You are sounding more and more like a real flat earther...
And, space photos are the evidence I save for last, just because I know it's merely eye witness. There are plenty of other things flat earthers simply cannot explain, that the round earth model has no problem explaining.
The reason flat earthers will often cite conspiracy is because that have no other option, as otherwise, there is a whole plethora of other things they need to explain that don't make any sense, like how there are people who are alive today who have seen the earth with their own two eyes themselves. And, I doubt people are frequently getting fired for performing flat earth experiments, but also, the evidences for round earth are very simple. There are some examples that are so easy that they don't even need an experiment to conduct for them, like in cases where there is a natural phenomenon, like night and day or seasons, that flat earthers, no matter how hard they try, have no logical explanation for using their flat earth idea. The fact that it is impossible for the flat earthers to viably explain these phenomena already shows that it is not a viable model, as it is incapable of explaining things we objectively experience, like seasons, and the day/night cycle. But there are also simple things you can observe like the movement of the stars at different points of the world. Though this experiment would require you to make some kind of exposure picture/time lapse at different places in the world. But the point is, these are all very simple things that flat earthers simply cannot explain, meanwhile the round earth model has no problem explaining everything simultaneously, and rather simply.
"is too vague, subjective, and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it."
Yes, that's the point. I'm arguing for the fact that people have a tendency to take things that are purely subjective, and treat them like they're objective, and then are somehow shocked that other people don't like the same things that they like. They view their tastes as superior, and so, if you don't have their tastes, they will label you as having bad taste, or being flat out wrong. I am here to say that that is a ridiculous thing to say, because it is purely subjective, and also uncontrollable. There are no elements of reason to it, and even the tiny bits of reason that do exist don't make it any more justifiable to ridicule somebody for their tastes.
I see your priorities are more towards tactics, and winning, rather than the actual logic and reason behind the debate. I'd prefer to have an actual discussion than to just win because my opponent wasn't above waiting for me to forfeit so he would automatically win because of their arguments, but I don't back down.
The person who joined my previous "Transgenderism is Not Valid" debate just said "nope, you're wrong pal" and then a series of forfeits. Not even the debate was valid. So, I'm remaking this debate so that I can actually have a discussion about this. If the same guy joins again, I will just make another debate until somebody else joins.
Apologies, your argument did not appear for me, so I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I just put, "placeholder." Please respond as such so I can continue with my real argument, unless there is some kind of way to edit it.
I forgot to put this in my debate argument, but in addressing your response to me pointing out the flaws in your example:
In a scenario in which the host reveals the goat door and THEN you choose your door, the difference between that and the Monty Hall problem is that you never had the opportunity to choose before the host revealed the goat behind one of them. When he reveals the goat behind one of them before you choose, he has now eliminated one of the doors you could have chosen.
In the actual Monty Hall problem, all three doors are available for you to choose, because the host didn't reveal the goat door until after you chose.
That's the difference between the Monty Hall problem, and the scenario you invented, in which there are now only two initial choices, instead of three initial choices like in the actual Monty Hall problem.
To be honest, I don't know if anybody is even going to accept this debate, considering I have already devised a proof in Microsoft paint, and it doesn't even involve any math equations.
People realized the earth was a sphere thousands of years ago because all they had to do was observe the way the sky moved, which they were way more in touch with because they had much less distractions like electronics.
Ok, I just need to ask you if you have ever even read the Bible. I'll try to stay calm but this one is just...
You concluded in one of your points that all Christians have failed to obey God's law.
But
That's literally THE WHOLE POINT
The Bible says there is none good but God
That's why Jesus died and took the punishment for the sin of the world
Do you not even understand the basic premise of Christianity? Yeah, not a single Christian has successfully obeyed all of God's laws. That's a fact. And you acted like I was going to refute it, or that you were surprised, or that it was against what the Bible says. Or maybe I misinterpreted what you were implying when you said that, but either way, that's the whole point.
How is it circular? If I say that you objectively are [your height = x], how is it circular to say that you are x tall?
If I say that you objectively are [gender = y], how is it circular to say that you are a y?
Okay, you debated me on this in the transgenderism debate and all you said was "nope you're wrong pal." If you're just going to do that with this debate, please forfeit now.
Well that explains a lot. I've never heard of someone intentionally planting mistakes in their arguments before. Previously I just thought you had gone out of your mind, but I'm used to having people argue against my points no matter how logical they are (mainly in theism vs atheism debates), so I wasn't sure.
I think it's too late now to change it now, but I feel like the end of the long description might be a tiny bit misleading. The question isn't, "are transgender people changing their bodies for the better?" It's, "is transgenderism valid, and should it be validated by the community?"
Healthcare -
Noun
The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.
Murder -
Verb
The act of ending the life of a living organism, the act of which is to be classified as morally wrong.
I specified "morally wrong" because that differentiates it from killing, which is to end the life of a living organism, but is not to be classified as morally wrong.
You are sounding more and more like a real flat earther...
And, space photos are the evidence I save for last, just because I know it's merely eye witness. There are plenty of other things flat earthers simply cannot explain, that the round earth model has no problem explaining.
The reason flat earthers will often cite conspiracy is because that have no other option, as otherwise, there is a whole plethora of other things they need to explain that don't make any sense, like how there are people who are alive today who have seen the earth with their own two eyes themselves. And, I doubt people are frequently getting fired for performing flat earth experiments, but also, the evidences for round earth are very simple. There are some examples that are so easy that they don't even need an experiment to conduct for them, like in cases where there is a natural phenomenon, like night and day or seasons, that flat earthers, no matter how hard they try, have no logical explanation for using their flat earth idea. The fact that it is impossible for the flat earthers to viably explain these phenomena already shows that it is not a viable model, as it is incapable of explaining things we objectively experience, like seasons, and the day/night cycle. But there are also simple things you can observe like the movement of the stars at different points of the world. Though this experiment would require you to make some kind of exposure picture/time lapse at different places in the world. But the point is, these are all very simple things that flat earthers simply cannot explain, meanwhile the round earth model has no problem explaining everything simultaneously, and rather simply.
Wow you really do like rated stuff do you
I can't seem to edit that part of the debate now. Next time, I think I'll make my debate rated just to find out what the heck that even is.
"is too vague, subjective, and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it."
Yes, that's the point. I'm arguing for the fact that people have a tendency to take things that are purely subjective, and treat them like they're objective, and then are somehow shocked that other people don't like the same things that they like. They view their tastes as superior, and so, if you don't have their tastes, they will label you as having bad taste, or being flat out wrong. I am here to say that that is a ridiculous thing to say, because it is purely subjective, and also uncontrollable. There are no elements of reason to it, and even the tiny bits of reason that do exist don't make it any more justifiable to ridicule somebody for their tastes.
I may need to start a new debate who's title says "the earth is not flat" rather than "the earth is a sphere," I see what you did there...
You are so strange.
I see your priorities are more towards tactics, and winning, rather than the actual logic and reason behind the debate. I'd prefer to have an actual discussion than to just win because my opponent wasn't above waiting for me to forfeit so he would automatically win because of their arguments, but I don't back down.
Welp I've been spelling cite wrong this whole time.
Did you really think that just by using sources, any argument you make is irreverent and you'll just automatically win? It doesn't work like that.
This is gonna be quite possibly the quickest debate I've ever participated in.
So a hypocrite.
Considering what you just said, the fact that you're CON is strange. Have fun arguing for a side you are against I guess.
What do you mean unrated?
I'll define those two words in my first debate argument.
The person who joined my previous "Transgenderism is Not Valid" debate just said "nope, you're wrong pal" and then a series of forfeits. Not even the debate was valid. So, I'm remaking this debate so that I can actually have a discussion about this. If the same guy joins again, I will just make another debate until somebody else joins.
GG.
Apologies, your argument did not appear for me, so I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I just put, "placeholder." Please respond as such so I can continue with my real argument, unless there is some kind of way to edit it.
GG.
Just post an argument 💀
Generally I think no matter what happens, most of the time, whoever is debating as pro choice is going to win.
This guy is so annoying.
Well yeah, but I thought the point was that if you agree with the premise of the debate, then don't join it.
It is so hard to explain this to you 💀
I forgot to put this in my debate argument, but in addressing your response to me pointing out the flaws in your example:
In a scenario in which the host reveals the goat door and THEN you choose your door, the difference between that and the Monty Hall problem is that you never had the opportunity to choose before the host revealed the goat behind one of them. When he reveals the goat behind one of them before you choose, he has now eliminated one of the doors you could have chosen.
In the actual Monty Hall problem, all three doors are available for you to choose, because the host didn't reveal the goat door until after you chose.
That's the difference between the Monty Hall problem, and the scenario you invented, in which there are now only two initial choices, instead of three initial choices like in the actual Monty Hall problem.
Oh, I didn't even realize you were my opponent. You seemed to agree with the fact that switching makes more sense. Why did you join this debate?
Well don't reveal it all in the comments...
To be honest, I don't know if anybody is even going to accept this debate, considering I have already devised a proof in Microsoft paint, and it doesn't even involve any math equations.
As a Christian, it's sad to see how many of these people agree with the notion that abortion is perfectly fine and should be practiced.
It's just that with 8,000,000,000 people on this planet, we can't all agree on one by now. Or at least, it'll be hard.
People realized the earth was a sphere thousands of years ago because all they had to do was observe the way the sky moved, which they were way more in touch with because they had much less distractions like electronics.
I would prefer that you would not deceptively argue your way into winning a debate if you know that some of the things that you say are wrong...
Ok, I just need to ask you if you have ever even read the Bible. I'll try to stay calm but this one is just...
You concluded in one of your points that all Christians have failed to obey God's law.
But
That's literally THE WHOLE POINT
The Bible says there is none good but God
That's why Jesus died and took the punishment for the sin of the world
Do you not even understand the basic premise of Christianity? Yeah, not a single Christian has successfully obeyed all of God's laws. That's a fact. And you acted like I was going to refute it, or that you were surprised, or that it was against what the Bible says. Or maybe I misinterpreted what you were implying when you said that, but either way, that's the whole point.
If I say that 1 + 1 objectively equals 2, is that subjective?
How is it circular? If I say that you objectively are [your height = x], how is it circular to say that you are x tall?
If I say that you objectively are [gender = y], how is it circular to say that you are a y?
What you objectively are is not subjective.
Okay, you debated me on this in the transgenderism debate and all you said was "nope you're wrong pal." If you're just going to do that with this debate, please forfeit now.
Well that explains a lot. I've never heard of someone intentionally planting mistakes in their arguments before. Previously I just thought you had gone out of your mind, but I'm used to having people argue against my points no matter how logical they are (mainly in theism vs atheism debates), so I wasn't sure.
I think it's too late now to change it now, but I feel like the end of the long description might be a tiny bit misleading. The question isn't, "are transgender people changing their bodies for the better?" It's, "is transgenderism valid, and should it be validated by the community?"
Healthcare -
Noun
The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.
Murder -
Verb
The act of ending the life of a living organism, the act of which is to be classified as morally wrong.
I specified "morally wrong" because that differentiates it from killing, which is to end the life of a living organism, but is not to be classified as morally wrong.