Instigator / Pro
0
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#2992
Flat Earth is physically viable/plausible, if space agencies are lying (especially NASA and Roscosmos)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
4
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description
Plausible and viable mean that nothing about it is impossible or self-contradictory. It doesn't mean that it has to match things like gravity or the standard world map's southern hemisphere's proportions (especially of Antarctica).
Round 1
Con
#2
Thank you, RationalMadman, for having this debate.
I wish you good luck, may the better debater win.
Reaction to the forfeit
PRO forfeited 2 hours after last having logged in. I wish PRO would have at least explained to me what model of Flat Earth he supports. As he has made crystal clear, he is of the opinion that Flat Eart Society is somehow infected by false flat earthers, imposters working to ridicule the real flat earth theory. Not only does he believe in the conspiracy theory of a flat earth, he believes that the proponents of the conspiracy theory are themselves conspiring against it. Basically, PRO goes one step further in the conspiracy scheme.
Not only did he uncover the lies of the government, but also the lies of those lying about the lies of the government.
This leaves me clueless as to what he actually supports, as Flat Earth Society is literally the only group willing to claim the Earth as flat. Speaking for myself, I have a severe lack of faith in PRO's ability to find sources that don't contradict his belief. Regardless of this obstacle, I demand PRO send me the model of Earth he is willing to debate. A picture, a description, some clue as to how PRO perceives the flat earth, the sun and other important objects.
KRITIK
PRO, through the nature of his belief, asserts that all space agencies are lying and that all governments are lying. I just cannot see how that would be possible. How long can the government hide a bad decision before Wikileaks eventually gets the documents out, how long can space agencies farm money from the government and rich people before the lie becomes an economic impossibility? Scientists discover the nature of reality, quantum mechanics, and alike. How long until they prove that the earth is flat? Knowing that the answer to these questions isn't "forever", how would anyone intelligent enough to make this complot be stupid enough to continue lying? The answers to these questions seem to be more important for human society than this particular debate. They reveal either the stupidity of humanity as a whole or the severe lack of reasoning behind the flat earth theory. PRO's belief in a double conspiracy seems even more illogical. As far as I am concerned, nobody who isn't a madman should believe in flat earth theory. I understand that PRO has his reasons, and won't continue dismantling the conspiratorial part of PRO's position.
INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:
Flat Earth is physically viable/plausible, if space agencies are lying (especially NASA and Roscosmos)
We can divide the resolution into a resolution and a rule:
- Resolution: Flat Earth is physically viable/plausible
- Rule: CON can't use any evidence collected in space
This is the most forgiving interpretation for PRO. Not only does he avoid CON proving the validity of space agencies (destroying PRO with a Kritik), but it also removes the entire field of science that is traditionally used to disprove flat earth theory. However, the interpretation needs to take into account more than this division.
Plausible and viable mean that nothing about it is impossible or self-contradictory.
Self-contradictory: consisting of two contradictory members or parts
This is simple to decode. Physically contradictory means that you describe reality using physical forces that contradict each other. If the physical forces needed for flat earth to be true are self-contradictory, it means that they would not be able to maintain their stable state. If the same force doing x prevents y, and both x and y are needed for flat earth to exist, then the flat earth is physically self-contradictory.
Impossible: incapable of being or of occurring
This is harder to decode. "Incapable of being or occurring" cannot be easily defined. At least we know one thing, we are talking about something that is "physically" impossible. Appealing to aliens, god, the matrix simulation, magic, fifth dimensions, doctor who or any other form of non-physical force is not a valid way for PRO to prove the resolution. He must show why physical laws (that aren't contradictory) can explain how Earth works and exists as flat. Failing to do so will leave flat earth theory as merely a conspiracy theory with no actual theory about the shape of the earth. Remember, an hypothesis has to fit experimental data to be called a theory.
It doesn't mean that it has to match things like gravity or the standard world map's southern hemisphere's proportions (especially of Antarctica).
