you cannot find it, you must change your reasoning.
" As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
Did you address my sources for coordinates on the eastern and western hemispheres indicating they were west and east?
You can't see how showing that the sunset occurred via the time it occurred is bolstering the point that in that location the sunset occurs?
How else would I have sourced a sunset in Japan?
Also, in your reason for voting, you lied about my argument.
"If I'm understanding his obscure argument correctly, he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."
Dude, this isn't even close.
I never said anything about facing any horizons, you made that crap up.
All i said was that people IN THE EAST observe sunsets and people IN THE WEST observe sunrises. It's really simple and you know that.
What did you think I meant by Tokyoites seeing sunsets?
I didn't mention which way anyone faces.
Why did you ignore the concession from Con?
Or at least why did you not address what he said as impactful?
well, thanks, I have no shame in this debate tbph.
Seriously though RM, don't take what I said the wrong way. Usually you are the guy pouncing on the noobs and getting an easy win, but this time you really did some poor noob out there a favor by fighting this trap rather than letting some other person fall into it. And you fought it well. I still think you won on the basis of sources if nothing else.
I mean, notice that Pro is suddenly no where to be found now that everyone is wise to his scheme. It honestly looks like some variant of this approach is his central strategy in every debate, where he wants to nitpick the definitions of words and the way they are used, rather than address actual scientific or philosophical issues related to the issue.
If I focused on 'in' he'd say you are located 'in' the East or West I didn't make a single mistake in this debate it is just people process language different to me, I assume. I believe 'actually' means something different to what most do. Even the definition supports the way I see 'actually'.
I didn't say you were an idiot or suicidal. I legitimately think you did a good job. And after thinking it over more, I also agree with you that Pro was trolling.
His overly aggressive act of threatening people with reprisal from the moderators was part of the game too. I actually feel bad having "fallen for" that part of the troll by assuming he was serious, when he knew he was BSing me all along.
Seriously, you did us all a favor by taking this one on. Can you imagine what would have happened if a new debater ended up in this mess?
In round 2 i do exactly what you say i didn't do