frame

Best Funny Content

  • Earth is a ball

    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence Just as a warning these guys don't wanna listen, they instead will mark your comment as a fallacy or rehash past mistakes.

    I’ll mark posts as fallacies that are fallacies.

    For example, I refuted your position, and you ignored the response 4 times; the fifth you posted a reply that made no sense, I pointed out in extensive detail why: and you’ve ignored that twice now.

    You then complained that I wasn’t interested in debate or discussion in the midst of it, and are still doing that.

    I get the feeling you’re disinterested in a discussion; and so are finding whatever  nonsense distraction you can, rather than to address any one of the number of posts you ignored.

    this makes your post a red herring.

    @Gooberry ;

    Definition of a Red Herring: Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. 

    SilverishGoldNova has done nothing wrong here. Even if you think the post doesn't make any sense, that does not make it a red herring. He seems perfectly interested in the discussion, please show a bit of respect. I know that I sound cynical, but this is starting to get out of hand.

    SGN has spent the last 3-4 pages not responding to specific arguments being made: and has primarily spent a large number of his replies trying to object to his posts being marked as fallacies.

    This is very much a text book definition of a red herring: SGN is raising unrelated arguments and points instead of addressing actual arguments.

    Now, in terms of respect; I am not name calling, I am not calling anyone stupid, I am not being dismissive, belligerent, or deliberately dishonest. Which is a level of respect SGN, Erf and the other flat earthers in this thread are affording anyone else

    Arguments stand and fall on their merits; and if you pay close attention to what I’m saying in my arguments, I am pointing out what fallacies are being made, providing a justification as to why, pointing out how and why particular statements are false.

    SGN doesn’t appear to be here to hold a discussion, I can say that as he’s repreatdly avoided responding to arguments and instead of replying, dropping irrelevant and largely hypocritical comments instead (I mean, look back, it’s not as if he hasn’t gone through and marked down almost every other post anyone’s made).

    So I completely disagree with your analysis: both of this post, and in general; and feel your analysis fails to take into account basic facts as outlined.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Earth is a ball

    Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means? 


    red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

    For example, when someone points out that you ignored everything an opponent said, and you argue that he doesn’t understand what a red herring is: that is a deliberate attempt to distract:
    and thus a red herring. (As well as being an ad hominem)

    An additional example, is if you ignore everything an opponent says, and simply dismiss their position for a side issue (as you did), this is also an attempt to distract away from the key point.

    so yes: I understand what a red herring is. Do you?


    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    @Pouge Yes, I can agree, this thread went off topic and the debate was inconclusive for either side. I think we need to stop fighting about who did not post evidence, and go back to the Earth's shape.

    With that in mind...

    Explain this.



    This picture was taken from Genoa, and is photographing the island of Elba, from over 125 miles away. 

    The image was taken from a height of 70 feet too. Now lets put these results into a curvature calculator.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Horizon = 10.25 Miles (54097.11 Feet)

    Bulge = 2604.99 Feet (31259.84 Inches)
    Drop = 1.97 Miles (10421.9 Feet)
    Hidden= 1.66 Miles (8779.41 Feet)
    Horizon Dip = 0.148 Degrees, (0.0026 Radians)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
    Refracted Horizon = 11.07 Miles (58431.55 Feet)
    Refracted Drop= 1.69 Miles (8932.46 Feet)
    Refracted Hidden= 1.4 Miles (7418.36 Feet)
    Refracted Dip = 0.137 Degrees, (0.0024 Radians)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we also take into account the elevation of the Island, which is 3,340 feet, then we cannot say that it is due to elevation.

    Simple, undeniable proof that we live on a stationary flat Earth, and we arent monkeys on a spinning ball.

    Uh oh. 
    Very phony numbers
    The cited 70 feet above sea-level is clearly nonsense when you look at the source of the Italian youtube-video. These pictures must have been taken from one of the tallest buildings or highest points of observation in or around Genoa.
    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.

    One seems to have been shot from one of the mountains surrounding Genoa.
    There's even one scene where you can see a small airplane fly by BELOW the observer.

    Here are the coordinates of the building in the first picture: 44°24'16.44"N   8°56'9.37"E.
    It's Terrazza Martini Tower, 116m high and standing on roughly 20m ground elevation (according to google earth). The observer is clearly standing higher than that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrazza_Martini_Tower

    Original video: 
     Edit: Changed the link because the video did not work. 

    Also, it could have been the superior mirage. 

    Sources: 
    http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm
    https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Superior_mirage
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz150.htm

    The link you have underneath your post: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html, yeah here is a link debunking everything in it: http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/debunking-Dubay-70-79200.html.

    Uh, oh!
    SilverishGoldNovaqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    tttflat said:
    @Gooberry @Pogue
    The Earth is flat kids. Deal with it! You can not change that! You guys act like idiotic 8-year-olds!
    Oh my gosh! You convinced me (joking). I have a question, how do you act like an 8-year-old when you are not one? The evidence you provided was so convincing (joking). 
    Erfisflatqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    tttflat said:
    @Gooberry @Pogue
    The Earth is flat kids. Deal with it! You can not change that! You guys act like idiotic 8-year-olds!
    What an excellent and well thought out argument: its so convincing, I can almost feel the weight of 2000 years of scientific study and evidence crumbling around me.

    I particularly like the way you assert we’re both wrong, hurl an insult; and claim we’re the ones acting like 8 year olds!

    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    qipwbdeo said:
    @Erfisflat The argument that was made, was that light coming in from multiple directions proved that it was shot in a studio. I call out this lie, and now suddenly I'm comitting a strawman fallAcy.


    https://i.imgflip.com/24r6mc.jpg

    or when someone claims that the video appears to have been made for comedic purposes
    Please show me where there arrle multiple light sources. It would have been impossible to do! The shadows that are parell could only have been created by the sun. It would have taken millions of lasers which were very expensive and only came in red to create that.
    http://assets.rebelcircus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/lightMOON.jpg

    qipwbdeoGooberry
  • Earth is a ball

    Erfisflat said:
    qipwbdeo said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Pogue said:
    @Erfisflat You know what you can have the podium back, this is just a repeat of what happened on DDO, if you want to deal with these clowns misusing fallacies to dodge questions and patting eachother on the back then thats your choice, I'm done. I'm not gonna do this again. I'm gonna pursue other methods of FE activism, just, when I complete my debate, be prepared to remove their inevitable votebombs. This website is the worst failure of an experiment since Airy's Failure. 

    "The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct."

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e_BwZ0FnJXw/Vb-EQBhXHuI/AAAAAAAAP8M/D6vFQKxnVYM/s1600/airy1.JPG

    Airy's failure proved there was no ether. Since it does not exist, it failed.
    Bedford level proved that water is not flat. 



    Also, the Earth not moving (which it does) does not prove a flat Earth. To actually slow the speed of light down (by a considerable amount) you need a telescope filled with BEC. 
    www.santarosa.edu/~yataiiya/4D/Phys4D-SlowingLight-BoseEinsteinCondensate.ppt
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/dec/15/slowed-light-breaks-record
    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/02/physicists-slow-speed-of-light/
    Now water doesn't slow light... and goober agrees!
    Pogue said it does not do it by a lot. It is very very very very little. You need BEC to slow it down by a lot. Nice misrepresentation of his argument. 
    33% isn't very little at all.
    "Scientists have long known that the speed of light can be slowed slightly ..." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150123144158.htm. You are misusing data. It is 33% because the speed of light is so fast. "... 225,000 kilometers per second in the water ..." http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/speedoflight/. BEC slows it down to 61 km/hour. I feel like that is a misuse of statistics fallacy. 
    qipwbdeoErfisflat
  • Earth is a ball

    When examining all the evidence that has no mistakes and/or is pseudoscience, one can only conclude that the Earth is fake (joking). One can only conclude that the Earth is not flat. 
    Pogue
  • Earth is a ball

    So I've just been lurking in this thread for a little bit, the arguments by Erfy and Silverfish are so damn cringey. I just have one thing to say

    @SilverishGoldNova Ah, you went on an angry rant and now you're threatening to leave again. You like to focus on post reactions rather than their arguments. What a shock!
    PogueGooberryqipwbdeo
  • Earth is a ball

    @SilverishGoldNova If you're going to accuse people of flagging all your posts as fallacies, at least have some principles.
    GooberryPogue

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch