SilverishGoldNova said:

Erfisflat said:

Actually flagging every post either of us make as fallacious? Of course he would. 

Yeah it doesn't look like they're debating too much anymore, just asserting that we're wrong, circle jerking, and marking everything we post as a fallacy. *Sudden flashbacks of DDO and the flat/stationary thread*. 

As you have missed this post twice now, I felt I should share it again. As you’re accusing people of not making arguments you must obviously have overlooked it!

So as you haven’t replied: let me hammer home the point.

You’re first argument is that water Is observed to be flat. You’re arguments in your last set of replies is that the reason water is observed to be curved is due to perspective. 

Note: The second part by definition refutes the first. You can’t make both arguments without implicitly contradicting yourself, and you don’t seem to appreciate that you have literally proved your own point wrong in your reply.

Water can’t both never appear curved, and appear to be curved because if perspective.

You may feel you have an explanation of why water appears and is observed to be curved: but that doesn’t mean the observation doesn’t exist, and that you can’t pretend that it does.

Given how ubiquitous these measurements are; boats, horizons, buildings, sunsets: when you sat down and wrote your first argument, you MUST have been aware of these observations. 

As a result, knowing there are observations of the water being curved; and yet pretending as if they do not exist either shows your argument intentionally omitted material facts in order to misrepresent the strength of your position: or you do not understand how science works: you cannot simply say an inconvenient observation doesn’t exist because you feel you can explain it.

Now: here is the problem with your argument 1. You’re misrepresenting your position: your argument “Water is always observed to be flat” SHOULD be rephrased as “water regularly observed to be curved, but I have an explanation of why it looks curved when actually it’s flat”.

Rephrasing the argument you wrote with the argument you’re actually making; it should really drive home how your argument, is actually using this misstatement to make your argument sound WAY stronger than it is; and at best misleading people into think you’re making an argument you are not.

You should be relying on science, observations, logic and reason to make your argument appear strong: not on misrepresenting what your argument actually is.

So; given this: let’s move on to the argument you actually seem to be making: that every observation of curved water being down to perspective.

This is a bogus argument and one that is easily refuted and never actually mathematically explained by you or anyone: despite it being an argument from geometry. 

It’s simply refuted like this:

Parallel lines NEVER meet.

If water is flat, and you are 100 feet above sea level: then a line between you and any position 100ft above sea level is parallel with the waterline.

These lines can never meet by definition: they are parallel. If these lines can’t meet, and are always 100ft separating them; then there is no point where the water is at or above that line between you and the object being observed, and therefore it i not possible for that water to obscure the object.

Your argument from perspective falls apart. Because any trivial analysis of perspective shows it can’t do what you say it can.

SilverishGoldNova said:

@LibertineStates @Pouge @Gooberry I am very curious if you 3 wanna try actual debate instead of patting eachother on the backs and claiming literaly everything is a fallacy and misusing fallacies to dodge questions? This is debateisland, not metabunk. 

Sure! How about we start with this argument, that you have skipped 3 times?

So as you haven’t replied: let me hammer home the point.

You’re first argument is that water Is observed to be flat. You’re arguments in your last set of replies is that the reason water is observed to be curved is due to perspective. 

Note: The second part by definition refutes the first. You can’t make both arguments without implicitly contradicting yourself, and you don’t seem to appreciate that you have literally proved your own point wrong in your reply.

Water can’t both never appear curved, and appear to be curved because if perspective.

You may feel you have an explanation of why water appears and is observed to be curved: but that doesn’t mean the observation doesn’t exist, and that you can’t pretend that it does.

Given how ubiquitous these measurements are; boats, horizons, buildings, sunsets: when you sat down and wrote your first argument, you MUST have been aware of these observations. 

As a result, knowing there are observations of the water being curved; and yet pretending as if they do not exist either shows your argument intentionally omitted material facts in order to misrepresent the strength of your position: or you do not understand how science works: you cannot simply say an inconvenient observation doesn’t exist because you feel you can explain it.

Now: here is the problem with your argument 1. You’re misrepresenting your position: your argument “Water is always observed to be flat” SHOULD be rephrased as “water regularly observed to be curved, but I have an explanation of why it looks curved when actually it’s flat”.

Rephrasing the argument you wrote with the argument you’re actually making; it should really drive home how your argument, is actually using this misstatement to make your argument sound WAY stronger than it is; and at best misleading people into think you’re making an argument you are not.

You should be relying on science, observations, logic and reason to make your argument appear strong: not on misrepresenting what your argument actually is.

So; given this: let’s move on to the argument you actually seem to be making: that every observation of curved water being down to perspective.

This is a bogus argument and one that is easily refuted and never actually mathematically explained by you or anyone: despite it being an argument from geometry. 

It’s simply refuted like this:

Parallel lines NEVER meet.

If water is flat, and you are 100 feet above sea level: then a line between you and any position 100ft above sea level is parallel with the waterline.

These lines can never meet by definition: they are parallel. If these lines can’t meet, and are always 100ft separating them; then there is no point where the water is at or above that line between you and the object being observed, and therefore it i not possible for that water to obscure the object.

Your argument from perspective falls apart. Because any trivial analysis of perspective shows it can’t do what you say it can.

@Pouge

SilverishGoldNova said:

@LibertineStates @Pouge @Gooberry I am very curious if you 3 wanna try actual debate instead of patting eachother on the backs and claiming literaly everything is a fallacy and misusing fallacies to dodge questions? This is debateisland, not metabunk. 

SilverishGoldNova 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

So this would be the fourth time you’ve ignored the argument I’ve made, only to claim that we’re not attempting to argue.

Just to make sure you didn’t miss it:

So as you haven’t replied: let me hammer home the point.

You’re first argument is that water Is observed to be flat. You’re arguments in your last set of replies is that the reason water is observed to be curved is due to perspective. 

Note: The second part by definition refutes the first. You can’t make both arguments without implicitly contradicting yourself, and you don’t seem to appreciate that you have literally proved your own point wrong in your reply.

Water can’t both never appear curved, and appear to be curved because if perspective.

You may feel you have an explanation of why water appears and is observed to be curved: but that doesn’t mean the observation doesn’t exist, and that you can’t pretend that it does.

Given how ubiquitous these measurements are; boats, horizons, buildings, sunsets: when you sat down and wrote your first argument, you MUST have been aware of these observations. 

As a result, knowing there are observations of the water being curved; and yet pretending as if they do not exist either shows your argument intentionally omitted material facts in order to misrepresent the strength of your position: or you do not understand how science works: you cannot simply say an inconvenient observation doesn’t exist because you feel you can explain it.

Now: here is the problem with your argument 1. You’re misrepresenting your position: your argument “Water is always observed to be flat” SHOULD be rephrased as “water regularly observed to be curved, but I have an explanation of why it looks curved when actually it’s flat”.

Rephrasing the argument you wrote with the argument you’re actually making; it should really drive home how your argument, is actually using this misstatement to make your argument sound WAY stronger than it is; and at best misleading people into think you’re making an argument you are not.

You should be relying on science, observations, logic and reason to make your argument appear strong: not on misrepresenting what your argument actually is.

So; given this: let’s move on to the argument you actually seem to be making: that every observation of curved water being down to perspective.

This is a bogus argument and one that is easily refuted and never actually mathematically explained by you or anyone: despite it being an argument from geometry. 

It’s simply refuted like this:

Parallel lines NEVER meet.

If water is flat, and you are 100 feet above sea level: then a line between you and any position 100ft above sea level is parallel with the waterline.

These lines can never meet by definition: they are parallel. If these lines can’t meet, and are always 100ft separating them; then there is no point where the water is at or above that line between you and the object being observed, and therefore it i not possible for that water to obscure the object.

Your argument from perspective falls apart. Because any trivial analysis of perspective shows it can’t do what you say it can.

Pogue said:

SilverishGoldNova 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

Why is this website a failure? The people on this site just present facts and evidence. They also debunk your points and point out illogical claims. That is a fallacy because you called us clowns. That is an ad-hominem fallacy. 

SilverishGoldNova 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

Erfisflat said:

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!

Says the guy lurking...

@Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova 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

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Goobery An easy rebuttal to your argument. It probably won't be long before one of you marks my post as a fallacy and then claim I made a fallacy you obviously don't know the true meaning of, or just make up a fallacy and hop off.

Either way I've been looking forward to the 500 fallacies badge.

I'll wait.

qipwbdeo said:

SilverishGoldNova 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.

SilverishGoldNova said:

qipwbdeo said:

SilverishGoldNova 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