Instigator / Pro
0
1389
rating
408
debates
44.24%
won
Topic
#4857
I'm Pro. You choose the topic
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1511
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please send a message to me on the topic so I can start the first round with a full introduction.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Fret not in the case of the opposing side presuming I wasn't going to fulfill the topic .
"prefix
8/17/2023, 6:47:24 PM
You are Pro the proposition that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth.earth
Author's avatar
Mall
8/17/2023, 8:22:38 PM
I accept . You can go ahead and accept the open challenge."
For the sake of record ok.
Now, I'm going to explain this so plain a 12 year old can explain this and get this. Especially the ones that have already had experienced being on a plane or landed upward a tree.
Now you say "falling off the bottom of the earth" which is the ground going towards the center of the earth.
Whether southern or northern hemisphere, the bottom is the ground, the earth, ok. Now, you fall or move anywhere that's a location where gravity has been affected or resisted upon.
So when I go up or OFF the ground, away from the ground such as by way of an aircraft, an airplane, a space shuttle , I'm getting closer even unto the point in falling into outer space, gravity has been completely resisted.
You can do this in the northern or southern hemisphere. You resist against gravity, you move off, or fall off the ground , whichever respective perspective, you move from or fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom.
So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc .
Con
#2
Pro posted that he would take ANY topic.
Con gave him "The topic is you are pro that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
Con's position is therefore "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are not in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
Pro's argument in round #1 fully supports Con's position.
There is a distinction between "falling onto" and "falling off".
If an 11 year old child in Australia trips ....they" fall onto the earth". They do not" fall off the earth".
If a person in New Zealand jumps up into the air, he does not "fall off the earth". He jumps up and "falls onto the earth".
Another distinction needed is the difference between "the ground" and "the earth".
The "earth" is a planet with the surface being "the ground". Additionally the earth has a near space effect that holds and effects the atmosphere, "an airplane, a space shuttle " and so forth.
To fall off the earth, a person would need to move, without any energy input, from the "ground", though the atmosphere, past the space shuttle and "to infinity and beyond".
Pro's position is "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
It is not ""that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the ground".
Therefore Pro must show "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
Round 2
Pro
#3
Doesn't appear you really refuted anything I said. You gave your two cents on somethings so I'll start with getting clarity on those somethings.
"To fall off the earth, a person would need to move, without any energy input, from the "ground", though the atmosphere, past the space shuttle and "to infinity and beyond".
What do you mean "without any energy input"?
If I jump off something, let's say a roof, do I fall and hit the earth, ground, whatever which is below it?
"Pro's position is "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
It is not ""that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the ground".
Oh same thing. The ground of earth. What do you think the earth land is made of?
Rock is what we call ground.
"Therefore Pro must show "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
Ok so I say again the following:
"So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ."
Now this time show me what part of this is not clicking with you and we can go from there. Pick it apart, break it down, clarification, you know. We'll go over it .
Con
#4
To begin a summary, here are points which Pro can deal with:
#1 Pro allowed Con to "choose the topic"
#2 Con choose the topic thus "The topic is you are pro that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
#3 Pro defined "" the bottom of the earth" which is the ground going towards the center of the earth."
#4 Con rejects this definition. . The "earth" is a planet with the surface being "the ground". Additionally the earth has a near space effect that holds and effects the atmosphere, "an airplane, a space shuttle " and so forth.
#5 Pro states that when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom."
#6 Con rejects this concept. Linguistically one says "I am going up in an airplane". One does not say "I am falling off the Earth in an airplane."
#7 Pro states "So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ."
#8 Con rejects this concept because "being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc" implies the addition of a quantity of energy into the system. Falling is a passive condition that requires no additional energy input.
#9 Con makes a distinction between "falling onto" and "falling off".
#10 Con makes a distinction between "the ground" and "the earth".
#11 Con states "To fall off the earth, a person would need to move, without any energy input, from the "ground", though the atmosphere, past the space shuttle and "to infinity and beyond".
#12 Pro's position is "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
#13 It is not ""that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the ground".
#14 Pro has not proven "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth." In fact all of Pro's statements support Con's position.
#15 Con's position is that people who live in the southern hemisphere are not in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"#3 Pro defined "" the bottom of the earth" which is the ground going towards the center of the earth."
Well let's try to get somewhere. Why not?
Is what I said there true or false? Deal with that and answer .
"#4 Con rejects this definition. . The "earth" is a planet with the surface being "the ground". Additionally the earth has a near space effect that holds and effects the atmosphere, "an airplane, a space shuttle " and so forth."
Excuse me, let's get an understanding. You reject the definition but don't actually indicate where the bottom direction is. I did. I didn't describe what makes up earth. I went to where you hit the bottom.
So which direction is down standing or sitting on the land or ground of or on earth?
"#5 Pro states that when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom.""
Will you please quote where I said what you've stated that I said.
Please quote me , quote me, quote me. This helps in being accurate with the exact language of one another, alright.
"#6 Con rejects this concept. Linguistically one says "I am going up in an airplane". One does not say "I am falling off the Earth in an airplane." "
I don't know where you got that concept from. Unless you quote where I made the exact statement, you run into the danger of misrepresentation.
"#8 Con rejects this concept because "being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc" implies the addition of a quantity of energy into the system. Falling is a passive condition that requires no additional energy input. "
Well now I don't know what you mean by "passive ". I think I asked last time to define terms. I can understand evading that to avoid refutation.
But I believe the law of physics or motion teaches us cause and effect. Nothing just falls without a cause. I slipped and fell because I slipped. Something happened for the next thing to occur. You fall down a flight of stairs because you missed a stepped or something has interfered with your balance which YOU couldn't maintain or reinstate or regain. So I don't know what this passive stuff is but falling is simply going dropping downward . Like a number that drops or falls below another or an accepted number perhaps. Like a snow fall or rainfall, waterfall, leafs falling, coming down.
It looks like you're trying to argue the way something happens isn't a fall. A fall identifies direction. Which I've been waiting your rebuttal on that in which I indeed have a loaded rebuttal in the chamber for you.
"11 Con states "To fall off the earth, a person would need to move, without any energy input, from the "ground", though the atmosphere, past the space shuttle and "to infinity and beyond". "
This is another thing. All this can be considered ad hoc because your opportunity to give definitions and premises was at the time of giving the topic to me.
Once you give the topic and that's all you give, your left to the mercy of how specific or broad that topic is .
"#2 Con choose the topic thus "The topic is you are pro that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth."
#3 Pro defined "" the bottom of the earth" which is the ground going towards the center of the earth.""
Of course I defined it because you didn't. Now you want to step in and rearrange everything to fit a convenient refutation. Then you continue to rearrange to try to be infallible.
That first round I introduced everything as is and falling off the earth which is the ground is true for people in the southern hemisphere. Why?
When they leave the ground which is the earth, the ground of earth, just like the grounds of a school you leave the grounds of the school or off the grounds of school, off the ground , you're going off the earth. To the folks in the southern hemisphere that go off the ground and up and up and up, where is up going to ? Eventually up in the sky, heavens and into space. That's off the earth and these people are on the bottom of the earth according to the northern hemisphere perspective that can or head in danger to go off earth .
"#14 Pro has not proven "that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth." In fact all of Pro's statements support Con's position."
You're making statements. You're not actually challenging what I'm saying. I asked you what don't you understand about :
"So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ."
You have not challenged this at all. You are in the invincible ignorance fallacy where you just dismiss and don't actually argue. You just say deal with this.
Well you DEAL WITH THIS :
"So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ."
It looks like your only response is the definition of falling that you're pretty much in essence making an ad hoc of now.
In other words, you can only fall if it's uncaused. I don't know. You have not made yourself clear. You have not defined the terms I've asked of you so that's your fault. You want me to prove something but won't even engage in what I asked to try to get this moving to any conclusion or proof you might think is not there that is there already. Do you understand?
"prefix
8/17/2023, 6:47:24 PM
You are Pro the proposition that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth.earth"
Let's break this down to show how I dealt with this . Although you may not engage but may it edify all readers anyhow at the very least.
"People who live in the southern hemisphere" are those persons that are located in that part of earth we can say the south pole and Antarctica exists.
