frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Planes stopping and reversing in mid-air!

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    “According to the official documents from wallace about the event, the center flag was at the same distance from the water, despite your assertion:”

    Yes: that’s what I said. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant by “fixed length poles” - a fixed length above the water. Or what I meant by the poles being higher above the water aren’t refracted as much. Or when I said the pole in the middle is higher?


    It’s as if you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent what I’ve said - I say deliberately because I’ve described this point many times before, and your excerpt describes exactly what I’m talking about - and yet you tell us all I’m making an assertion?


    It’s like you use the words but don’t know what they mean.


    This should also cover the basics of the refraction I’m talking about - and have provided visual examples of.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

    And these visual examples are... Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
    You have a very selectice memory.

    - The wikipedia link contains citations to scientific refences for terrestrial refraction. You can by all means look it up.
    - This is basic stuff - we both know this is the accepted scientifically position, and there are experiments and information to support it. As I said : demanding evidence is a rhetorical tactic you use so you don’t have to provide an argument. If you think something I‘m claiming is wrong - make that claim so that I have you on record saying something is untrue - and get shown to be false.

    - If you recall. Both visual examples were taken from the video of mobile bay where you claimed there was no curvature - and I went through and systematically estimated the curvature - showing an identical amount of curvature to what was expected. I highlighted a picture of a crane, and the USS Alabama to show that the proportions of the image did not match the real world images - showing linear compression at the bottom portion : which is what you would see if according to terrestrial refraction. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    “According to the official documents from wallace about the event, the center flag was at the same distance from the water, despite your assertion:”

    Yes: that’s what I said. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant by “fixed length poles” - a fixed length above the water. Or what I meant by the poles being higher above the water aren’t refracted as much. Or when I said the pole in the middle is higher?


    It’s as if you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent what I’ve said - I say deliberately because I’ve described this point many times before, and your excerpt describes exactly what I’m talking about - and yet you tell us all I’m making an assertion?


    It’s like you use the words but don’t know what they mean.


    This should also cover the basics of the refraction I’m talking about - and have provided visual examples of.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

    And these visual examples are... Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
    You have a very selectice memory.

    - The wikipedia link contains citations to scientific refences for terrestrial refraction. You can by all means look it up.
    - This is basic stuff - we both know this is the accepted scientifically position, and there are experiments and information to support it. As I said : demanding evidence is a rhetorical tactic you use so you don’t have to provide an argument. If you think something I‘m claiming is wrong - make that claim so that I have you on record saying something is untrue - and get shown to be false.

    - If you recall. Both visual examples were taken from the video of mobile bay where you claimed there was no curvature - and I went through and systematically estimated the curvature - showing an identical amount of curvature to what was expected. I highlighted a picture of a crane, and the USS Alabama to show that the proportions of the image did not match the real world images - showing linear compression at the bottom portion : which is what you would see if according to terrestrial refraction. 
    Asking for scientific evidence for a scientific claim is not automatically claiming you are wrong. This is how the scientific method works, carefully examining scientific evidence that supports your claim. There is no sense in being defensive and even dogmatic about it.
    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 highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 608 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    “According to the official documents from wallace about the event, the center flag was at the same distance from the water, despite your assertion:”

    Yes: that’s what I said. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant by “fixed length poles” - a fixed length above the water. Or what I meant by the poles being higher above the water aren’t refracted as much. Or when I said the pole in the middle is higher?


    It’s as if you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent what I’ve said - I say deliberately because I’ve described this point many times before, and your excerpt describes exactly what I’m talking about - and yet you tell us all I’m making an assertion?


    It’s like you use the words but don’t know what they mean.


    This should also cover the basics of the refraction I’m talking about - and have provided visual examples of.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

    And these visual examples are... Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
    You have a very selectice memory.

    - The wikipedia link contains citations to scientific refences for terrestrial refraction. You can by all means look it up.
    - This is basic stuff - we both know this is the accepted scientifically position, and there are experiments and information to support it. As I said : demanding evidence is a rhetorical tactic you use so you don’t have to provide an argument. If you think something I‘m claiming is wrong - make that claim so that I have you on record saying something is untrue - and get shown to be false.

    - If you recall. Both visual examples were taken from the video of mobile bay where you claimed there was no curvature - and I went through and systematically estimated the curvature - showing an identical amount of curvature to what was expected. I highlighted a picture of a crane, and the USS Alabama to show that the proportions of the image did not match the real world images - showing linear compression at the bottom portion : which is what you would see if according to terrestrial refraction. 
    Asking for scientific evidence for a scientific claim is not automatically claiming you are wrong. This is how the scientific method works, carefully examining scientific evidence that supports your claim. There is no sense in being defensive and even dogmatic about it.
    As I said, you demand scientific evidence for trivial, obvious, and commonly understood scientific principles, using this to deflect and dodge against arguments against you without providing any arguments of your own.

    Your using this as a dishonest and rhetorical tactic to contest the minutae of every scientific claim - no matter how trivial - in order to deflect the work load onto the person your arguing against.

    This is a form of changing the burden of proof - and a standard you yourself do not hold yourself to, Given that the majority of your threads involve myself or someone else demonstrating via scientific principles that your claims are wrong: followed by pages and pages of your trying to avoid providing any scientific justifications for your claims.


    Hence, whenever you call into questions rudimentary science - I will ask whether you are claiming it is wrong. If you don’t think it’s wrong - then no work is needed, If you think it’s wrong, then I can link the evidence to objectively show that claim is false - if you are not sure, I will be happy to link you to a Wikipedia article or summary so you can educate yourself on the basics before continuing a discussion on a topic you don’t understand.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch