Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Best Recent Content

  • We live on a flat plane

    yolostide said:
    The Earth can not be flat due to many factors including the horizon.
    The old boats over the horizon argument? I'm pretty familiar with this one. It is just way too easy to debunk. Boats disappear over the horizon due to the vanishing point of perspective, and if you grab a pair of binoculars and zoom in you can see the boat come back to view. This would be impossible on a globe, where boats disappear over curvature, which would absolutely and completely block the view.

  • Trump's reason for building transparent wall is to avoid getting hit with a bag of drugs

    Its pretty clear to anyone that his wall wouldn't do much, Making it transparent to avoid being hit by a bag of drugs doesn't change that
  • Trump's reason for building transparent wall is to avoid getting hit with a bag of drugs

    That's a stupid concern. Being hit on the head with a bag.
  • We live on a flat plane

    Erfisflat said:
    "You tilted the picture but also call my line fake for it being crooked?"

    I tilted the still to correct for the balloons tilt. You have made an acute angle, if you correct the angle of the horizon, you'd match your line, as i have, and you'd see the horizon is flat. Instead, you ignore my line and point me to a diagram to try and show the horizon is curved, yet another strawman.
    You can't accuse me of a strawman. I am the one making the argument. A strawman is when "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." I was the one who proposed this entire argument. That being my argument against flat water and flat horizon. How is it misrepresented? Nonetheless, what really matters right now is that I made a rebuttal to your line matching the horizon. I explained why you cannot match a straight line directly on top of the horizon to prove it's flat. Yet you ignored my proof of that claim and instead accused me of a fallacy. That is clearly a red herring fallacy. You attempted to distract me from the proof that circles looked at from a certain angle can appear straight, did not refute that claim, and then proceeded to accuse me of a fallacy while presenting a new argument to a separate statement. That statement being why my line appeared crooked. That is a true fallacy. Dun dun dunnnnnn~
    I will also explain why you can not correct for the balloons tilt. It goes straight upwards, it doesn't ascend at an angle. Also, you can't possibly know the exact tilt of the balloon in relation to the Earth's horizon. How would you figure that out? Or did you simply guess?

    "I just sourced this with the two vidoes I provided. It wasn't directly involving the bedford canal, as you also said is irellevant so I am sure it isn't a problem if some other form of water is measured."

    I may have missed that please link it again. The only video I remember is of a guy measuring the angle of the sun. This argument has bounced from the claim that they used a theodolite at the Bedford canal to measuring the water. Then when that was shown to be a false claim, you switched to the theodolite was used to measure the altitude of some unknown body of water, which proved it was flat. Neither having any backing evidence. Now not even the earth is being measured anymore, and you've turned everyone's attention to the sun. The argument ends with YET ANOTHER red herring.
    A red herring fallacy? No I'm just clumsy to not properly look at my own sources. I assumed that the theodolite was measuring water, but in the video he was measuring the SUN. Whoops. Now I know what you may be thinking about this quote "When I said he is measuring the elevation of the Earth, I meant elevation of objects relating to the Earth. Not the Earth itself." This is true for the first video, but not the second. I did not look at the second video and assumed he was measuring water, but he wasn't *BUT* I already sourced the Bedford canal being measured by the theodolite which you simply dismissed and seemingly forgot about. It seems we both messed up here. 
     "This argument has bounced from the claim that they used a theodolite at Bedford canal to measuring the water" No, I sourced it being measured by a theodolite through Wikipedia, which you dismissed so I gave a replacement source with a theodolite simply measuring a random body of water, except in that replacement source he was measuring the sun instead. 
    "What Bedford canal argument? I have already said that the experiment is not what I am referring to and you yourself has stated the experiment to be irrelevant. I have stated already that the important part is not the location or the experiment but the water itself."

    I really thought it would be obvious to anyone that when you referred you the Bedford canal here:

    I really assumed you were referring to the water inside the canal. Your arguments change so much, this is an obvious gish gallop.
    No. I simply stated that the argument originates from that experiment, and then gave a source showing that a theodolite measured it. I am not referring to the the original Bedford level experiment when talking about the use of the theodolite. A theodolite was not used in the original experiment. In my argument I simply stated that the Bedford canal, where the experiment took place, was measured using a theodolite and proved the Earth to be round. 
    "You've once again dodged the request for any evidence for this claim.
    This is not me dodging the question. I merely restated why the experiment is insignificant to my argument."

    You're just making random claims. Please provide relevant evidence. So far we've gotten nothing but strawmen. I've given several instances of flat horizons and bodies if water, and you've secretly conceded to each and every point except an unsubstantiated claim turned strawman, and your inability to tilt an image.
    This is not a random claim as I have claimed this before. Now, the replacement evidence was not relevant the way I wanted it to be. It explained how a theodolite is used, but did not show a theodolite measuring water like in my original source. The flat horizons and bodies of water are unrelated, as right now we are discussing the horizon of the planet as a whole, not just oceans and landmasses. That would be a different discussion. 

  • Christopher Columbus, national hero or not?

    I have no way of believing the "greatness" or "horror" of Columbus's deeds without doing my own independent research.  The video by Vincent Schilling that Earflat posted offers some horrible shocking accusations, which may or may not be true.   The controversy regarding Columbus escalates.
  • Christopher Columbus, national hero or not?

    Italian-American leaders defend Christopher Columbus statue

    I would say that we should keep the statues. It represents more than Columbus himself, and while there are ayestions about some of his acts, he represents the accomplishments of Italian-American community.
  • Trump vs NFL

    I believe that Trump is right and is defending the people who fought for America, etc. What NFL players are doing is irresponsible and rude to many people and the country.
  • Trump vs NFL

    Trump now picked a dangerous target - American fav sport - NFL.  Dude, you can't win that one, football players are rockstars and that trumps Trump. I think that was a no-win for Trump to go after them as it will hurt his popularity.  Yes, I agree that national anthem and american flag should be respected, but Trump will not get support from the country to attack NFL
  • Latino is not a "Race", nor is "Hispanic" or "Mexican"


    I'm not sure I understand your response, are you saying that Muslims and Mexicans are types of races that belong to a larger culture and subsequently each Culture has it's own race or races?
  • Latino is not a "Race", nor is "Hispanic" or "Mexican"

    There's a massive amount of misinformation on the World Wide Web today concerning Race versus Ethnicity.  My post today aims to correct and inform the would-be ignorance toting Race Mongers.

    1.  Latino: No matter where you search, any official definition or meaning of the word "Latino" will include the word "Ancestry" or "Origin".  From an intellectual standpoint this excludes the word "Latino" from describing any Race simply because a Human's Race cannot be determined by his place of birth.  There are White people born in Africa and Black people born in China.  Birthplace does not affect your Race...period.  From an official standpoint, "Latino" is definitively used to describe your ethnicity "Regardless" of your race ~U.S. Census Bureau~

    2.  Hispanic: Again we're right back to "Ancestry" or "Origin".  Officially the word is used to again describe people who's origin is of one of several Countries and is completely and totally exclusive from Race.  ~U.S. Census Bureau~

    3.  Mexican: Now we're getting somewhere...but then again we're stuck at a similar answer.  Being "Mexican" has nothing to do with your Race, if it did then anyone with citizenship in Mexico would qualify as one Race.  A "Mexican" is someone who holds citizenship in Mexico, Mexico is a geographical location on the Earth and therefor cannot be a Race. 

    So unless someone suggests that all Latinos or all Hispanics or all Mexicans are one single Race...then we are left with accepting that none of these words aptly identify any Race at all.  If both my parents were born in Mexico and gave birth to me...I would in fact be Hispanic...even though my skin is white as snow.

    I would suggest as an idea that people with dark or light brown skin who's lineage follows Hispanic or Latino ethnicity do not have a Racial identity unless you count the term "Mestizo".  I'll be honest when I say that I have never, ever heard anyone use that term to describe a Race of people but it is a legally and officially recognized term that aptly describes people of mixed-race who typically come from Central and South American Countries. 

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch