frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Is the Earth flat?

Opening Argument

FredsnephewFredsnephew 173 Pts
edited August 12 in General
My Position - The Earth Is Not Flat.
Perhaps the flat Earth protagonists amongst us could clarify their position.
Keep it succinct to start with. Bullet point format will do.
Just so that we can understand the benefits of a flat Earth and the reasons why the Earth shouldn't be spherical.

passedbillSilverishGoldNovajoecavalrynorthsouthkorea
  1. ?

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      50.00%
    2. No
      50.00%
«1

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • @Fredsnephew , this is a duplicate debate. 
    SilverishGoldNova
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 725 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    There are a number of arguments I have in favor of a flat Earth, but I don't think we need 2 of the same debate. 
    passedbill



  • I posted a question rather than a proposition.
    I was simply seeking clarification.
    The other debate has turned into something of a leviathan. Bogged down with third party references and misleading information.
    Logical questions tend to be treated with ridicule and responded to with nonsense.
    Not that I take the other debate seriously, but I think some people do.
    Maybe it is just a bit of fun.

    Nonetheless.
    Let's clarify the issue.
    Why should the Earth be flat and not spherical?
    aarongpassedbill
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    edited August 11 Premium Member
    The other is getting trolled pretty hard, but I agree
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • We have pictures of the round Earth, why is this still a debate?
    passedbill
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 725 PtsPremium Member
    edited August 12 Premium Member
    We have pictures of the round Earth, why is this still a debate?
    Because NASA, although it is an $18 BN a year company, freely admits that they fake images and even say they photoshop images if they look "kinda flat". They say the only real pictures they have of the Earth are from the moon landings which have been debunked before, which is even admitted by some ball Earth proponents. Why would they have to fake these images if the Earth is spherical and they are a $18 BN a year company? 
    passedbill



  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    We have pictures of the round Earth, why is this still a debate?
    Pictures aren't proof of anything regardless, especially when they aren't verifiable. 
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • The companies, both private and public which are investing billions of dollars into the space industry wouldn't be doing so most likely, if the Earth was flat.
    m_abusteitSilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
  • @passedbill Of course, flat Earthers just say "but but, the conspiracy..." 
    SilverishGoldNovajoecavalry
  • We have pictures of the round Earth, why is this still a debate?
    Because NASA, although it is an $18 BN a year company, freely admits that they fake images and even say they photoshop images if they look "kinda flat". They say the only real pictures they have of the Earth are from the moon landings which have been debunked before, which is even admitted by some ball Earth proponents. Why would they have to fake these images if the Earth is spherical and they are a $18 BN a year company? 

    It's basically delusions and lies like this which inform flat earther thinking. 

    Let's take it a few steps at a time:

    [b]Nasa says they fake images![/b]

    "Whoah" you might think here "Nasa is not only a giant conspiracy that has faked all images of Earth, but for some reason is also stupid enough to go around admitting it? That sounds crazy, why would they do that?"

    The answer of course is they wouldn't and they haven't. Flat Earthers here are making very poor semantic argument.

    To back up their claims Flat Earthers need to show that Nasa's images don't show a round earth; that these images of a round earth are fake. As they can;t do that, what they try and do is really stretch the definition of words so an image is 'fake' if when released by the communications department in a press release the colour's been enhanced to make it look nicer for newspapers. Or an image might be "fake" if it's several images stitched together - as most satellites are in a low earth orbit they're not far enough away to take the picture of the entire earth in a single shot so they take multiple shots and stitch them together; like a Google Streetview photo does.

    So the problem here is:

    1) They aren't 'fake' in the way any normal person would think something is a 'fake'  in the same way no-one shouts about nearly every single image they see on TV and magazines (which will have been touched up) being fake or every single google streetview photo bing fake because it's actually multiple images combined to give a better view of the surroundings..

    2) Even if you do expand the definition of 'fake' to include this type of stuff, that's just semantics. The definition of fake you are using now labels things as fake because of weird philosophical issues you have with colour, not because the actual object being shown doesn't exist. As the flat earthers need to show that and don't, their claims are meaningless.

    Of course this ignores the images which don't fit any definition of 'fake', no matter how tortuously stretched, which they just try and ignore.

    [b]The Moon Landings are fake![/b]

    Something that they have to rely on, but which again they will never be able to prove. Please not they also have to show a lot of other stuff is fake, like the International Space Station - which can actually be seen orbiting the earth, has a camera on it taking a livestream of earth, etc.

    You'll notice that despite the fact they claim to have proof of this massive international conspiracy, they will try and hand-wave away how this is the case.

    [b]Only "Real" pictures are from the moon landings[/b]

    This is again, completely incorrect.

    There are plenty of real pictures, there are just a lot less pictures where the entirety of the earth is captured in a single photo because you have to be a long way away. The missions to the moon were far enough -  384,000km - while most satellites are only a few hundred to a few thousand km above Earth. Again they could still take real photos, but because of the backwards definitions of what's real and fake, apparently those don't count.

    However even then we have thousands of examples whole earth images taken in a single photo just from the last few years. You can check out the gallery of the DSCOVR satellite (including specifically choosing to look at them in natural rather than enhanced colour) online as they will update daily with several new photos of the earth, each photo being a standalone image requiring no stitching because of how far back the satellite is from earth.. The DSCOVR satellite stationed in the Lagrangian point between the Earth and the Sun, so it's 1,500,000 km away (further than the moon) and able to capture the entire earth (or at least one side of it) in a single photo. You can even scroll through the images they post and see the earth rotating.

    [b]Pictures aren't proof of anything![/b]

    You'll generally notice that the same people who say this kind of stuff will be all too eager to provide you dodgy wobbly videos or images from random people on the internet that they are more than willing to believe without a single thought to their hypocrisy.

    The truth is images aren't inherently proof of anything, it depends on the context like where it comes from, how trustworthy that source is, etc.

    So for instance if an image is one of hundreds of millions taken which show a round earth, comes from a respected scientific agency, is backed up by the work of a million scientists around the world, matches the scientific understanding of how physics works which has been tested hundreds of millions of times, etc, etc then any reasonable person would count it as part of the large body of proof that supports the idea.

    On the other hand if an image is provided by a random internet poster who rants about aliens, racist Jewish conspiracies and the like while simultaneously flies completely in the face of all scientific understanding then it's probably BS.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Wow, NOW he wants to chime in...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    edited August 12 Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect I'm assuming since you're not responding in my debate, that you are not directing this at me?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "To back up their claims Flat Earthers need to show that Nasa's images don't show a round earth; that these images of a round earth are fake. As they can;t do that,"

    I have done that repeatedly. There is not one unedited picture of a globe earth. There are several satellites past LEO. There are supposedly picture of planets millions of miles away, not one real, unedited picture of earth.

    "There are plenty of real pictures,"

    Where is this bountiful amass of pictures of a globe earth? 

    " The missions to the moon were far enough"


    Caught red handed faking.

    "However even then we have thousands of examples whole earth images taken in a single photo just from the last few years. You can check out the gallery of the DSCOVR satellite (including specifically choosing to look at them in natural rather than enhanced colour) online as they will update daily with several new photos of the earth, each photo being a standalone image requiring no stitching because of how far back the satellite is from earth.."

    Lie. "Daily" is a stretch, and "real"? Ha!



    "You'll generally notice that the same people who say this kind of stuff will be all too eager to provide you dodgy wobbly videos or images from random people on the internet that they are more than willing to believe without a single thought to their hypocrisy."

    The main difference is verifiability. YouTube is a medium that anybody can use to analyze or point out verifiable facts or observations. Seeing the earth as a ball is far from verifiable.

    "The truth is images aren't inherently proof of anything, it depends on the context like where it comes from, how trustworthy that source is, etc."

    http://nasafails.com

    ...or how verifiable the information is. 
    joecavalry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • I asked a very simple question.
    I haven't received a very simple answer. Yet!
    joecavalry
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    I asked a very simple question.
    I haven't received a very simple answer. Yet!
    "Why should the earth the earth be flat and not spherical."

    I'm not sure why is should be flat, I'm just an observer, I observe it (water) as flat, in every possible circumstances. 
    joecavalry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    joecavalry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    7th flat earther added to the private discussion group
    joecavalry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 725 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat I was about to type a rebuttal but you got it for me. PS:








    joecavalry



  • So here we see some typical Flat Earther responses.

    Now you will immediately notice how they avoid arguing with the central core of the topic.

    SilverishGoldNova's posts is smaller, but probably the most relevant. Showing that my analysis was completely correct he posts exactly the argument that I've claimed would likely be made. Of course I've already pre-rebutted this argument and he offers no counter to my rationale for why his argument is pointless.

    He is at least clear and consistent in his beliefs unlike Erfisflat who likewise ignores most of my argument, only focusing on a few bits. Some parts of his response are unique to him and not part of more general flat earther beliefs. For instance he asks "Where is this bountiful amass of pictures of a globe earth?" when in my previous post I directly linked to a gallery of over a thousand images of earth as a globe. Such comments are simply stupidity. Equally despite his claim that images aren't evidence, that he has claimed multiple times in the past, he now claism they are verifiable.... if they're on Youtube. What amazing properties YouTube has that renders it and only it's videos verifiable and not other videos - like those of respected expert agencies whose work is checked and verified by people and organisations all over the globe - he doesn't say

    A few points are fairly typical though and his videos are great examples of this. The first is a 45 minute video by a conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings were faked. You'll note Erf doesn't present a single argument for why anything in the video matters, any particular bits he thinks are relevant, why he believes an unsourced video making unsupported claims should be believed, etc. The idea here is that with a minimum effort (getting a video from a conspiracy theorist) he can force people to spend hours responding to a video. It is an attempt to at least score a draw, not by actually out debating your opponent, but simply by boring them. Of course this is easily avoided by simply placing the onus on them with a simple question of "Why should I believe in the video" which is a fair point to make. The Flat Earther will then need to actually engage with the arguments in the video and support them, not simply posts a link. Of course the very obvious logical flaw in the argument of "I have a video that agrees with me, therefore I'm right" is that there are also videos (in fact a lot more video from a lot more reputable sources) which show the moon landing as read. Therefore it comes down to actually debating the nuances either way - otherwise the argument just devolves in to two people providing videos and shouting at each other like children about how their video is totally right.

    His other video is shorted so it can be worthwhile actually dealing with it. In this case it is usually a load of nonsense unsupported claims, which is the case here. There isn't a single claim that is actually supported, just leaps of logic and wild insinuation. The only insinuation that they come close to trying to actually address and substantiate is that apparently the Dscovr probe doesn't take pictures on full moons and new moons! Except of course you can check the link I provided in my previous post against a moon calendar and see that yes, it does take pictures on days with full and new moons. Indeed this should be obvious when you look at a month and see that every single day has images available.

    Lastly the image of earth covered in satellites is of course absurd. Firstly he is trying to make an accusation, but as he lacks any evidence he presents it as a question. The correct answer is "why would we"? Do we have any particular reason to expect we would? Why stop there? Why not ask why we can't see people on the streets or microbes?

    The Flat Earther of course provides no evidence or logic for why you would expect to see satellites. Most satellites are a few metres by a few metres. You will not be able to see something a few metres across from one and a half million kilometres away. Even the ISS is only a hundred metres wide. For most people common sense would be enough, but if a Flat Earther - lacking common sense - insists then you can plug in the necessary details to a size by distance calculator (or even do the maths yourself if you fancy) and show how large a satellite would be expected to be. The answer? 0 pixels.

    Of course the very idea is so absurd. it reminds me of that old sketch.
    ErfisflatjoecavalrySilverishGoldNova
  • Simple question.
    Why does it go dark in the evening?

  • They say that the light fades as you go away. This of course doesn't really explain why the light stops so suddenly and in fact raises all sorts of other questions when you think about it - like factoring in the inverse square law for the falloff in electromagnetic energy and wondering why we don't all boil or freeze to death depending on the assumed distance of the sun.
    joecavalry
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "They say that the light fades as you go away. This of course doesn't really explain why the light stops so suddenly and in fact raises all sorts of other questions when you think about it -"

    It does, this matches reality. It's called twighlight. The sunlight, if the earth were a ball, WOULD stop suddenly. Like this cgi gem from the church of NASA.



    "wondering why we don't all boil or freeze to death depending on the assumed distance of the sun."

    I've not assumed any distance to the sun, but you are assuming it's temperature. 

    P.s. for future references, you can use the @ to tag someone, instead of talking about someone with "he" or "they".
    joecavalry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Simple question.
    Why does it go dark a night?
    Do flat earthers have a simple answer?
    It appears not.

    The reason I ask is because.
    If we regard your flat Earth model. I believe it logical to conclude that it would never go dark a night.
    Especially in central regions of the flat Earth.
    Outer regions might experience low light levels. But this effect would obviously depend on the altitude of the Sun. 



    Erfisflat
  • The sunlight wouldn't stop suddenly, due to slow rotation of the area away from the Sun.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 725 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 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