The problem with this appeal by PRO is that he asserts that the flat earth doesn't need to be our earth. I strongly disagree. The flat earth must account for what we observe. Accounting for observations is literally the defining difference between what is and isn't physically plausible, the defining difference between science and mysticism. PRO, or his sources, must show that the flat earth can account for our reality. If it can't then flat earthers are the ones denying the truth, not the government or Nasa.
I will summarize and conclude
CONCLUSION -- HERE ARE THE INTERPRETED GUIDELINES FOR OUR DEBATE:
- PRO is the maker of claims and the bearer of BoP.
- Resolution: The flat earth can account for our observations, without being physically impossible or based on self-contradictory physics.
- Rule: CON can not use the evidence collected in space
- Rule: PRO cannot appeal to forces outside our realm, like a god or alien simulators.
- Definition of PHYSICS: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions
I hope all voters can agree that this is the fairest and most accurate interpretation of the debate topic.
I wish PRO good luck.
Round 2
Con
#4
Unfortunately, PRO has once again forfeited. Luckily, he sent me this picture in the comments: flat-earth-model2. Please take a look.
Since PRO has not made any arguments as to why this is physically possible, I have nothing to rebut. I will thus initiate my argument.
ARGUMENT 1 - NEWTONS LAWS OF MOTION [1]
Newtons laws have been attested and proven true through centuries. These laws are still being used today, a testimonial to their validity. My source has this to say:
Newton’s first law states that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. [Britanica - ibid]
In other words, movement doesn't change unless a force is exerted. In the image that PRO sent me, the sun and the moon hover above the Earth like a UFO. This is virtually impossible. If the sun and moon are made of matter, they have mass and would fall down like literally anything else. Even if they could hover above the Earth, their velocity would not change and they would crash right through the "bubble" that is the universe in PRO's perception of the world. Furthermore, PRO fails to take into account such a basic fact as gravity. If PRO's model is true, the universe would collapse and crush us under its weight. As a result of these absurd predictions that PRO's model necessarily makes, it becomes dubious to assert that this model is even trying to describe OUR earth as opposed to the earth as described in ancient text like the Bible.
ARGUMENT 2 - DISTANCES AND MOVEMENT PATTERNS
The distance between the sun and the earth suggest that planes would be able to study the sun and moon when flying above the clouds. This phenomenon must necessarily occur for PRO's model to be plausible. I challenge PRO to show me footage of this phenomena. If he can't do this, his model is essentially making false predictions, meaning it is exposed as a pseudoscientific theory and not even possible in theory. The movement patterns of the moon also don't make sense. And good luck explaining how solar and lunar eclipses occur without affecting the tides.
ARGUMENT 3 - MOVEMENT OF LIGHT
PRO's model asserts that the sun is in close proximity to the earth and that the surface of the earth is always facing the sun. However, we know for a fact that the surface of the earth doesn't always face the sun. This becomes apparent in the day-night cycle and how the sun rises and goes down in the horizon.
CONCLUSION
I have no words. PRO's model does not make the slightest sense whatsoever. It is neither viable nor plausible, and it definitely requires self-contradictory physics or magic.
The resolution is thus proven false.
I eagerly await PRO's response.
SOURCES:
Round 3
Pro
#5
For now, I cant bring myself to put the effort into this debate. Of every 9ndebates I put effort into, 6-7 go unvoted ties even if I stomped the opponent in general. That's mg current ratio for the past 20 or so. It's brutal and tiring.
Not at all, just tired and busy with other debates and things.I also don't think thsi will get decent votes. It's extremely annoying to oht all the effort in for no-vote ties. I'll address this later when I've had more time to anakyse voters. I definitely want to save arguments for then. I also noticed innthe past that people's brains are sonhardwired to peeceive things like sun and moon rotating as the Earth itself spinning as well as us being onnthe ground as proof of gravity that I am struggling to forn the new wording that makes the eureka moment happen. I also may want to earn money for it if the writing is that good so I may save some of my drafts for later on.
If you do actually care about the topics DM/PM me. I've posted before about this on forums so there'll be some posts to read and videos to watch.
Con
#6
A 16-year-old can look at a picture of the flat earth and point out physical contradictions, impossibilities and false predictions. The flat earth theory is seriously over-rated by PRO, but in reality, it doesn't meet any standard for viability. The resolution was proven false by me, and PRO is not willing to defend this absurd model of Earth at this time.
I am the victor of this debate.
Thank you RationalMadman for your efforts.
I wish you good luck and I look forward to debating you in the future.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Another issue is Crocodile's and TheWeakerEdge's takes. I feel I'd put the effort in and they'd say I didn't prove it was flat. At this point, this is not the debate worth investing effort into put of those I'm in.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Over 40% of the debate was forfeited by Pro. Con was present for all.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con was the only one who had arguments.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con has provided arguments regarding Physics to point out that the flat earth model wouldn't be physically possible. Pro hasn't got any arguments at all.
Pro gave up. Con didn't. It is all that is needed to have the win given to Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
What had potential to be a good debate failed miserably, and both opponents had issues. Forfeiting the first two rounds [and effectively waiving the third and fourth by entry of extraneous verbiage neither in support of, nor negating the resolution, is a virtual full forfeit by Pro in my book.
While Con does offer evidence negating the Resolution, and that evidence is actually plausible and viable in both R1, R2, and I therefore declare that, in Argument, Con has successfully defeated the Resolution, also providing valid sourcing supporting the arguments, and, therefore, wins the debate, Con also offends in R3 and R4. IN R3, Con declares victory with a round yet to be completed. An infraction in my book, but there is no actual voting policy to support that conclusion. However, in R4, Con steps over the Conduct line by taunt regarding Pro's next "3K debates." This was ill-advised and unnecessary, particularly in a debate in which it would be a stretch to say Pro participated. As these factors do not specifically apply in a declared winner vote, in these regards, my comments outside of argument stand as merely casual commentary as a cautionary tale for both participants in future debates. Con wins the debate.
I agree. It doesn't need to be gravity, although I think the evidence points to that. I'm asking what force you think causes things to fall. Also, what do you mean by it makes no sense? I showed you how it works mathematically and how it is consistent regardless of the masses involved. It isn't the relative size of the objects that matters. What matters is whether or not one or both objects is large enough in an absolute sense to have a noticeable gravitational force. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you personally, but that's personal incredulity, not evidence. There are a lot of things in physics and other sciences that don't make intuitive sense. However, they can be verified to work. For instance, I don't quite understand what potential energy or kinetic energy are. I can't picture them in my mind. They seem very abstract. However, I can do the math and the experiments and see that they work. I can likewise do the math with gravity and see that it works.
Also, do you have any answers to my other questions?
A magical fact of nature needn't be gravity.
Gravity should be visible on mountain, blue whales and skyscrapers. If massive things pull tjings to themw, even if it's weak, it should be a consistently visible and proportional thing.
It makes absolutely no sense that being massive pulls things to you, even as a magical, mystical thing it doesn't have any linl to real life seen proportionality.
Objects only accelerate when a force is applied to them. What force causes denser objects to fall through less dense objects?
What evidence, beyond bare assertions, do you have that the history regarding the discovery of Neptune is a hoax? I would like to draw a distinction here that I think is important. I'm not asking how it could have been hoaxed. I'm asking what evidence you have that it actually is a hoax. Furthermore, I think it is fairly clear that finding a previously unknown object exactly where a theory predicts it would be is, in fact, strong evidence that the theory is true.
What evidence do you have for a screen?
I'm aware that my answer is almost entirely in questions, and I apologize for that. However, I'm trying to understand what evidence you actually have for your position. As I'm sure you know, it is very difficult to discuss someone's opinion if you don't have a clear idea of what that person thinks and why they think it. Also, thanks for replying. I thought you might have forgotten.
That entire neptune thing is potentially a full on hoax and if it isn't it doesn't prove gravity just what appeared in the sky (which isn't necessarily what's actually out there, if it's a screen of sorts).
What G is, in Cavendish's experiment, is Torsion combined with the 9.8ms^2 thing I have said is a magical downwards pull for denser objects to fall through less dense ones at that rate. Cavendish committed several fallacies in assuming he was measuring gravity.
It took me some research but I am certain what I am saying here is accurate.
"Gravity is such a weak force that it's never ever observable, ever."
No. It just takes more effort to observe. Henry Cavendish built a device that could measure the gravitational force between two 348-pound masses. He did this in 1797-1798, long before NASA was around. You can read about it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Also, gravity is observable in astronomy. Neptune was actually discovered using gravity. Uranus was not following the orbit predicted by Newton's Laws. Astronomers reasoned that it was being affected by the gravity of another planet. A scientist named Urbain-Jean-Joseph Le Verrier calculated where Neptune had to be in order to account for the effect on Venus. When he delivered his work to some astronomers, it was accurate enough that they were able to find Neptune that same night. This was in 1846, long before NASA.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Neptune-planet/Neptunes-discovery
"That is, unless we assume the magical thing making denser objects fall through less dense objects/terrain"
If gravity doesn't exist, then what force causes dense objects to fall through less dense objects?
"I always find it fascinating that there is never a SINGLE star in the sky from satellite space cameras, it's as if they forgot to fake that."
That I can explain. If there were stars in those images, it would be a positive, indisputable proof that those images had been faked. It's pretty easy to figure out why. When you go outside during the day, you can't see any stars. That's because of the brightness of the sun. You can also observe this with a flashlight. If the lights are off, the light from the flashlight is easy to see. If the lights are on, then the light from the flashlight is harder to see. Now, that's just the effects we see with our eyes. However, our eyes are much better than cameras. Cameras have this thing known as exposure time. If the exposure time is long, then the camera will take a better image of darker objects. However, brightly lit objects will be over-exposed. (Here is an image showing the results of different exposure times: https://shuttermuse.com/glossary/overexposure/). This means that they will appear far too bright or "washed out". So in order to take a good picture of a brightly lit object, the exposure time has to be much shorter. This means that the brightly lit object will look good in the image, but darkly lit objects will appear much darker (refer to the image I linked). The earth is an incredibly bright object (relatively speaking) because of all the light that reflects off it from the sun. However, the stars are many orders of magnitude darker. In order to take a good picture of the earth, the stars will be severely underexposed to the point where they aren't even visible. Here is what turns up when you put "moon" in a search engine and look for images. (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moon&t=brave&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images) Notice what isn't in the background of all these images? Stars. The moon is so much brighter than the stars that, in order to get a good image of the moon, the stars will be invisible. The same is true of the earth.
"Before giving me things, view them. Neither shows anything other than clouds or CGI graphic depiction putting together an image it claims is from real composites and which it admits is artificially presented."
I did view them, but I didn't read closely enough. The ISS feed was a series of recorded videos. My mistake. However, I would be curious to know what evidence you have that it was CGI.
Gravity is such a weak force that it's never ever observable, ever.
:)
That is, unless we assume the magical thing making denser objects fall through less dense objects/terrain is by default gravity (which is a hugely erroneous assumption to make if you follow scientific method and want to avoid confirmation bias).
As for the mosquito and the mountain, it's actually really easy to calculate gravitational force. The equation is F = G*m1*m2/d^2. G is the gravitational constant, which is 6.67*10^-11. F is force, m1 is the mass of one object, m2 is the mass of the other, and d is the distance between the two objects. Assume the mosquito is 100 meters away from the mountain. We can then calculate how much acceleration a mountain would apply to a mosquito. I'll use Newton's 2nd Law of motion, F=ma, to help. F=ma and F = G*m1*m2/d^2, so ma = G*m1*m2/d^2. The mosquito is the object in question, so both m and m1 are the mass of the mosquito. That cancels out, leaving a = G*m2/d^2. The mass of Mount Everest is 357 trillion pounds or 7.854*10^14 kg. Distance is measured from the center of mass. I couldn't find a source that said the width of Mount Everest, so I will assume that it's a cone that has a radius equal to its height. Everest rises 3600 meters above the plateau of Tibet. So, G is known, d is known, m2 is known, and m1 isn't needed. Entering the numbers into the equation gives a = 6.67*10^-11*7.854*10^14 kg/(3600 m + 100 m)^2 = 0.0038 m/s^2. Thus, if a mosquito was 100 meters from the side of Mount Everest, it would be pulled toward the mountain with an acceleration of 0.0038 m/s^2.
In conclusion, according to Newton's Law of Gravitation, a mosquito probably would not notice the gravitational pull from a mountain. However, it would feel the gravitational pull from the earth, which has a mass of 5.97*10^24 kg and a radius of 6371 km or 6371000 m. Performing the same calculation for earth gives an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2, which is the accepted acceleration due to gravity (in case it's not clear, I did perform the math for that as well). There are two main things to take away from this exercise:
1. Gravity is a really weak force. This is why even a mountain isn't enough to produce a noticeable gravitational pull.
2. Relative mass doesn't matter. An electron will experience the same acceleration due to gravity as a human or a mountain. *
*The other object (Mount Everest or Earth) will also experience acceleration from gravity, but this doesn't effect the acceleration of the mosquito.
https://weightofstuff.com/how-much-does-mount-everest-weigh/
https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Everest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass
I always find it fascinating that there is never a SINGLE star in the sky from satellite space cameras, it's as if they forgot to fake that.
Before giving me things, view them. Neither shows anything other than clouds or CGI graphic depiction putting together an image it claims is from real composites and which it admits is artificially presented.
Here's a link to a live feed from the far earth observer.
https://earthnow.usgs.gov/observer/
The camera is pointing straight down and the format of the feed doesn't make much sense, so this probably won't be as useful. The data is from the South African Space Agency, though, so it's not NASA.
Here's a YouTube link to the same stream if you prefer YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPjVzSoepo
Live feed from ISS.
https://www.webcamtaxi.com/en/space/earth-live-cam2.html
The camera angle gives you a good view of the earth's curvature and its features. However, there are clouds obscuring some of the features, but that's unavoidable, since we can't control the weather.
ISS is on a polar orbit (you can look it up). That means it will be over the Southern Hemisphere at times (I think about half the time). It orbits every 90 minutes, and there are plenty of websites that tell you where it is at any given moment. It should be easy to find a time when you can watch it move over the Southern Hemisphere.
Yeah - that's definitely true - colloquialism on my part - but I was focusing on comprehension rather than technical correctness ya know? I feel like these are objections borne of not understanding gravity and what creates weight, which is a failing of our education system.
Although I'd like to add that a black hole doesn't suck things up like a vacuum like in hollywood movies. Just things that pass over the event horizon become spaghettified.
You seem to not understand weight, fundamentally speaking, the reason you have weight is not because of gravity directly - there is gravity in space - it is because of normal force - you see as you stand on something you are exerting mass on the ground, and the ground provides force in return (the third law of forces). So to argue that "gravity isn't smashing mosquitoes" is to misunderstand what gravity actually does. It accumulates mass - it doesn't work like a black hole - black holes are a vacuum because of very very intense gravity - this doesn't always happen - usually its more of a spiraling effect (orbits/rotation). Anywho - a lot of flying things -specifically insects - use the wind as a crutch or generate lift by displacing enough air (the air does the work - not the wings themselves)
no, it doesn't. Not even slightly.
Yes it does, but the mosquito stays aloft because the force of it's wings against the air is greater than the force of the gravity pulling it towards a mountain. However, it can't escape earth's gravity, because the force of it's wings aren't enough to carry it out of the gravitational attraction (and atmospheric pressure) of the earth.
When a tiny mosquito is next to a massive mountain or cliff, gravity doesn't tug them towards it despite the mass, same for a blue whale and tiny fish around it
Those two things would begin to make me consider.
It's so utterly absurd when you actually imagine us hurtling through space as a furious spinning ball vs how tranquil the sun and moon's rotation is but I have said that before:
1. Third Party Audits of at least NASA but ideally both NASA and Roscosmos with in-depth interrogation and analysis of each step involved in the mission vs what can physically be proven.
2. Live statellites of some kind. Not that one that just films clouds, real live stallies that properly points down at the planet where the SOUTHERN 'hemisphere' (it's not a hemisphere if earth is flat) is visible. It's extremely important how the south of the planet is probably seen from supposed outer space.
What would convince you that the Earth is not flat?
Oh well, maybe eventually you'll change your mind.
A 16 year old can also point out flaws with other correct ideas and wise decisions, that haas no impact on the validity
Another issue is crocodile's and the weaker edge's takes. I feel I'd put the effort in and they'd say I didn't prove it was flat. At this point, this is not the debate worth investing effort into put of those I'm in.
Not at all, just tired and busy with other debates and things.
I also don't think this will get decent votes. It's extremely annoying to oht all the effort in for no-vote ties. I'll address this later when I've had more time to analyse voters. I definitely want to save arguments for then. I also noticed inntthe past that people's brains are so hardwired to perceive things like sun and moon rotating as the Earth itself spinning as well as us being on the ground as proof of gravity that I am struggling to forn the new wording that makes the eureka moment happen. I also may want to earn money for it if the writing is that good so I may save some of my drafts for later on.
I mean, just because the space agencies are lying doesn't mean the Earth IS flat.
Maybe you've finally stopped believing the earth is flat?
This is a fairly decent illustration https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/img/flat-earth-model-2.jpg
Ok. But can you send me a link to your preferred model of the earth?
Busy and also because this debate is equally winnable or losable to me with 30k char count whether you get an extra Round out of 4 or not. Do what you want, I'll sacrifice conduct point (not that I have a choice now).
Why did you forfeit?
You and I agree what your BoP here is and what mine is.
You don't understand much about the game of poker, I would presume.
What you are saying implies the world is based on strategising where everyone's cards are face up on the table.
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.
Sure buddy and to answer your question no, not the FBI.
"""
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?
There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments. This could warrant the loss of a conduct point, but there is nothing wrong with a member offering assistance. Whether or not that warrants losing a conduct point is to the opinion of the voters. This issue is certainly something I’d consider MEEPing
Flat Earth HAS to retreat into a conspiracy mindset in order to preserve the belief. If a logical fallacy exists, flat earth has probably committed it.
That is IF I accept they are being dishonest, I've yet to see you actually prove that dishonesty. At least in regards to the shape of the earth... like I had an entire thread proving the shape of the earth INDEPENDENT of Nasa and such, and you didn't even try to rebut the points.
I don't dodge at every chance but there are indeed reasons not to type about that online. You do understand that the most powerful people on the planet would be involved with keeping the truth hidden?
As for this debate there's zero dishonesty. This about the viability of the flat earth itself. Can it work? Many say it can't, ask where the edge is so on and so forth. I am frankly fed up of your attitude. You're extremely toxic and I blocked you before then unblocked you as you showed signs of improving, now you are becoming more and more belligerent for no rational reason.
If I annoy you by what I stand for and what I do, too bad. I don't come to your debates and whine like a bitch typing in allcaps to emphasise every seventh word. I'm sick of it and blocking you.
You did not do anything to "me" - you did something to intellectual honesty. For example - you merely asserting that someone is right is not INTELLECTUALLY HONEST - and just because Benjamin said something does not mean I think HE IS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST - I never said you dodged anything - simply put - YOU HAVE CLAIMED that Nasa can't be trusted, that the earth is flat, yet at every opportunity to prove it you DODGE the chance to prove it.
I don't think that's against the rules. Just kind of a general conduct thing most of us do.
Undefeatable is offering continuing assistance to Con in this debate's comments section.
hahahaha, good luck refuting Newton. Benjamin's not as strong as me in scientific research, but Newton's gravity proof is near irrefutable...
If you offer more help to Con in the comments, it is violating a rule about assisting other debaters.
nope, I am not going to support gravity in this debate's flat earth physics model. The Earth can be any age and still be flat, strawmanning flat earth theory is a habit of the simpleminded.
All Con has to prove is that Earth is 4 billion years old and that physics determine that the flat earth would form into a sphere (graaavity), and they win.