Instigator / Pro

Undefeatable

1644

rating

debates

65.63%

won

Topic

#3043

By the 19th Century, Evidence Already Showed Earth is NOT Flat

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 05.04.2021 09:21PM
Last updated date: 06.08.2021 10:31PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 1,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

RationalMadman

1702

rating

574

debates

67.86%

won

Description

Pro and Con cannot use any evidence from after the year 1900 MD. I will prove the Earth is NOT flat using only proofs from before 1900, therefore making it impossible to rely on NASA.

Burden of Proof is shared.

Round 1

Undefeatable

05.05.2021 02:36AM

Pro

Con must find evidence to the contrary that these ideas could not have been replicated before 1900.

NPFE = Not possible on flat earth

Ships disappear over horizon NPFE (Far-reaching telescope-like lenses were invented before 19th century)
Greek mathematician proved with different shadow length at time of year gives 7 degree curve of earth, and approx. circumference. NPFE.
Great philosopher Aristotle also argued for the spherical earth, using the following ideas [Aristotle section]:
Every portion of the Earth tends toward the centre until by compression and convergence they form a sphere.
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.
Even Medieval scholars: "...unanimously agreed that the Earth is spherical or round".
Ferdinand's circumnavigation NPFE. To add upon this, Sir Francis Drake also successfully circumnavigated.

RationalMadman

05.07.2021 02:19AM

Con

We can use discoveries after 19th Century began to analyse their evidence's actual capacity to 'show'.

Show:

to make something clear or prove something to be true

Evidence:

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Ships over horizon and all related phemonenon would (or do) occur on a flat plane.

Regardless of Earth's shape, things further away appear to move 'down', the sunnier the day is the closer and/or clearer the horizon appears (think of mirages),

Sources to help illustrate the illusion (first source has an excellent explanation):

Lunar Eclipses merely mean the moon is out of the sun's light-range, it doesn't prove the Earth is in between. Now, I'd like you to consider an eclipse that happened, it shouldn't on a Round Earth.

Further exploration of the impossible eclipse (which has happened before).

To help you envision the physics and shipping routes on a flat Earth as well as Sun/Moon rotations see the following:

Round 2

Undefeatable

05.07.2021 02:27AM

Pro

The rules stipulate that neither debater can use evidence from after 1900 (or events that occurred after 1900 and cannot/were not replicated before such). Con has violated this rule; please deduct conduct points from him and ignore his argument. Con has failed to address any of my proofs. Extend them.

Even if voters buy con's argument, a non-NASA website explains how this occurred, stating "Due to atmospheric refraction, we can also observe the Sun and the Moon even if geometrically they are slightly below the horizon. Atmospheric refraction raises celestial objects close to the horizon upward by about 34 arcminutes or 0.57°. In the case of our lunar eclipse, atmospheric refraction raises the Sun, and the Moon upward by 0.57°. To simplify things, we add it to the figure of the dip of the horizon above." As you can see, con's argument is nonsense.

RationalMadman

05.09.2021 01:22AM

Con

The rules stipulate that we can't use evidence from after that. However, if we aee to analyse what the evidence from before it shows, we need to be able to analyse it to the fullest extent.

If evidence from before a certain year showed you that a lie was true based on your misinterpretation of exactly what it showed, what then did it actually show you?

This debate is being held in 21st Century, we are analysing evidence from before 20th Century (the title implies before 18th but the word is 'by') to see whether or not it actually showed the Earth is not flat.

I am saying any and all interpretations of what was seen and happened failed to rule out a flat Earth, if people erroneously thought it didn't, thatst due to their ignorance, not due to what rhe evidence actually showed or didn't show.

What Pro is doing is called a red herring fallacy. Even if my evidence were espunged from my Round 1, the rest of the reasoning remains and Pro hasn't answered it. Circumnavigation works regardless.

Round 3

Undefeatable

05.09.2021 03:37AM

Pro

Con says that the ship over horizon and very far things could give the illusion of moving down on a flat plane, but ignores the fact that extremely powerful telescopes would be able to see them -- yet they are unable.

Con thinks the lunar eclipse is impossible but doesn't tell us exactly how it's impossible, or how it counters Aristotle's reasoning or the atmospheric refraction explaining the strange sun-and-moon appearance.

Con also ignores Eratosthenes' proof, perhaps the strongest evidence because it also measures the circumference in addition to proving the roundness (NPFE)

Con claims that the circumnavigation process would still be possible under the flat earth assumptions, but even sailors in modern day would still use similar routes as details in the past (except slightly improved) in order to complete the circumnavigation. The extended length of navigation merely by going a few kilometers to the south means that the radius would be unacceptably massive, extending the circumnavigation by days, weeks, or even months! (Example image)

RationalMadman

05.09.2021 10:31PM

Con

Evidence that Pro says proved (or 'showed') the Earth was flat:

Things merge into the horizon and appear to go over it, espeically noticed with ancient ships.
Ships also proved that if you keep sailing in one direction you go around the equator (or some equivalent axis to it more north of it) so there appeared to therefore be no edge and if we presumed the South to be identical to the North (since only the North was where full circumnavigation occured), it would lead one to presume a globe.
Greek scientists and mathematicians hypthesised that certain angles of shadow implied curvature (this is identical in reasoning to point 1 and requires one to assume that Earth's curvature is at play, not simple refraction and perceptive illusions).

To counter the second, I provided a couple of images to help you envision both how the sun and moon work on a flat Earth and how circumnavigation is just as viable in the North as in a globe (even same proportions).

The rest I explained were illusions.

Undefeatable

05.10.2021 03:47AM

#23

-->

@RationalMadman

to be fair, this was not a direct challenge, but a trickier version of my last debate in case someone like Benjamin wanted to accept.

I am not as malicious as I seem -- think of me as a trickster.

Theweakeredge

05.10.2021 02:47AM

#22

RMM
Umm... this: "If you seriously want a debate with me on an in-deptg topic don't add asinine rukes and traps character limits." I gave you that opportunity you didn't take it, don't make excuses when you've literally been given everything you wanted and still refused to engage. Plus, its the principle of the matter.

RationalMadman

05.10.2021 02:43AM

#21

-->

@Theweakeredge

I am not debating against you here so what does that matter?

Theweakeredge

05.09.2021 11:30PM

#20

RMM
Don't pull that shit bud - I gave you that opportunity and you failed to even try to accept it - don't think lying will go unnoticced.

RationalMadman

05.09.2021 01:27AM

#19

-->

@Undefeatable

If you seriously want a debate with me on an in-deptg topic don't add asinine rukes and traps character limits.

You're just looking for a cheap win and since most voters don't graso that ships going into the horizon isn't them going over the curve even on a curved Earth (because it's too near to be completely over) I don't see what exactly you wanted here other than a cheap victory. I don't appreciate how you've been talking to me in our past few debates and if you keep it up I'll just block you.

RationalMadman

05.09.2021 01:24AM

#18

Makes you wonder what undedeatable's intentions were woth this debate. Just a rude and asinine tone throughout with a 1k character trap. Pathetic as fuck.

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 03:05PM

#17

RMM

Obviously - the fact that its closer to 1900 means literally nothing, for example, 9/11 happened in 2001, the fact that it happened very closer to 1999 does not mean it happened in the 20th century. It happened in the 21st century, proximity to other centuries nonwithstanding

RationalMadman

05.05.2021 09:27AM

#16

-->

@Theweakeredge

So if you prove something in 1898 that was proven by the 1800s?

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 09:03AM

#15

RMM

They certainly aren't - in this context "by" means up until and including, etc, etc - which is fairly intuitive.

RationalMadman

05.05.2021 08:58AM

#14

-->

@Theweakeredge

By and before are synonyms in that context.

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 07:11AM

#13

RMm

Good thing the resolution is talking about BY the 19th century and not BEFORE the 19th century. Jesus, your so disingenuously semantic its really annoying

RationalMadman

05.05.2021 06:36AM

#12

-->

@Theweakeredge

1899 is 19th Century, not before 19th Century.

Intelligence_06

05.05.2021 06:11AM

#11

Con can use evidence after 1900 alright. It is not like Con could provide any examples that actually stands.

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 06:05AM

#10

Rmm

Do you just... have a problem with reading - BEFORE 1900! As in evidence BEFORE the year of 1900, as in 1899 and back! Seriously, how hard is it for you to grasp? I legitimately do not think you ar being serious rn

RationalMadman

05.05.2021 04:20AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

the 19th century begins in 1800, not 1900.

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 02:45AM

Rmm

Yes - why do you think he says he will only use evidence from BEFORE 1900?! You know, the 19th century? Are you actually READING, because it doesn't seem like you are. He doesn't say "the 1900s", he specifically says ONLY USING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE 1900

Undefeatable

05.05.2021 02:37AM

-->

@RationalMadman

I wanted to make it 1500's but realized circumnavigation was after that, so 1800/1900 wouldn't matter in my opinion.

RationalMadman

05.05.2021 01:30AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

The resolution says 19th century which is the 1800s, not 1900s.

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 01:28AM

RMM-
Um... because its the resolution? Yeah it does - because only by handicapping himself to this extent can he get you to actually try to prove your point

RationalMadman

05.05.2021 01:20AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

nice to see you concede that it matters.

Theweakeredge

05.05.2021 12:58AM

RMM
". I will prove the Earth is NOT flat using only proofs from before 1900,"

Nah - its not like he stipulated that in his description or anything, that DEFINITELY didn't happen

RationalMadman

05.04.2021 11:42PM

-->

@Undefeatable

19th century is 1800s by the way.

Undefeatable

05.04.2021 09:22PM

-->

@RationalMadman

I cannot use NASA. What more could you ask for?

Theweakeredge

05.10.2021 05:03PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The Resolution: By the 19th Century, Evidence Already Showed Earth is NOT Flat

Note:
While the use of non-previous 19th century evidence will not influence the arguments, any evidence from after 1899 will result in that user getting penalized for conduct

Arguments:
Primarily the two discuss two principles, as such, these will be the main points covered in the vote.

Ships Disappearing over Horizon: Pro argues that ships wouldn't disappear over the horizon if the earth wasn't flat, and Con responds back that regardless of shape things would appear smaller as they get farther. Pro points out that strong telescopes prove that, no, this isn't the case - but Con doesn't respond... he merely repeatedly asserts that conclusion to be a mirage. As for those pointing out that Con had sources, they had zero methodology or actual sources backing them - they were youtube videos. This point goes to Pro

Lunar Eclipses: Pro argues that the shape of the shadow of the earth would be impossible if the earth was flat, and Con argues that eclipses mean that the earth is out of range? I don't follow Con's arguments, and he provides no substantiation nor elaboration for the claim- he tacks on that there was an impossible eclipse in 2011... but the source that his source cites, literally explains why the eclipse is indeed possible - and Pro pointed this out as well it was atmospheric reflection, and Con also doesn't respond to this. This point goes to Pro

Dropped Arguments: Con literally drops half of Pro's proofs from the first round such as: Circumnavigation, mathematical calculation of the shape of the earth, the argument of shifting constellations, the argument of the compression of spheres, and so on and so forth - even if Con successfully rebuked the two primary points of discussion he would still have lost hands down thanks to this basket full of proofs. Pro wins arguments by a landslide.

Sources:
While Con employs *only* youtube videos and images, Pro actually provides substantive sources which effectively link and prove his claim... Con's only source that actually has a source sourced (remember youtube videos) actually contradicts the idea of the video, so, Pro wins this one. Though he also has a youtube video, most of his sources are non-video sources which are properly sourced themselves, in contrast, the only "real" source Con has refutes the claim that he's trying to make.

Conduct:
As I mentioned previously, and Pro pointed out, Con provided evidence that was recorded in the 2000s, no ifs, and, or buts about it - one of his sources is literally an experiment conducted by non-professionals in tennis courts, as Con broke the resolution he is being penalized.