How to recognized Pseudoscience

Challenge me to a debate on the flat earth being physically viable/possible/plausible.

If alternatively you don't want to, I'll reply to those arguments in here.

You are unblocked.

I don't like 'reasonable doubt' it allows you to smear campaign me and say 'well duh, they're not lying' to many things I will bring up.

I want you to use the arguments you just used, among others, to justify that given what we see, hear and know that the flat Earth is impossible or way too illogical to hold as genuinely viable.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard.

It means that if there is any reasonable doubt that the earth could be flat - then it must be considered plausible.

A more stringent standard would be “unreasonable doubt”, which would include “aliens may have zapped our brains to make us believe it”. So if you’re unable to show reasonable doubt, and want more - then you’re basically trolling.

No, there's a huge abyss between the two extremes you just described. The latter scenario makes it too easy for me to go 'omg it's a conspiracy and all the logical fallacies are programmed into the simulation.' while the former enables you to go 'oh really, would Roscosmos not have called their rival NASA out on it by now? Let alone back then during the cold war?' and refuse to understand what being in on a conspiracy together that far surpasses human rivalries, would mean.

That’s exactly what I said.

If all you have is insane conspiracy theories together with unsupported and unevidenced speculation that you can even introduce a reasonable doubt could even be possible, then I will take that as a hard concession that you have nothing plausible.

So if I reply to your 'contradictions' (all of which are false and explained away by a series of things to do with perspective and distance, or something along those lines) in this thread, will you reply in this thread or do I have to accept the challenge to get a reply?

I am not going to make the same mistake as last time, I know that you will win with the current definition of 'plausible' and that you'll make every logically sound argument from my side shaken off as 'unreasonable but viable doubt in an insane person's mind'.

If you think I will win on the grounds that you cant show that there is any reasonable doubt that the earth is not a sphere; then quite frankly, you must not have a very good argument.

So if I argue here will you reply?

When I am at Round Three of my current debates, I will make an open challenge that's rating restricted, allowing you to accept and a few others, for the Flat Earth being possible/viable. When I do that, feel free to accept. I'll define terms in the Description.

If you’re not willing to reply in a debate, and you’re not good enough at debating to be able to argue that there is at least a reasonable doubt, then quite frankly, you’ve already conceded the point.

I’ll let you stick to noop sniping and accepting spam debates banned people, I’ll look for someone capable to debate with.