Instigator / Con
21
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Topic
#2949
Resolved: The Earth is flat in physical shape
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Theweakeredge
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
16
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Description
Physical - "relating to things you can see or touch, or relating to the laws of nature:" [A]
Shape - "the particular physical form or appearance of something:" [B]
Earth - "the planet third in order of distance from the sun, after Venus and before Mars; the world on which we live:" [C]
Flat - "a flat, circular object:" [D]
[A] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/physical
[B] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/shape
[C] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/earth?q=Earth
[D] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/disk
General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared
Round 1
RESOLUTION: The earth is flat in physical shape
POSITION: Con
OPENING STATEMENT: I will be brief, we have overwhelming evidence against the resolution, there is no reason to drag this out. We know the shape of the earth due to: Navigation, Lunar Eclispes, Video Footage - that is quite impractical to fake do to expensive amount of paperwork, etc, etc - how phone’s gps work, how internet signal bounce, and how come you can’t see Texas from Oklahoma.
INTEPRETING (THE RESOLUTION): The planet, which we live on, is a circular object the nature of relating to things we can observe of the physical form. So - that the earth is not round, that it is circular or disk like. Notice specifically that the definition provided in the description is something which is like a circle - I simply must demonstrate that the earth is not flat.
CONTENTION I - OBSERVATION:
To begin my argument, I will use the things we can readily observe to prove the shape of the earth. If the earth was flat, then the entire planet would be viewable from one position given the topography lines up - that means that from a beach or a gulf - one would be able to see the other side - as the elevation is roughly the same across oceans- sea level- however, it is impossible to simply see these faraway locations- even though we can see the Sun, which is 92,955,807 miles away [1], we can’t see something much closer - across an ocean something which is only 200 miles away.
The size of the sun is around 860,000 miles in diameter [2] - dividing it by how far away we can see it and we get 0.008 of a mile, I am essentially taking the distance which something is viewable and the size of the object, and dividing the size of the object by the distance viewable, therefore attaining a ratio - 0.0089 miles in diameter for one foot - or around 40 feet. So multiplying that foot by 200, we get anything is viewable which is 1.7 miles in diameter - yet, even from the highest point in Egypt, unless you are in a radius of 20 miles from the Pyramids, you are unable to see them. Yet, from the Gulf of Mexico - you are unable to see the offshore oil rigs which are much closer than 200 miles and quite large.
If the earth was flat, we would be able to see these places and objects - as only topography would be hindering you - and this is assuming a lot - after all, we can see stars and planets which are light years away - so that ratio would be a lot smaller - this is overestimating it. Moving on, the case of Lunar Eclipse - these phenomena occur whenever the earth, sun, and moon are aligned in a straight line, where the Earth blocks the light of the sun which casts Earth’s shadow over the moon [3], which has never failed to be round [4]- if the earth was a disk, then the shadow on the moon would have to be a straight line across the Moon, yet we can see the round shadow slowly overtake the moon, proving that the earth cannot be flat.
Finally, navigation, the reason why we have GPS is because of satellites above the earth providing vantage and receivers for your devices [5] - if the earth was flat, then these things would not orbit, as the footage of them proves them doing - they would have to encircle [6] [7]. A single one of these contentions would be enough to demonstrate that the earth is not flat, but I have three (and many many more) ways that easily demonstrate the non-flatness of the earth.
CONCLUSION:
I have more than fulfilled my burden of proof.
SOURCES:
[6] - https://kttz.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.earthorbit/satellites-orbiting-earth/
[7] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/25/18639905/spacex-starlink-satellites-video-dr-marco-langbroek
I've taken on another one of those debates where a poster argues against what is written in the title.
I will have to watch out for this in future.
Round 2
Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it - If you notice - my profile picture and name is in a red rectangle, if a position is against the stated resolution that rectangle will be red, if you are for the resolution the rectangle will be green.
Do you then concede?
Theweakeredge wrote in the short description that he/she was Pro
Theweakerage wrote...
Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it - If you notice - my profile picture and name is in a red rectangle, if a position is against the stated resolution that rectangle will be red, if you are for the resolution the rectangle will be green.Do you then concede?
Theweakerage is indeed in red as Theweakerage says. However I do not concede, as Theweakerage actually made a huge error him/herself in his/her short description, which matches the title perfectly, and that error was to advertise that he/she was Pro for this debate.
Therefore I continue and claim a draw, or offer a cancellation based upon the fact that Theweakeredges short description was misleading, and as Theweakeredge is a reliable and honest trustworthy person and debater, I had no reason to doubt his/her words or double check.
Theweakeredge wrote...
Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con
Link to the The trustworthy Theweakeredge's description here www.debateart.com/debates
You will notice that the short description is the first thing anyone see's, and Theweakeredge has quite clearly announced himself/herself "Pro".
The earth is flat in physical shape
Theweakeredge's title says "The earth is flat in physical shape", and the short description says that Theweakeredge is "Pro" for this statement.
Why do I conclude from this that the error was the one made in the short description? Perhaps the error was announcing himself/herself Con instead of Pro within the Parameters of the debate?
Either way, why should something as misleading as what is written in the short description be allowed to warrant a debate?
I claim that Theweakereddge should either agree to a cancellation, or be applicable to either drawing or even losing the debate on the grounds that Theweakerage wrote that he/she "is" a flat earther.
Whether or not he/she is indeed a flat earther or not is not the issue. It should not have been written anywhere and certainly not in the short description.
Short description is very important
What is written in the short description is very important as it contains the information that the contender is agreeing to. And that is what I agreed to.
Round 3
I will respond to my opponent's mistake -- I say the voters decide - which would you find the greater indicater of my position - the small description which I wrote in error, or the quite obvious red color of my profile picture with the words "Instigator/Con" on them? It is clear then that if my opponent had actually read the description, or asked for clarification before accepting the debate this could have been easily avoided. Why should I be punished be deleting a debate where I have already made an argument whenever my opponent is the one who made the greater error? Furthermore, this is not the first time my opponent has made this error - in fact - another debate has already been canceled because my opponent did not read anything more than the short description.
If my opponent is unable to read further than a short description, my opponent should not be accepting debates - the fact of the matter is that Nevets has made the greater error in greater number, therefore my opponent's attempt to argue that my position was "misleading" is obviously wrong. Point to me the part of TOC which states that the short description HAS to be in concordance with the debate itself? My opponent has conceded his position - he admits that the earth is not flat, and took this debate out of error. There was no misleading, only an error, a single glance at the comment section will reveal that I had originally made this debate for RMM, with a different resolution, and I changed it to fit his preference - so every other piece of evidence would SUPPORT that I simply made a single mistake, one which is not really impactful.
If my opponent can't read more than 4 words that's his issue
Theweakeredge admits to an error - terms and conditions
Theweakeredge wrote...
I will respond to my opponent's mistake -- I say the voters decide - which would you find the greater indicater of my position - the small description which I wrote in error, or the quite obvious red color of my profile picture with the words "Instigator/Con" on them?
So you do admit to an "error", yet you do not agree to a cancellation? Quite simply I am as good as a new user on here. I was a new user when I first turned up, had some quick debates and then had to go for personal reasons.
However when I first return after one year I see a title that reads " The Earth is flat in physical shape" and this title is "supported" by what is written in the short description then I have reason to believe that you are a flat earther.
Had your title not been supported by the short description, which contains the terms and conditions of the debate, then yes, I would be at fault. But this is not the case.
You have "explicitly" stated in the terms and conditions that you are a flat earther, and therefore your very own terms and conditions.
T&C cannot be ignored.
I also argue it is not a small error, and I am not arguing over absurd definitions. This is not an absurd definition, you have blatantly included in your terms and conditions that you are "Pro" for this debate.
If you wish to continue you better start providing some evidence which supports your title, and your terms and conditions, because what is written in round 1 does not.
I should have asked for clarification
Theweakeredge wrote...
It is clear then that if my opponent had actually read the description, or asked for clarification before accepting the debate this could have been easily avoided.
But we are not talking about an absurd definition, nor something that could be misconstrued.
You actually wrote in your short description that you are pro flat earth and I am con.
So what we have is one error each. Not only this however, but what is written in your short description is supported by what is written in your title.
I understand it was an error, though a hard error to make, and you were not trying to be deceitful, however you should then also accept my error, and do the right thing and accept a cancellation, because I am not out to damage your reputation over an error, so you should not be out to damage mine, over an error. Errors happen.
Greater error
Theweakeredge wrote...
Why should I be punished be deleting a debate where I have already made an argument whenever my opponent is the one who made the greater error?
Theweakerage is wanting to turn this in to an argument over which is the greater error.
The greater error would have to be what is in "writing".
Is what is written in the short description any less important than the what is chosen within the parameters?
Theweakeredge claimed to be a flat earther in the short description and this was supported by the title of the debate. Therefore Theweakeredge has made two errors to my one.
My other debate
My other debate is nothing to do with this, and in my other debate I held my hands up to my error and I offered to continue.
This is different however. My other opponent did not write anything that contradicted what was written within the parameters. And nor did I claim such.
RMM
Theweakerage wrote...
he admits that the earth is not flat, and took this debate out of error. There was no misleading, only an error, a single glance at the comment section will reveal that I had originally made this debate for RMM, with a different resolution, and I changed it to fit his preference -
This has nothing to do with me. I am a new user back after one year and refamiliarizing myself with the site and your debate was amongst the first I came across, with a title which announced you are a flat earther and a short description which supported this.
I do not know your history, do not know your slang nor short cuts, and nor should I be expected to.
I genuinely do not know anything about your previous debates or comments to be able to "know" that you made an error.
If my opponent cannot read more than four words that is his issue
Theweakerage wrote...
If my opponent can't read more than 4 words that's his issue
Nowehere have I insulted my opponent nor suggested that my opponents error is due to anything else other than an error.
Round 4
My opponent has dropped :
- that my description was misleading
- that he made this exact same error
- the ACTUAL debateart TOS
My opponent seems to think that the short description means more than the actual POSITIONING SECTION of the debate itself. Again - this makes no sense - my position is clearly indicated by it's bright red color and obvious words of "Instigator/Con" - which my opponent has also dropped. Again voters, it comes down to whether you believe he or I made the greater mistake, and it clear that the one who has done this before and his ONLY supporting evidence that I was pro on this issue is that the short description said so - which is a relatively minor error given the ACTUAL POSITIONS FOR THE DEBATE.
My opponent wants to make a big deal out of the fact that the resolution was in favor of the flat earth; however, the fact of the matter is that people write debates all the time which they take the negative side of a resolution they made - sometimes its more helpful to do so for their opponent. Again - it is simply not plausible for anyone to believe that the short description is a greater indicator of my position then the OFFICIAL POSITION in the debate. My opponent did not see fit to read anything in the debate, and so he suffered on the wrong side.
I'd like to ask the voters a question then - should we allow people who "accidentally" accept a debate resolution that is unfavorable to them to simply cancel the debate? Of course not - it is the responsibility of the accepting debater to thoroughly read the debate before accepting - if they accept the debate, then they are accepting the positions which have been indicated by the red and green boxes respectively - they are agreeing to debate the resolution in FULL. If we allow this sort of precedent to be set, then any debater who is in unfortunate position would be allowed to opt out, but I would argue that is quite harmful to the integrity of this website.
The fact of the matter is that my opponent did misconstrue my position - he took a look at only one thing which highlighted my position and nothing else - it is much more clear that the color red and word "Con" is more attention-grabbing than a small description - my opponent would have to deliberately immediately click on the accept debate button, and not read a single thing in order to make such a mistake. My opponent even responded in the comment section where I had clearly indicated my position, my opponent had every opportunity to notice but did not do so - this is entirely on my opponent.
My opponent is in the wrong, and has already conceded his position - the earth is not flat.
Debatie title - The Earth is flat in physical shape
Short description - Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con
Position - Con
The short description does not match the position. Theweakeredgealso had no reason to write this in his/her short description as it would already have been included within the parameters of the debate description.
I have not offered to concede this debate, and Theweakeredge should have included in his first round argument, and argument which supported his original stance. And that was 75% pro flat earth and 25% round earth.
Theweakeredge has completely failed in his/her round 1 argument his/her concerns regarding the round earth theory which made him/her include in his/her short description that he/she was Pro flat earth.
Theweakeredge due to this error should have agreed to a cancellation and it was ungentlemanly not to.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While 7 points can be justified, it risks a vote being labeled a votebomb. In this case it does not rise above that being a fair declaration.
Arguments are well reasoned.
Sources are borderline, but fair when factoring in the argument assessment.
Conduct is on thin ice, with the gist of it being a disagreement with pro's offered kritik (already well covered under arguments). This alone I would probably just call it borderline but let it stand.
Legibility is what seals the deal. How it is used here is clearly something the argument point is for, with there being no difficulty in understanding what his case (or lack thereof) was.
...
Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.
Conduct is an optional award 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.
**************************************************
fauxlaw
Added: 7 days ago
#3
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Con presented clear evidence of Earth's physical shape as not being flat; his appropriate BoP as being a contender, though initiator of the debate. Thge best evidence, in my opinion, came from the lunar eclipse argument, demonstrating by shape of the Earth's shadow a full coverage of the lunar surface, rather than a single sliver of shadow across the Moon's surface were the Earth flat. By contrast, Pro never properly addressed his BoP, arguing instead, over four rounds that Con made an error in the short description of Theweakeredge being Pro; an error which, first, never appears in the debate page itself, and which, by Description and first argument, at least, clearly left notice to Pro which side of the argument Con was positioned before Pro ever had to produce an argument. Full reading of the debate information provided by Con, other than the erroneous Short Description, should have made clear to Con which opponent was to take which side of the argument. Con even advised Pro in R2, "Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it..." giving Pro ample opportunity to see the positioning in the debate and respond accordingly for the balance of the debate. Even given this clear warning, Pro continued arguing the posiitn structure of the debate, rather than the debate Resoltuion, itself. By clear default, Con wins the points.
Sources: Con offered clear, numerous supporting sources, even sourcing definitions sources, and then sources supporting the argument of physical shape of Earth. Con had no sources supporting no arguments for the Resolution. Con wins the points.
Legibility: Con's texts on all rounds were clearly understood. Pro's text were also understood as bering entirely off-topic. point to Con.
Conduct: Pro's error, even after being told in R2 that his assumption of position was wrong, continued in arguing the position issue, which
pro refused to acknowledge, and was entirely off-topic relative to the Resolution. If Pro was so certain his position should have been pro, he failed to offer a single argument for the Resolution. Poor conduct by attitude throughout the debate loses the point. Point to Con.
I make a habit of not removing tied votes, unless they're obviously melicious. In this case the vote gave good feedback, explaining why neither side came ahead in the eyes of that voter.
RMM - do you think I treat you like an asshole? Then I need you to take a step back and seriously question why I treat you like that - someone who I should agree with on a majority of subjects - and not Fauxlaw? Have you ever considered that perhaps *you* are at fault here? Have you ever considered that *you* are the one that are so intellectually dishonest I find myself angry at you for continuing on as if you've done nothing wrong? Have you ever considered that *you* are the fucking dick? I never assume I'm an angel, I do what I do to come to the most amount of good, that means fighting against transphobia, which means expecting nothing more than intellectual honesty from my interlocutors, I don't care if I'm not nice in the moment, that's not the point of what I do. So throw your tantrums all you like - I feel completely justified - the moment you take responsibility for the claims you make I'll start feeling bad, until then you stay on the shit list bud.
Theweakeredge
My vote here isn't troll but that vote I linked to, two posts below is irrefutably troll and malicious.
You just think because you're so pro-trans, pro-BLM pro-this pro-that,it means you can be as cruel and as much of a dick to other users as you please and get zero backlash.
You have one fucking delusional high horse you sit on. Start to question how you speak to and treat others before assuming you're an angel.
I am progressive too and support BLM and many other causes just as much as you. I also would never misgender a trans or queer individual nor tease them or passively sit by while someone else does.
You think your positions on topics give you some kind of authority to remove votes or talk shit on other users as you please. Fuck off, you are not some special god. My vote is absolutely valid and you didn't even report the other user who tied you guys for even less reason and poisoned the well one vote earlier than mine. You just think your anger and arrogance are some protective shield against all other users.
What? No - these were not "troll vote" you simply don't like it when I vote against you, but every chance I give you to explain why my vote was wrong you fail to explain. You calling me a "poser" isn't actually evidenced by anything, this is you having a vendetta against me because I don't accept your shit whenever you try to throw it at me.
Explain how my votes were troll, because I gave a *lot* of fucking reason why you lost that vote. You see - I even talked about how you almost won, but the only evidence you cited was *MOVIE SCENES*, how do you expect that to convince anyone? You should stop blaming me for your failings and just improve your evidence you show, you see - you've failed to actually account for the debate, which is extremely clear.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2974/vote-links/6555
^ don't leave this vote and virtue signal about the sanctity of RFDs. You're a poser.
Weakeredge, you're looking for beef over an unrated debate where you genuinely screwed up.
You voted against me on a Rated debate where you wrote that kung fu was argued better than wrestling but you don't buy it because of some 'proof'. I accepted it. You voted on a debate I had against gugigor that I didn't obey some rule and lost a rated debate. That vote is still up there because Ragnar let your troll vote remain. I don't cry about it. I toughen up and adapt.
I asked you for a cancellation. I have even requested voters not to give me a win and call it a draw. If I thought I made a serious enough mistake to warrant actually losing I would say so. Fact is, "I did" read your short description. You are only guessing that I didn't. Also, you "cannot possibly miss" your short description. It is the first thing everyone sees. Just go to voting and look at the debate link you will see what I mean.
I'm not proposing that we do, I am arguing for what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the facts presented. Do you think we should give up on the truth merely because it seems inconsequential?
We can't argue about this forever.
No, that other debate is *evidence* that you are at fault. While I have never done this before, and therefore ought to be given the benefit of the doubt - this is the *second* time you've done this. It is clear that you are at fault here.
"Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation."
The voter in question deliberately made an appeal to who they thought would win without assigning a winner, and that appeal to who they thought was win was not at all thorough in evaluating the debate, thereby poisoning the well for anyone who would read the voting section in the future for or against this debate. To me the action is clear - one should delete the vote on the grounds that it is deliberately trying to poison the well, pointing to who they think ought to win while voting tie is simply a case in superficial rule-following, not to the interests of the rules themselves.
LOL reporting my vote
My other debate is totally seperate from this debate and circumstances seperate. To begin with on my other debate I noticed my error instantly and I "asked" for a cancellation. However with this debate with you I did not notice my error instantly and this is because I did not check the features as you had already wrote in your short description that you were Pro flat earth. I felt I had no reason too. It is mere coincidence that just the day before I made a similar error and has nothing to do with our debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: zero
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
RMM
No - he did not read - you did not read either apparently - because I gave plenty of argument for his being wrong - and the fact that he has set a precedent of doing this before means that I WAS MUCH more justified than he was. You are just wrong here. He misinterpreted a clear coloring and labeling in the debate itself, because of a single mistake on my part - FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. which you never took - so if anything - I actually blame you for that.
Maybe it's spite, but I still fail to see you trying on the full BoP of your claims
As it was my first time back in a while I think what I have done is looked at the title, then the short description, and then seen the word Contender/pro in the green and due to a few tipples (i am over 18) have mistaken "contender" for "Con". That is probably why I did not contend at the time.
The debate may only be removed if both sides consent.
In future, I highly suggest discussion of any pro/con confusion (or other matters of clarity) in the comment section before accepting challenges.
Regarding requesting people vote: So long as it's not clearly slanted (such as 'hey, vote for me and I'll vote for you on one of your debates'), vote requests are allowed. Further, someone in a "friends" list here, does not equate to being real friends; heck often people who are listed here as friends outright dislike each other.
Which position have I changed?
You pivot awfully quickly, never defending your position if someone insists on it for long enough. Interesting.
You are right. I will never argue another debate again out of embarrassment if I lose a debate to a flat earther lol (I'm being serious haha).. no seriously. That is how bad it is. Arguing for flat earth? Errrr no.
What the hell? Are you seriously that conceited, no, he was acknowledging that trying to argue in favor of the flat earth is dumb, you wouldn't win unless you were a top tier debater, and no offence, but I haven't seen that from you.
And just to let you know I am not claiming a victory. I am claiming a draw. Votes for either of us should be removed.
Oh, that was undefeatable that made that comment. I see what he means now. So it was common knowledge you were "rigging" the debate.
Comments 7 and 8, its right there :\
I spoke to undefeatable about the positions? Errr I have not spoken to anyone about this. So you are mistaken. I have never spoken to Undefeatable about anything in my life. Been absolutely no contact anywhere. (I hope claiming no contact is not breaching confidentiality).
wow - first of all - to assume MisterChris and I are "friends" is reeeeaaaaallly stretching it. I could ask for Fauxlaw and Fruit_Inspector too if it would fit your fancy? But yes - it is pretty usual to use this section to ask for people to vote. Though I actually called out MC for your side of the debate, I thought he'd be more inclined to see your side - but also - I called Undefeatable because he KNOWS that you're being at least a tad dishonest, given how you talked with him about the positions.
Should the comment section be used to ask friends for votes?
The debate was a tad unorthodox, but I'd appreciate some votes, lmao
My apologises this debate wasn't for you - it was for someone else - and I was changing the resolution to meet their specificities, however, I would argue that you are at fault here. The positions in the debate itself CLEARLY dictate me as con - I do not consent to canceling the debate - this is the second time you have made this mistake and are clearly at repeated fault for doing so.
I claim another cancellation on the grounds that the Weakerage wrote in his/her short description that he/she was Pro "Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con". https://www.debateart.com/debates
That is what he/she advertised in the short description.
https://www.debateart.com/donations
https://www.patreon.com/DebateArt
How is it rigged towards Con? Because its nearly a truism?
My past experience was good.
It was the fact I run my own business and need to be at the beck and call of my customers 24/7 that made debates impractical. But Covid has gave me some free time. And as embarrassing as it is going to be to lose a debate regarding the shape of the earth, I like to pay my way, but I forget where the donations page is. Where is it?
I'm surprised you're taking this debate essentially rigged towards Con, considering your past experience. Excited to see what ace you have up your sleeve.
That's my compromise bud.
- you say that my sources are "authoritc" but thats up to you to DEMONSTRATE why should anyone accept your claims if you can't even back up why we shouldn't trust the ones that say opposite. It reads more to me that you can't demonstrate something without semantics. You want to argue that "it's possible that the earth is flat", because you can't demonstrate the earth is actually plausibly round.
Tell ya what - I'll change a few things, not how you want it because that would be definitionally biased, but a compromise. You'll have to demonstrate more than the possibility - you will have to prove the flat earth if you want to win.
Truth is truth regardless of voting outcome. The same isn't true for debates. I also wouldn't do this even if it were unrated because at the true depth of the conspiracy comes things that aren't appropriate to type (especially not as now anything can suddenly be twisted to be a conspiracy about Covid, which is separate but too hot a topic).
I'd be much more open to an unrated debate about the feasibility of flat earth working physically (including me debunking newton's laws of mass vs force and gravity as an absolute truth).
If you're willing to have the debate where you prove flat earth physically unfeasible, I'd be open to it. This debate as it is now can't be won by Con due to bias and source authority.
And you should know by my debates that I am interested in arriving at the truth at debate. That is my win-condition
Firstly, a formal debate is about reducing your opponent's persuasion of the audience, not at all about persuading the opponent.
Secondly, I have taken debates and lost enough to tell you that I know when a debate is unwinnable or not (if both sides play correctly). You will win this debate because I cannot and will not type out deep conspiracy theories.
This is not the place to do it. If you want to discuss and understand me or any flat earther, you need to first do so in an environment that doesn't allow gaslighting or 'my source has more authority than yours' dynamics. This environment always favours the round-earther.
There you are - why not try convincing me in a debate? You can use solipsism, the bible, whatever you want to try to argue against the resolution - you have 120,000 characters to do that - I do believe that is sufficient, no?