You did not present your arguments in the description. What you presented in the description was a series of questions to discuss as topics of the debate. You never asserted an argument, until you baselessly claimed that the Bible is not unscientific, and then tried to slither out of having to make an argument by saying that you already did, even though you didn't.
I agree that the way many scientists today interpret the radiocarbon dating of fossils is flawed, but you completely missed the mark on the most damning piece of evidence against it. And I think I know why.
When scientists look at the amount of carbon in a fossil, they're checking for how much carbon-12 and carbon-14 there is. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere today is 1/1,000,000,000,000. So, when they look at the amount of carbon-12 in a fossil, all they need to do is divide that by 1 trillion, and that's the amount of carbon-14 there was in the fossil when it died. Compare that to the amount there is today, and you can determine how old it is based on how long it would have taken for that starting amount of carbon-14 to have decayed into the current amount of carbon-14.
But it is the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 for millions of years that distorts scientists' conclusions. In reality, there was significantly less carbon-14 and significantly more carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then. Why? Because the earth's magnetic field was stronger back then, causing it to deflect more cosmic rays, so less cosmic rays end up turning nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, thus there is less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there was very likely more animal life back then, all land animals of which exhaling carbon dioxide, which would all consist of carbon-12, increasing the amount of carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then.
So the resulting fossils have more carbon-12 and less carbon-14 than what scientists assume for a fossil that is as old as it actually is, because they think that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 all that time ago, even though it was actually a lot smaller than that.
I suspect that the reason you missed this was because you didn't actually do enough research to adequately argue for your point. All you had was a handful of pieces of knowledge you remembered, and tried your absolute hardest to make the most out of those few, not very convincing pieces of evidence. I suspected this because I've done it in the past.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
I like debating. Really I don't think my failures had anything to do with the way I was debating and everything to do with what I was debating about. Basically anything I'm not completely confident in will undoubtedly lead to me flaking eventually. If I do complete it, it's with very little energy left.
I really don't know if there's many people that aren't lying to themselves when they say that they barely care about looks. It's important to be attracted to your partner, and for you to do what you can to be as attractive as you can for your partner, because they like it.
I've heard of people saying that looks don't matter and they only care about the person's personality, but I guess nobody on debateart.com seems to actually believe that.
The description states to use common sense, and in this scenario, common sense dictates that obviously, we're talking about conventional people who have all of their 5 senses to experience another person's presence.
You didn't make a very good debate title, because it is not clear which position the contender takes, because the title is in the form of a question, not an assertion.
Yeah, I just kinda forgot about the Fahrenheit and Celsius. The logical integrity of the Celsius scale is that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100, but the advantage of Fahrenheit is that the range of temperature is larger, so it's easier to refer to the weather in ranges of ten. Overall interesting.
We're not just calling it the metric system because we move one decimal point, though that is a big advantage of the metric system, the measurements are still different. One meter is not the same length as one foot, neither a centimeter nor a decimeter is the same length as an inch, and a kilogram is not the same as a pound. The units that the metric system contains have a logical basis on unchanging and precise things, though at the time, the French didn't know how much of an approximation "sphere" is for the earth's shape. But it still stands that the earth's circumference is 40,075km (a tiny mistake was made in the calculations of the meter, but it's better than people's feet...).
And, if you think that me saying "I'm an American myself, but I'm not a fool" is really just me saying that I'm better than the average American, then you must think that the average American is a fool. In which case, you either think that you are like the average American and are a fool, or are not a fool and therefore are above the average American, putting you in the exact same position as me. Your argument is not very sound.
The whole point behind the metric system is that it's simple, so no over complications, it's logical, so it has a logical origin and basis, and it's easy, because of how simple the system is. You're using this as an argument against the metric system, but you're only using the exact reasons FOR the metric system. Why would you want to unnecessarily over complicate a system of measurement? It is precisely the fact THAT it is so simple that is a reason to use it!
And, yeah sending your links is not going to change the fact that whether or not changing to the metric system would collapse the economy is irrelevant, because we're not talking about how hard it is for each nationality to convert to the metric system, we're just talking about which one is better by nature. Get that in your head.
If you never misquoted me, why not you bring up where the quote was, genius?
And, you're acting as if the fact that all you do is mainly just move a decimal point is a cause for "that's it?" But you literally just argued for precisely one of the best reasons TO use the metric system, because it is that simple. It's not a matter of "that's it?" It's a matter of, "that's it!" As in, "that's all I have to do, and that was really easy!"
And no, I don't have a personal bias of the metric system, I am American and grew up using the Imperial System, so I made the decision to favor the metric system out of my own logic and reason, because of how logical and easy it is to work with and use and calculate, making things move a lot quicker.
Also, you didn't cite any sources either, you just showed up quotes, but you didn't actually send the links to where they came from, which to my understanding is usually required to get source points.
And, while it is true that I might have been a little on the technical side in the quote of me you quoted, anyone who can understand all of my sentences well will understand that I actually do know what I'm talking about. And, I wasn't telling people not to use the sesquipedalian loquaciousness fallacy, though you shouldn't use it anyway, I was talking about the exact opposite: people using irrelevant and simple-minded phrases and sayings to make their point appear to be more logically sound. If I ask someone why they like the Imperial System better than the metric system, and they respond, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!," then I know that they are just using patriotic phrases and sayings to give a little more gravity to their logic, when it's really just nothing. But that's far from a complicated statement, because it's just repeating three letters.
And of course, just because I didn't cite any sources or quote anything doesn't mean my logic is not sound. If you read my very first argument, you would see that I explained both the metric and Imperial System, and so you can see for yourself why the metric system is more logical.
"Imperial is better because metric is purely based on this, just to multiply 10^x to call yourself smart?"
First off, I never boasted about being smart. Again, you can >directly quote< me if you would like to prove me wrong on that. And, the whole point of the metric system is that calculations are really simple. You're describing that the metric system is really just 10^x...which is precisely the beauty of the metric system, because ideally it should not be so complicated, and it's not!
I'm believing Best.Korea more and more when he said that you're a troll, because this is the exact kind of thing that might happen between someone and a troll, it's just harder to spot on a website like this, where the whole point is to debate people. Either way, if you didn't give me a chance to respond in the debate, I'll at least respond here, because you're not getting away with that move.
You have completely missed the point, and misquoted me. First of all, I never said that the Imperial System is trash, I just said it was less logical and harder to use than the metric system. Second, if I can't drill this into your skull any harder, it does not matter how hard the convert from Imperial to metric is in America, because that wasn't even what the topic of this debate is talking about. The topic of this debate is which system of units is better, not which country would have a harder time converting their systems. America could have been calibrated on any system, not just the Imperial System, and it would make it hard to convert to metric. You're focusing on irrelevant factors, and making useless arguments because of that.
This is obviously bad conduct on ChristianIsEdging's end. He waited until I was incapable of responding in order to make any kind of reasonable argument, rendering my response to such non-existent.
I suppose there aren't almost any people who genuinely disagree with me on this, and if they didn't, they'd know they probably wouldn't have enough logic to back up their claim, so this might be a while...
I specifically stated in my argument that the only objective things you can say about food are their health value, and toxicity. Therefore, poisonous food objectively does not belong on a food that is intended to be consumed.
If you want to put bananas on top of your spaghetti Carbonara, there is no objective reason to say that you are objectively not allowed to do that. Unless it causes physical harm to the body, such as poison.
Whether they come from authority or not, the proof for a round earth is real. These explanations are real. You just don't want to get shot down because your arguments are probably terrible.
I created a debate about whether or not there is evidence for a creator to the universe that I knew I'd lose. It's just about the logic, and I can present you with the logic behind why we know the earth is round, not just because of eye witness.
If you are a real flat earther, you should join the debate. It'd be better than debating someone who just joined the debate for the sake of joining the debate and actually agree with me.
Looks like I spit bars of gold and you spit bars of coal.
You did not present your arguments in the description. What you presented in the description was a series of questions to discuss as topics of the debate. You never asserted an argument, until you baselessly claimed that the Bible is not unscientific, and then tried to slither out of having to make an argument by saying that you already did, even though you didn't.
I agree that the way many scientists today interpret the radiocarbon dating of fossils is flawed, but you completely missed the mark on the most damning piece of evidence against it. And I think I know why.
When scientists look at the amount of carbon in a fossil, they're checking for how much carbon-12 and carbon-14 there is. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere today is 1/1,000,000,000,000. So, when they look at the amount of carbon-12 in a fossil, all they need to do is divide that by 1 trillion, and that's the amount of carbon-14 there was in the fossil when it died. Compare that to the amount there is today, and you can determine how old it is based on how long it would have taken for that starting amount of carbon-14 to have decayed into the current amount of carbon-14.
But it is the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 for millions of years that distorts scientists' conclusions. In reality, there was significantly less carbon-14 and significantly more carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then. Why? Because the earth's magnetic field was stronger back then, causing it to deflect more cosmic rays, so less cosmic rays end up turning nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, thus there is less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there was very likely more animal life back then, all land animals of which exhaling carbon dioxide, which would all consist of carbon-12, increasing the amount of carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then.
So the resulting fossils have more carbon-12 and less carbon-14 than what scientists assume for a fossil that is as old as it actually is, because they think that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 all that time ago, even though it was actually a lot smaller than that.
I suspect that the reason you missed this was because you didn't actually do enough research to adequately argue for your point. All you had was a handful of pieces of knowledge you remembered, and tried your absolute hardest to make the most out of those few, not very convincing pieces of evidence. I suspected this because I've done it in the past.
Only 55 minutes left.
Where I come from, the "ange" in orange is pronounced like the "inge" in hinge.
Where I come from, the "ange" in orange is pronounced like the "inge" in hinge.
I know, "more range" doesn't rhyme with "orange." No one says "orAInge."
Real
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
As you can clearly see, the statement is false, meaning that it is false that it is false. Therefore, the statement is true.
As you can clearly see, the statement clearly states that the statement is false. Therefore, the statement is false.
I like debating. Really I don't think my failures had anything to do with the way I was debating and everything to do with what I was debating about. Basically anything I'm not completely confident in will undoubtedly lead to me flaking eventually. If I do complete it, it's with very little energy left.
Because most of the time I just lose all energy in the debate I'm in, so I just procrastinate to the last hour, or sometimes later.
Yeah I just gave up on that. I shouldn't have tried rejoining this website.
Yeah, I'll get to it soon. I'm not sure if I'll be available today though.
I really don't know if there's many people that aren't lying to themselves when they say that they barely care about looks. It's important to be attracted to your partner, and for you to do what you can to be as attractive as you can for your partner, because they like it.
Crap I procrastinated too long.
I've heard of people saying that looks don't matter and they only care about the person's personality, but I guess nobody on debateart.com seems to actually believe that.
If I entered this debate, it would end up being a debate about the existence of God, unless you're also a Christian.
The description states to use common sense, and in this scenario, common sense dictates that obviously, we're talking about conventional people who have all of their 5 senses to experience another person's presence.
You didn't make a very good debate title, because it is not clear which position the contender takes, because the title is in the form of a question, not an assertion.
WHY IS EVERY DEBATE SO INACTIVE?
You only have 1 day and 9 hours left.
Yeah, I just kinda forgot about the Fahrenheit and Celsius. The logical integrity of the Celsius scale is that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100, but the advantage of Fahrenheit is that the range of temperature is larger, so it's easier to refer to the weather in ranges of ten. Overall interesting.
GG, I'll be done debating for a while.
I completely forgot about this debate, I was doing other stuff
Like every other weekend, except my parents went on vacation for a couple days this week and last week, but we stayed home.
That latest one I wrote on my phone.
Bro is a PHD procrastinator :skull:
So that's how long a troll argument can go on for. Honestly I thought it'd go on forever.
It's Monday now. You're running out of time. But just so you know, I'm not falling for the "Wait until they can't respond" trick.
You never actually responded to anything, you just dismissed it, and thought that solved it.
How is that useless information? Explain to me why the information I provided has no use in our argument.
We're not just calling it the metric system because we move one decimal point, though that is a big advantage of the metric system, the measurements are still different. One meter is not the same length as one foot, neither a centimeter nor a decimeter is the same length as an inch, and a kilogram is not the same as a pound. The units that the metric system contains have a logical basis on unchanging and precise things, though at the time, the French didn't know how much of an approximation "sphere" is for the earth's shape. But it still stands that the earth's circumference is 40,075km (a tiny mistake was made in the calculations of the meter, but it's better than people's feet...).
And, if you think that me saying "I'm an American myself, but I'm not a fool" is really just me saying that I'm better than the average American, then you must think that the average American is a fool. In which case, you either think that you are like the average American and are a fool, or are not a fool and therefore are above the average American, putting you in the exact same position as me. Your argument is not very sound.
The whole point behind the metric system is that it's simple, so no over complications, it's logical, so it has a logical origin and basis, and it's easy, because of how simple the system is. You're using this as an argument against the metric system, but you're only using the exact reasons FOR the metric system. Why would you want to unnecessarily over complicate a system of measurement? It is precisely the fact THAT it is so simple that is a reason to use it!
And, yeah sending your links is not going to change the fact that whether or not changing to the metric system would collapse the economy is irrelevant, because we're not talking about how hard it is for each nationality to convert to the metric system, we're just talking about which one is better by nature. Get that in your head.
If you never misquoted me, why not you bring up where the quote was, genius?
And, you're acting as if the fact that all you do is mainly just move a decimal point is a cause for "that's it?" But you literally just argued for precisely one of the best reasons TO use the metric system, because it is that simple. It's not a matter of "that's it?" It's a matter of, "that's it!" As in, "that's all I have to do, and that was really easy!"
And no, I don't have a personal bias of the metric system, I am American and grew up using the Imperial System, so I made the decision to favor the metric system out of my own logic and reason, because of how logical and easy it is to work with and use and calculate, making things move a lot quicker.
Also, you didn't cite any sources either, you just showed up quotes, but you didn't actually send the links to where they came from, which to my understanding is usually required to get source points.
And, while it is true that I might have been a little on the technical side in the quote of me you quoted, anyone who can understand all of my sentences well will understand that I actually do know what I'm talking about. And, I wasn't telling people not to use the sesquipedalian loquaciousness fallacy, though you shouldn't use it anyway, I was talking about the exact opposite: people using irrelevant and simple-minded phrases and sayings to make their point appear to be more logically sound. If I ask someone why they like the Imperial System better than the metric system, and they respond, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!," then I know that they are just using patriotic phrases and sayings to give a little more gravity to their logic, when it's really just nothing. But that's far from a complicated statement, because it's just repeating three letters.
And of course, just because I didn't cite any sources or quote anything doesn't mean my logic is not sound. If you read my very first argument, you would see that I explained both the metric and Imperial System, and so you can see for yourself why the metric system is more logical.
"Imperial is better because metric is purely based on this, just to multiply 10^x to call yourself smart?"
First off, I never boasted about being smart. Again, you can >directly quote< me if you would like to prove me wrong on that. And, the whole point of the metric system is that calculations are really simple. You're describing that the metric system is really just 10^x...which is precisely the beauty of the metric system, because ideally it should not be so complicated, and it's not!
I'm believing Best.Korea more and more when he said that you're a troll, because this is the exact kind of thing that might happen between someone and a troll, it's just harder to spot on a website like this, where the whole point is to debate people. Either way, if you didn't give me a chance to respond in the debate, I'll at least respond here, because you're not getting away with that move.
You have completely missed the point, and misquoted me. First of all, I never said that the Imperial System is trash, I just said it was less logical and harder to use than the metric system. Second, if I can't drill this into your skull any harder, it does not matter how hard the convert from Imperial to metric is in America, because that wasn't even what the topic of this debate is talking about. The topic of this debate is which system of units is better, not which country would have a harder time converting their systems. America could have been calibrated on any system, not just the Imperial System, and it would make it hard to convert to metric. You're focusing on irrelevant factors, and making useless arguments because of that.
This is obviously bad conduct on ChristianIsEdging's end. He waited until I was incapable of responding in order to make any kind of reasonable argument, rendering my response to such non-existent.
I suppose there aren't almost any people who genuinely disagree with me on this, and if they didn't, they'd know they probably wouldn't have enough logic to back up their claim, so this might be a while...
GG.
Why does it still objectively not belong? If it is objective, that means there is a reason, so you should be able to provide a logical one.
I specifically stated in my argument that the only objective things you can say about food are their health value, and toxicity. Therefore, poisonous food objectively does not belong on a food that is intended to be consumed.
If you want to put bananas on top of your spaghetti Carbonara, there is no objective reason to say that you are objectively not allowed to do that. Unless it causes physical harm to the body, such as poison.
I'll just assume it was you.
I wonder if Best.Korea reported Savant's vote xD
I get the impression somebody reported Savant's vote, so you responded by saying why the vote is valid.
Okay? What just happened here?
I've been on this website for a month.
Oh I forgot about making it winner selection.
Honestly, I don't feel you are worth my time anyway. You just give me a troll vibe.
Done. But just so you know, a debate where the character limit is 17,000 makes three rounds a little small, but it should be definitely be enough.
Whether they come from authority or not, the proof for a round earth is real. These explanations are real. You just don't want to get shot down because your arguments are probably terrible.
I created a debate about whether or not there is evidence for a creator to the universe that I knew I'd lose. It's just about the logic, and I can present you with the logic behind why we know the earth is round, not just because of eye witness.
If you are a real flat earther, you should join the debate. It'd be better than debating someone who just joined the debate for the sake of joining the debate and actually agree with me.