They "are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth" now where is the bottom of earth? The standard for the direction of the bottom is the ground downward to the center of earth.
If you say this isn't true, ask the folks in the southern hemisphere, where is the bottom direction?
So for them to fall off the bottom, they have to leave the ground, the ground of earth. Where else are they going to go?
They're still on earth when they're still grounded. You know when you're on the moon when you've landed on it. When you're on the land or ground.
When you gave me the topic you left it up to me to explain what falling and the bottom of the earth amounts to.
"#15 Con's position is that people who live in the southern hemisphere are not in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth. "
Obviously. Again just making statements. No counter points. Especially no counterpoint to my point about the direction of falling.
I believe I made the point:
"You can do this in the northern or southern hemisphere. You resist against gravity, you move off, or fall off the ground , whichever respective perspective, you move from or fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom."
So those even in the northern hemisphere are in danger and that's closer to the top or lateral to the top from the northern view. How does falling work that way? Riddle me this , riddle me that.
Maybe you already solved that riddle and decided not bothering to go there. Instead argue I guess that you can't fall with some sort of vehicle.
Let me ask, is it falling when you're in a car that goes off a bridge falling into the water below?
MY QUESTION AGAIN... I DON'T THINK YOU ANSWERED.
"If I jump off something, let's say a roof, do I fall and hit the earth, ground, whatever which is below it?"
See if you answer these questions we can have a back and forth challenging each other proving my case or you falsifying it.
Anybody just about can just dismiss points. You haven't disproven anything.
Con
#6
First of all, we need to understand the term “bottom of the earth”. Here is a definition …”The bottom half of the Earth is called the Southern Hemisphere.” (1).
The surface of the bottom of the earth is “ the boundary between the atmosphere, and the solid Earth and oceans” (2)
To fall is to move primarily in a vertical direction. Objects falling off the earth would be in free fall, “So all objects, regardless of size or shape or weight, free fall with the same acceleration” (3)
Putting these three concepts together it is clear that to fall off the bottom of the earth is to rise into the atmosphere without an additional energy input. It would be a free fall from the southern hemisphere, or a fall off the earth.
Pro argues that Pro never said “when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom.""
Pro asks “Will you please quote where I said what you've stated that I said.”
Well here it is
….“So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc .” ( from Pro in Round #1)
‘Pro then states
“Well now I don't know what you mean by "passive "
Con responds “passive” here means that no additional force is added by the object itself. For example if I jump up, I leave the ground ( but not the earth ) by adding energy. If I fall, I have not added energy. I have fallen passively.
Pro then states
“All this can be considered ad hoc because your opportunity to give definitions and premises was at the time of giving the topic to me. Once you give the topic and that's all you give, your left to the mercy of how specific or broad that topic is .”
Con rejects this notion. Either party can define or refine terms at any time, assuming that appropriate source material is shown.
Later Pro defined
"" the bottom of the earth" which is the ground going towards the center of the earth." "
Pro needs to provide a source for this concept, because Con has shown another definition and provided a source for that definition above.
Pro then confuses “earth” with “dirt”. Here is a sourced definition of “earth”.....”The Earth is the planet on which we live; it’s also referred to as the world or the globe. As one of the planets, the Earth is a sphere in shape.” (4)
Pro still must prove that people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth.
Saying that they fall off dirt is not sufficient.
Then Pro claims a proof thus;
"So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ."
However these concepts of “being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ." all require the addition of energy. Also that energy is added consciously and intentionally by mechanical or other means. That is not “falling”.
Then Pro claims that Con has not defined certain terms about which Pro has asked.
Con asks Pro for a list of those terms.
Also Pro has asked Con to disprove Pro’s argument. The BOP is on Pro to prove Pro’s assertion.
Pro still must prove that people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth.
Con contends that people in the southern hemisphere are not in danger of falling off the earth.
Pro must prove otherwise.
- https://www.lee.k12.nc.us/cms/lib03/NC01001912/Centricity/Domain/448/GEOG%20WORDS%20EDHELPER.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#:~:text=Earth's%20surface%20is%20the%20boundary,the%20solid%20Earth%20and%20oceans.
- https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/free-fall-without-air-resistance
- https://www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/earth#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20definitions%20of,as%20part%20of%20the%20universe.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"”The bottom half of the Earth is called the Southern Hemisphere.” (1)."
The question is, what is the bottom direction for anybody standing right side up according to their perspective?
This is the last round so to answer it's the ground of earth and in that direction to the core of the planet.
If you don't believe me call up anybody in the world and see what they tell you. You can Google this stuff. If you don't have friends in Antarctica.
So to fall off the bottom which is the ground, you have to first leave the ground. Now this is true anywhere of any hemisphere. For the folks in the southern hemisphere whether you view it as the bottom of the earth or earth's ground which is the bottom, there's no dispute there.
So this is a valid standpoint no pun intended whether you realized it , forgot about it or not.
"The surface of the bottom of the earth is “ the boundary between the atmosphere, and the solid Earth and oceans”"
I think this is echoing what I just said except for the"oceans " part. Going below the water going towards the ground is the bottom. Any sunken vessel hitting the ocean floor is at the bottom of the ocean.
" fall is to move primarily in a vertical direction."
Namely downward. The vertical stuff is perspective. Folks in the north western hemisphere from a celestial standpoint fall horizontally.
"falling off the earth would be in free fall"
This is incorrect if I understand what freefall is to be. An object has to resist gravity such as what aircrafts do. I've stated this earlier and those that board such vehicles are at chance or to be approximate in terms of the topic, in danger of falling off the ground, leaving the southern hemisphere ground which to go away from that ground you're leaving in the downward direction which is the bottom thus falling off , falling away from.
Off the grounds, away from the grounds , whatever. The idea is the position has changed.
Let us be careful to not mix up the topic. It's falling off the earth , not free falling off. To conflate falling off is just free falling is moving the goalpost. That exact word should of been in the topic.
"Putting these three concepts together it is clear that to fall off the bottom of the earth is to rise into the atmosphere without an additional energy input. It would be a free fall from the southern hemisphere, or a fall off the earth."
No this is conflation, moving the goalpost and ad hoc all at once. It sticks out being this late in the exchange.
"Pro argues that Pro never said “when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom."""
I don't argue it . I just told you directly to quote me and you didn't do it. When you quote somebody, you give the exact words of what they said.
This is why I asked you to quote what I said that you're saying I said.
So that means what DID YOU SAY I Said?
Well let's go to what you said.
"5 Pro states that when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom."""
So your statement says that I said "that when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom."
No where in the paragraph you quoted from me has this stated arrangement of words.
Here's the paragraph you quoted:
"Well here it is
….“So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc .” ( from Pro in Round #1) "
It doesn't even have the word "flying " in that paragraph. So where did you get that from if I didn't say it ?
Oh from your interpretation. So do us a favor, don't say I said something when it's really your interpretation.
Actually say "WHAT I GATHER " or "WHAT I INTERPRET" from what you said". It's clearer, it avoids misrepresentation and confusion .
Your interpretation is what it is. But you can't say I'm invalid based on what I said and be correct about it . The invalidity is coming from your misinterpretation or the way you interpret unless you're demonstrating with the exact words I'm using.
You're not even using exact words . You're concluding invalidity based on what you think instead of asking questions that could help you get a better understanding.
We can still learn from each other even in a debate. A wall doesn't have to be put up to close your mind out completely.
Let me break down what was being said. Going by what was being said and not by your misinterpretation, people in the southern hemisphere ARE IN DANGER of falling off the earth ANYTIME,pay close attention to those words readers.
The people are in DANGER of falling off the earth ANYTIME resisting against gravity somehow with the use of some catapult engine, vehicle, aircraft and ultimately a spacecraft. It depends on how far the person or persons continue their descent. It's descent because they're southern hemisphere folks. This is from a celestial standpoint. Keep this in mind as well .
But this is not what was in the opposing side's statement stating I said it. What they said I said was totally different. That's why I asked to quote it and maybe they knew they couldn't and in a disingenuous fashion quoted something to appear as if they're not avoiding the request to quote but knowing full well it will not match what they say I said.
Either way it's a misrepresentation. A mere evasive way to avoid refutation instead of conceding to say "no you didn't actually make that exact statement".
The opposing side said I said "that when flying on an airplane (e.g.) " {you} fall from the ground(Earth) which is the bottom."
I never said that. I never even made an example in that paragraph. You won't even find the word "airplane" in it. I never said "for example " or " e.g. an airplane ".
These are the opposing side's words misrepresenting them as mine.
I never said WHEN flying on airplane you fall from the ground. I said you're in DANGER. BIG DIFFERENCE. In other words you're at risk or you take a chance of falling anytime being launched or catapulted by any means. It's not outright automatic as you're communicating.
You don't take a chance of falling IF you're launched or as your go to example, not mine, yours of an airplane. You take the chance ANYTIME which indicates *when*. It's a *when* element.
Why is it * when* being that you're already in the air?
Aren't you falling? Does the vehicle, whatever it is keep you stationed when in the air, does it return you back to the ground?
My example in my own words , bungee cords that are in play when you're off the ground acts to eliminate the result of a fall buttttt still includes the risk of a fall. This is an ultimate fall because in the process there's a drop but there's suppose to be a retraction . In that anticipation of a rescission, there's a possibility of a material failure or a snap so the risk of a fall is still there after all the other progression of events.
I itemized several objects that can launch or catapult you. There are plenty of things besides an airplane.
These things have us to engage in the air off the ground and the more immense in power of vehicle that can launch us to outer space perhaps not coming back to the ground is a successive fall. Which is indeed ultimately falling off the earth.
A callback to the first round being that we're doing that, this ties back full circle to this point:
"I'm getting closer even unto the point in falling into outer space, gravity has been completely resisted."
"Con responds “passive” here means that no additional force is added by the object itself. For example if I jump up, I leave the ground ( but not the earth ) by adding energy. If I fall, I have not added energy. I have fallen passively."
When you use the term passive it came off as non caused period .
You continue to preface the word "fall" with terms such as passive, freefall, vertical but none of this was introduced with the topic. Being that I'm opening up the topic and arguing based on certain things, if those certain things aren't actually what I'm supposed to be arguing about, it's an underhanded advantage for you to call invalidity on my points.
Evidently with you redefining the term fall or falling is ad hoc arguing.
Bottom line is, you can fall without being passive like a boxer intentionally making themselves fall to throw a fight. A big common example is the tripping and falling which is by one's cause of misjudgment from a force of a misstep.
You can fall without it just being partially caused such as things outside of you.
"Con rejects this notion. Either party can define or refine terms at any time, assuming that appropriate source material is shown."
I don't mean "define" or "refine". I I'm talking about re-defining. I mean if we're going to be on the same page about the topic you selected, why didn't you give the information and definitions in the beginning?
Then you won't incriminate yourself with ad hoc fallacies .
"Pro needs to provide a source for this concept, because Con has shown another definition and provided a source for that definition above."
Oh you don't have to believe me. You can see this for yourself. I don't have to believe your so called sources. Nor do you have to believe mine. Unless these sources just point us back to what we can ultimately observe. Otherwise we're just reading what other people say. You can Google xyz.
The evidence is what you can actually attest so you or anybody can see for themselves which DIRECTION IS THE DOWN/BOTTOM standing right side up. You're standing right side up now, which way is to the bottom, the ground which is the earth or the sky?
We got to get out of this box of just reading material. See actual empirical things for yourself. You can be just told anything like I'm telling you know. Are you going to give credibility if I have a title or reading something that has the name of an author and title to a field?
You got to see it for yourself which I may put a topic out on that separately if anybody else thinks they can challenge that to a debate.
"Pro then confuses “earth” with “dirt”. Here is a sourced definition of “earth”.....”The Earth is the planet on which we live; it’s also referred to as the world or the globe. As one of the planets, the Earth is a sphere in shape.” (4) "
See this is what I mean by just reading things keeping your mind in a box not thinking much at all. At least not at another level.
WHAT IS DIRT? IS DIRT NOT INVOLVED WITH SOIL?
Is anybody here familiar with the term for a construction vehicle called an earthmover?
Does the vehicle really move the earth?
Well part of it.
Well what part?
See what I mean. Questions and answers like the scientific method involving empirical observation.
Just to humor you all that just what to be able to read something from a source, let's go on Google.
A Google search to define soil, what are the first few words of the definition?
"the upper layer of earth"
Let's do the same with dirt.
"earth used to make a surface". You'll find these as the words of a definition for this word.
This is like grasping at straws or throwing things at the wall picking on semantics.....like a last resort from the opposing side trying to make a rebuttal.
Pay close attention to ALL words. I mean close attention.
"The Earth is the planet on which we live"
Let me add to that. The Earth is the planet on which we live ON.
Question .
What is planet earth made of so that we can live ON the surface of it?
I think it's made clear. Much of these things the opposing side is saying just circles back to my established point directly and or indirectly .
"Pro still must prove that people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth.
Saying that they fall off dirt is not sufficient.
Then Pro claims a proof thus;
"So people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth, the bottom, the ground of the earth any time resisting gravity either by their persons being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ."
However these concepts of “being launched, catapulted by a singular contraption, vehicle, aircraft, spacecraft and etc ." all require the addition of energy. Also that energy is added consciously and intentionally by mechanical or other means. That is not “falling”. "
See you don't call it falling so therefore it's not proof. Therefore what I said is not proof. See this is ad hoc. You're redefining the word "fall" to mean what it does conveniently in favor of your position.
The way I'm using the term fall is valid as I've already explained. You apparently have your own definitions to words but didn't bother to tell me to setup this debate based on them so I can argue accurately and relatively .
So there's nothing further I can say in terms of evidence because our foundation for it is in disagreement. We can't really go any further.
You thought you came up with an impossible topic for me to argue against until I revealed I'm going outside the box. I took this to another level, another way at looking at things in a valid fashion.
This is a great topic because the very nature of it opens up reality about different views and perspectives.
Case and point. Not only the folks in the southern hemisphere can fall off earth because they can go off the ground but from the northern hemisphere perspective they would be classified as falling off the ground or earth. They're at the bottom/down direction in the view of the folks from the north.
The direction of a fall is always down from a respective perspective.
Do you all get that?
Those leaving the ground from the southern hemisphere say like Antarctica are leaving downward from the view of the northern folks and falling goes in a downward direction.
"Pro still must prove that people in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the earth.
Con contends that people in the southern hemisphere are not in danger of falling off the earth.
Pro must prove otherwise."
It all has been explained so that you're imagination can demonstrate it to you .
Imagine the earth from space , the different hemispheres , locations of where people inhabit. Picture a person or persons going off the ground by whatever means. Let's say they continue to travel by whatever means, doesn't matter. Choose whatever vehicle, contraption that makes it possible for the travel because falling doesn't exclusively mean partially caused as explained.
Then imagine the viewpoint of a person in the northern hemisphere or through your own view in the northern hemisphere, a person below you is facing downward andddd when they go off the ground/earth are going further down (falling).
Continuing further and further like I said before into the point of outer space.
That person in the south has a risk or is at danger of falling or continuing to go downward granted whatever is causing them to descend continues their descending. The descending and ascending is a matter of view but always true from a perspective.
Besides just reading what somebody wrote in what you call a source, you have proof right before your eyes and or what you can see in your mind you see it for yourselffffff.
I thank you for this topic for it really has given us the opportunity to open our minds and perspectives.
It is that fact that allowed me to counter such a topic that those have labeled in the comments as rather ludacris.
No matter how ridiculous, think outside the box , outside your perspective, you can see a new way of looking at things still working with the truth.
Thank you.
Thank you one in all.
Con
#8
Con will cut to the chase.
Pro has failed to prove that " people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth"
Pro has conflated "falling onto" the earth with "falling off" the earth.
Con offers this proof that " people who live in the southern hemisphere are NOT in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth"
From NASA.....
"Why do you land on the ground when you jump up instead of floating off into space? Why do things fall down when you throw them or drop them? The answer is gravity: an invisible force that pulls objects toward each other. Earth's gravity is what keeps you on the ground and what makes things fall." (1)
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
This topic is crazy
Omg lol
The topic is you are pro that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth.