We live on a flat Earth - Page 3 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

We live on a flat Earth
in Science

13»


Arguments

  • edited March 2
    @Ampersand Erf is now simply dodging arguments he disagrees with. Wonderful. I already came out and said I no longer believe in the flat Earth, he thinks I was broken by trolls and is now ridiculing me.



  • PoguePogue 517 Pts
    @Erfisflat can you try to counter my counter to your argument? You seem to have ignored it
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Bare assertion. You can see it. How am I jumping to conclusions? I do not. Please explain. Also, I do not get why you only accept some science. 

    You are jumping to conclusions because you claim that you can see further from higher up, of course. The earth isn't perfectly flat, there are obstructions that will block the view from low points all over the place. What exactly are you saying I can see?

    "Evidence for that: http://www.wowreally.blog/2006/10/high-and-wide.html, http://mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/, I also linked this in a previous debate to prove it.

    dead link, please provide where you previously linked this in a debate, then I'll link my rebuttal.

    "No, not an assertion, we see other planets as spheres."

    We see circles in the sky. We can't see them as spheres, due to our limited vision. Now if we could get closer and somehow rotate around those circles, it would be a true statement.

    " If we saw a flat one, it would be more believable for the Earth to be flat. "

    If we had some reason to believe the earth was another one of those circles in the sky, this would be a logical statement. 

    "Not a straw man because there were no previous arguments to misrepresent. "

    The previous, and only argument is that the earth is flat. Your argument, that lights in the sky "appear" spherical, is irrelevant.

    "A straw man is exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman. "

    Exactly what You did.

    "You manually reset your router is irrelevant and a false comparison fallacy. Here, it obeys Kepler's laws of motion. I actually did a school science fair project on things in orbit. http://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynamics/kepler’s-laws-orbital-motion. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mdyar/ast223/orbits/orb_lect.html."

    So, in your opinion, electronics in space should last forever and never need manual repairs, because reasons... It was a correct analogy. Great job on that sci-fi project! What exactly is the point?

    "So, you show a picture of the round Earth, deny it, and then cherry pick data. Nice! Ok, only a part of the internet is with satellites. However, sometimes it does use satellites. The part that describes it in this video: "

    Wow, you really aren't as bright as I thought you were. If I posted a link about someone assuming the earth to be a sphere, but point at a positive refutation of your argument, this is still a refutation. 99% of the plane's international data is carried through undersea cables, Russia threatened to cut the cables, which would have left part of that plane WITHOUT INTERNET. Which means that your statement:
    "the internet is impossible without satellites" is false. This point stands.

    " That picture does not prove your point because the live stream is from the ISS. Straw man fallacy. I do not believe everything I see on TV. It needs to be tested first. "

    My picture proves that with todays technology, this can be easily faked. Then there are also the very many times astronots have filmed bubbles in space. 



    "No argument again. Just say "full of assumptions". Does not mention what they are. I just said that this is explained by the heliocentric model. You did not even try and counter what I said. "

    You can assert there is no argument there, but I'd politely disagree. There was also a demonstration. The thought that you ignored everything I said but that is cherry picking.I just explained how this is possible on a flat earth, you did not even try to counter what I said.

    "Please explain why it does not instead of just saying it does not."

    This is what the model states, and is proven by common sense, unless you went to the flat earth society for research, which should be illegal by now.

    "Please try and counter the first part."

    You mean the part that said something doesn't make sense if the earth is behaving like the flat earth society claims it does?

    " I have explored alternatives and they do not work. "

    Except for my alternative, which perfectly, and more plausibly explains the behavior of hurricanes.

    "Ad-hominem fallacy for calling me a parrot."

    I just call it like I see it, sorry if I offended you.

    " Ha, you did not counter the link and the video."

    Please explain what evidence is in the video... another fisheye lens on a balloon video? Bah.

    "Again you did not counter!"

    Would you like me to requote my refutation? To prove that the coriolis effect is impossible on a flat plane, you must disprove my argument. You've ignored it. Try again.

    " Wait, a hurricane travels in the air?"

    ..obviously... are you under the impression that hurricanes happen underwater?

    " The experiment proved it. "

    Which one drawing on a basketball? Lol, you're joking. Here's another demonstration of this coriolis effect from a passing object.

    PogueEvidence
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Pogue said:
    @SilverishGoldNova I am the moderater for the space community but I will not change anything, I promise. Wait, Erfy. That is funny. I am actually intriged by this debate and want to see it. Also, I am about to send you a friend request. 
    I want to see it too.
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts

    @Erfisflat


    I have to point out this argument: it’s basically Erfs position in this entire thread, and most of the others summarized in a single sentence:


    "Every other planet is a spinning sphere."


    Another bare assertion, also a strawman that assumes the conclusion, and heliocentrism.”


    I felt this sentence had to be singled out.


    You have REPEATEDLY accused me and others of asserting fallacies, which is mostly absurd as in every case, I have provided a detailed explanation (which makes the claim a lie).


    Here you accuse him of assuming his own conclusion.


    How exactly did he do that?


     You don’t explain, you don’t justify; you just throw out the accusation with no thought of discussion or proof.


    To assume the conclusion; the conclusion must be implicitly included in the premise.


    How does “every other planet is spherical and spinning” have the premise that the earth is flat, exactly:


    No: like in so many other other examples and posts: you are throwing out a ridiculous argument without reason or justification.


    Apparently he’s also asserting his argument: really? This is yet another nonsense claim in this case: are you for some reason treating this argument as if it isn’t a common and repeated observation that other planets are sphere and are rotating? Are you seriously, and straight faced claiming that these are not the most common observation anyone with a telescope can make?


    What about the argument? Are you pretending as if this is the first time you’ve ever heard the argument? Or that it’s not something that’s been explained 7482 times in this forum alone?


    You also call it a straw man: how? Why? What reasoning do you use for that accusation? What position is he misrepresenting? How? This accusation is an utter farce.


    A straw man requires him to be misrepresenting your position: he’s not even referencing your position in this argument, leave alone attacking it. It makes it look like you don’t even know what a straw man is, other than a convenient get-out you can throw around when you feel a real rebuttal would be too hard.


    These poorly thought out, accusations have no argument or justification to go with them, this and the rest make it look like you’re trying to hurl as many accusations as you can at him, not because any of them are true, but because you feel it necessary to hurl SOMETHING.


    You have repeatedly accused everyone else of asserting their arguments, and making accusations of fallacies and accusing them of not explaining and justifying.


    This is what you’re doing here: this is not the first time, this is almost literally the nature of every single response you make.


    You hurl accusations, non arguments, assertions and then act and pretend as if the tripe you post is some lofty argument that has refuted everything, and then turn reality on its head and pretend it’s everyone else that is acting as you are, not you.


    They’re really not, as I pointed out in previous posts where I have gone through your position line by line, this is all you have; poorly thought assertions that you pretend are valid.


    You’re pretence, denials and assertions to the contrary do not make sentences and arguments you have made like this valid. 


    It only serves to spell out to everyone that you cannot practice what you preach: you are excellent at hurling accusations, but when it comes to defending your position, your points are mostly deflectory and insububstantial.



    And at this point, I am genuinely at a loss at what to say to someone who argues like you, or how to reason with you. 


    How would you reason with someone who produces arguments like this, then claims others arguments (with reasons and justifications) are assertions and dubious accusations of fallacies; and claims we can’t be reasoned with?


    The nature of these claims, and how completely at odds with reality makes me genuinely think you’re either 1.) actually delusional: in that you have genuinely convinced yourself arguments like you just made are not dubious assertions, yet the detailed explainations provided to you are. 2.) intellectually dishonest: you know this is what you’re doing, but you need to say it any way to avoid the point being raised. 3.) you’re a troll: you know this is what you’re doing, but do it anyway for laughs.


    I can genuinely see no other options.


    Erfisflat
  • PoguePogue 517 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Bare assertion. You can see it. How am I jumping to conclusions? I do not. Please explain. Also, I do not get why you only accept some science. 

    You are jumping to conclusions because you claim that you can see further from higher up, of course. The earth isn't perfectly flat, there are obstructions that will block the view from low points all over the place. What exactly are you saying I can see?

    "Evidence for that: http://www.wowreally.blog/2006/10/high-and-wide.html, http://mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/, I also linked this in a previous debate to prove it.

    dead link, please provide where you previously linked this in a debate, then I'll link my rebuttal.

    "No, not an assertion, we see other planets as spheres."

    We see circles in the sky. We can't see them as spheres, due to our limited vision. Now if we could get closer and somehow rotate around those circles, it would be a true statement.

    " If we saw a flat one, it would be more believable for the Earth to be flat. "

    If we had some reason to believe the earth was another one of those circles in the sky, this would be a logical statement. 

    "Not a straw man because there were no previous arguments to misrepresent. "

    The previous, and only argument is that the earth is flat. Your argument, that lights in the sky "appear" spherical, is irrelevant.

    "A straw man is exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman. "

    Exactly what You did.

    "You manually reset your router is irrelevant and a false comparison fallacy. Here, it obeys Kepler's laws of motion. I actually did a school science fair project on things in orbit. http://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynamics/kepler’s-laws-orbital-motion. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mdyar/ast223/orbits/orb_lect.html."

    So, in your opinion, electronics in space should last forever and never need manual repairs, because reasons... It was a correct analogy. Great job on that sci-fi project! What exactly is the point?

    "So, you show a picture of the round Earth, deny it, and then cherry pick data. Nice! Ok, only a part of the internet is with satellites. However, sometimes it does use satellites. The part that describes it in this video: "

    Wow, you really aren't as bright as I thought you were. If I posted a link about someone assuming the earth to be a sphere, but point at a positive refutation of your argument, this is still a refutation. 99% of the plane's international data is carried through undersea cables, Russia threatened to cut the cables, which would have left part of that plane WITHOUT INTERNET. Which means that your statement:
    "the internet is impossible without satellites" is false. This point stands.

    " That picture does not prove your point because the live stream is from the ISS. Straw man fallacy. I do not believe everything I see on TV. It needs to be tested first. "

    My picture proves that with todays technology, this can be easily faked. Then there are also the very many times astronots have filmed bubbles in space. 



    "No argument again. Just say "full of assumptions". Does not mention what they are. I just said that this is explained by the heliocentric model. You did not even try and counter what I said. "

    You can assert there is no argument there, but I'd politely disagree. There was also a demonstration. The thought that you ignored everything I said but that is cherry picking.I just explained how this is possible on a flat earth, you did not even try to counter what I said.

    "Please explain why it does not instead of just saying it does not."

    This is what the model states, and is proven by common sense, unless you went to the flat earth society for research, which should be illegal by now.

    "Please try and counter the first part."

    You mean the part that said something doesn't make sense if the earth is behaving like the flat earth society claims it does?

    " I have explored alternatives and they do not work. "

    Except for my alternative, which perfectly, and more plausibly explains the behavior of hurricanes.

    "Ad-hominem fallacy for calling me a parrot."

    I just call it like I see it, sorry if I offended you.

    " Ha, you did not counter the link and the video."

    Please explain what evidence is in the video... another fisheye lens on a balloon video? Bah.

    "Again you did not counter!"

    Would you like me to requote my refutation? To prove that the coriolis effect is impossible on a flat plane, you must disprove my argument. You've ignored it. Try again.

    " Wait, a hurricane travels in the air?"

    ..obviously... are you under the impression that hurricanes happen underwater?

    " The experiment proved it. "

    Which one drawing on a basketball? Lol, you're joking. Here's another demonstration of this coriolis effect from a passing object.

    There bumps we know that. How does that support your point? I will quote @WilliamSchulz because I really like his argument. 
    If we had elevation on a flat Earth, we would be able to see everything from a greater height. However, this is untrue, from a lower elevation, we can not see as much as a person at a higher elevation. On a flat Earth, we should be able to see everything regardless of height, but on around Earth, perspective makes more sense. 

    point of view on a flat Earth

    point of view on a round Earth

    Not a dead link. How is it? It provides evidence. 

    We have sent satellites into space to see the shapes of the planets and we can see different parts as they rotate. http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/holtz/a110/a110notes/node2.html

    See above.

    That statement is irrelevant. Does not prove anything. 

    No, can you explain in greater detail? 

    Straw man. Never said that at all. I am saying that a man-made satellite is very different than your router. Thank you but it is not sci-fi. You ignore the rest of the argument. 

    The internet is impossible is false. I admit that. But they do provide internet. They exist! 

    What about older technology? They can be faked today but not in the 60s or 70s. 

    No, you did not. You did not explain anything really. Just copied my argument. 
    Erfisflat said:
    "Hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons are all the same thing: Spinning masses of air sucking moisture from the ocean, dumping it back on us and destroying things in their path. A hurricane is just a giant wind drain—a low-pressure center with winds flushing into it. The wind always blows counter-clockwise inwards in Northern Hemisphere hurricanes—check out this picture of Hurricane Katrina and the United States. Notice the direction the wind is traveling with a compass, depending on where the Hurricane is."

    However, in the Southern Hemisphere, the wind travels the opposite direction. Here’s a picture of Hurricane Catarina, a very rare Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Hurricane:

    Notice that Catarina is very clearly spinning in the opposite direction. That’s because of the Coriolis effect—the wind changes direction as the planet spins. If the Earth wasn’t spinning, the wind should blow straight into the middle of the hurricane from all directions. But the Earth spins faster at the equator than at the poles, because our planet’s midsection has the furthest distance to travel with each rotation. Winds traveling northwards or southwards curve as they travel from slower spinning to faster spinning regions of the planet. The wind carves the opposite direction based on whether you are above or below the equator since the Earth’s rotation gets slower on alternate sides. "


    This argument also make a bountiful amount of assumptions. Specifically that the earth is a spinning ball (imagine that) this effect is just a natural property of moving water, and the correlation between that water and a close sun and moon.



    See. 

    You did not explain at all. Saying it is common sense and providing no evidence is hypocritical. Why should it be illegal?

    What you said does not make sense?

    Explain why it is pluasable. You have not done it and are just claiming you have. 

    Well, what I guess you see is wrong. Your apology is accepted. 

    @Ampersand created a great argument, in my opinion, to counter that so I will repost it. 
    "1) With a lense, it will curve lines of perspective away from the centre, e.g.:

    Image result for camera lense barrel distortion

    2) The earth in that image does not reach the centre of the picture.
    Ergo the distortion in that picture is making the earth less curved than it is in reality, not more, and therefore it is approximately proof number one billion of the spherical nature of the earth. Thanks for your assistance."

    Your argument did not make sense. Can you rephrase it? Planes move with the Earth. 

    Hurricanes are on the surface of the ocean. Not traveling through the air like a plane. 

    Explain your video. No, this experiment. The video proves why the Coriolis effect is real and is dictated by hemisphere.  The important parts are from 1:44-5:35. It has a controlled experiment. In the end, it explains why there is a difference between hemispheres. It works because it does. To understand this, think of a pool at the geographic poles. It is stationary relative to Earth, but every sidereal day, it is actually completing one full rotation. The part further away from the pole and closer to the equator move faster because it has to complete a larger movement in the same amount of time (that is why rockets are launched closer to the equator. When the plug is pulled (part of the experiment) everything is moving toward the drain in the middle. The far side is faster so it gets ahead while the slower part is too slow so it lags behind. 
    Edit: The video was a picture by accident because I copied and pasted my arguments. Here is the video: 

    You seem to have ignored some of my arguments and when countering some made false assumtions and commited a lot of fallacies. 
    Note: every time I skip a line I am countering his next argument
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat Lets just point out a couple key things.

    1. I think my point went a bit over your head. Just because I changed my position does not mean it must be because I was afraid of ridicule, I mean, think of Cov and Wake.

    2. Can you explain exactly what was wrong with Goober's posts that you apparently deleted 4 times before deleting the entire thread?


    And you can't say exactly what evidence convinced you the earth was a ball, like I predicted. Facing some ridicule for a little bit is different, but when you're trolled as long as you have been, it tests your endurance. You know the earth is not a ball, you've become a closet flat earther! The very people you've ridiculed in the past! Maybe I should go back into the closet so we can ALL hold hands in harmony on the imaginary giant testicle...


    Gotcha! I hate to say it, but they broke you man.


    Oh, and goober is/was showing stalker like behavior. Which is against Tos.

    You were completely unable to answer any of my arguments: I built up a comprehensive set of rebuttals to every argument you made, showed how you were constantly relying on assertions, fallacies and flat out false statements.

    As you were completely and utterly unable to argue with anything I said, and you had no intention or ability of defending your position: you had to make up an excuse to silence me.

    from this, you decided that the best way of shutting down the arguments you couldn’t cope with, was by making up this utterly nonsense and delusional claim that my engagement on this forum, my replies to you and my arguments were somehow breaking the terms of service.

    Im sorry; but just because you are unable to have an honest and open debate, and are unable to entertain criticim doesn’t give you the right to manufacture absurd claims, nor gives you the excuse to abuse your moderator powers to make you feel happier about the arguments you’re making.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Assuming the conclusion/circular reasoning/begging the question:

    "Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusionweren't already assumed to be true. The fallacy is an informal fallacy."

    The opponent is assuming the heliocentric model by implying that the earth is or should be compared to those lights in the sky. Were we to NOT make this assumption, we could deduce logically that they have no relationship to the ground beneath our feet. 
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat Lets just point out a couple key things.

    1. I think my point went a bit over your head. Just because I changed my position does not mean it must be because I was afraid of ridicule, I mean, think of Cov and Wake.

    2. Can you explain exactly what was wrong with Goober's posts that you apparently deleted 4 times before deleting the entire thread?


    And you can't say exactly what evidence convinced you the earth was a ball, like I predicted. Facing some ridicule for a little bit is different, but when you're trolled as long as you have been, it tests your endurance. You know the earth is not a ball, you've become a closet flat earther! The very people you've ridiculed in the past! Maybe I should go back into the closet so we can ALL hold hands in harmony on the imaginary giant testicle...


    Gotcha! I hate to say it, but they broke you man.


    Oh, and goober is/was showing stalker like behavior. Which is against Tos.

    You were completely unable to answer any of my arguments: I built up a comprehensive set of rebuttals to every argument you made, showed how you were constantly relying on assertions, fallacies and flat out false statements.

    As you were completely and utterly unable to argue with anything I said, and you had no intention or ability of defending your position: you had to make up an excuse to silence me.

    from this, you decided that the best way of shutting down the arguments you couldn’t cope with, was by making up this utterly nonsense and delusional claim that my engagement on this forum, my replies to you and my arguments were somehow breaking the terms of service.

    Im sorry; but just because you are unable to have an honest and open debate, and are unable to entertain criticim doesn’t give you the right to manufacture absurd claims, nor gives you the excuse to abuse your moderator powers to make you feel happier about the arguments you’re making.

    Our conversation lasted several pages. Mostly of me making valid points with scientific evidence and demonstrations, and of you ignoring such and asserting you are always right.
    PogueEvidence
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PoguePogue 517 Pts
    edited March 2
    Erfisflat said:
    Assuming the conclusion/circular reasoning/begging the question:

    "Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusionweren't already assumed to be true. The fallacy is an informal fallacy."

    The opponent is assuming the heliocentric model by implying that the earth is or should be compared to those lights in the sky. Were we to NOT make this assumption, we could deduce logically that they have no relationship to the ground beneath our feet. 
    Why can we not compare it though? Both are astronomical. Why is only one planet flat? Also, I thought it was a straw man? How can you logically deduce that? 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 517 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat Lets just point out a couple key things.

    1. I think my point went a bit over your head. Just because I changed my position does not mean it must be because I was afraid of ridicule, I mean, think of Cov and Wake.

    2. Can you explain exactly what was wrong with Goober's posts that you apparently deleted 4 times before deleting the entire thread?


    And you can't say exactly what evidence convinced you the earth was a ball, like I predicted. Facing some ridicule for a little bit is different, but when you're trolled as long as you have been, it tests your endurance. You know the earth is not a ball, you've become a closet flat earther! The very people you've ridiculed in the past! Maybe I should go back into the closet so we can ALL hold hands in harmony on the imaginary giant testicle...


    Gotcha! I hate to say it, but they broke you man.


    Oh, and goober is/was showing stalker like behavior. Which is against Tos.

    You were completely unable to answer any of my arguments: I built up a comprehensive set of rebuttals to every argument you made, showed how you were constantly relying on assertions, fallacies and flat out false statements.

    As you were completely and utterly unable to argue with anything I said, and you had no intention or ability of defending your position: you had to make up an excuse to silence me.

    from this, you decided that the best way of shutting down the arguments you couldn’t cope with, was by making up this utterly nonsense and delusional claim that my engagement on this forum, my replies to you and my arguments were somehow breaking the terms of service.

    Im sorry; but just because you are unable to have an honest and open debate, and are unable to entertain criticim doesn’t give you the right to manufacture absurd claims, nor gives you the excuse to abuse your moderator powers to make you feel happier about the arguments you’re making.

    Our conversation lasted several pages. Mostly of me making valid points with scientific evidence and demonstrations, and of you ignoring such and asserting you are always right.
    False. @Gooberry explained your lies and fallacies and disputed your points. You sir, however, claim it is just perspective causing it and no explanation given on why or how. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat Lets just point out a couple key things.

    1. I think my point went a bit over your head. Just because I changed my position does not mean it must be because I was afraid of ridicule, I mean, think of Cov and Wake.

    2. Can you explain exactly what was wrong with Goober's posts that you apparently deleted 4 times before deleting the entire thread?


    And you can't say exactly what evidence convinced you the earth was a ball, like I predicted. Facing some ridicule for a little bit is different, but when you're trolled as long as you have been, it tests your endurance. You know the earth is not a ball, you've become a closet flat earther! The very people you've ridiculed in the past! Maybe I should go back into the closet so we can ALL hold hands in harmony on the imaginary giant testicle...


    Gotcha! I hate to say it, but they broke you man.


    Oh, and goober is/was showing stalker like behavior. Which is against Tos.

    You were completely unable to answer any of my arguments: I built up a comprehensive set of rebuttals to every argument you made, showed how you were constantly relying on assertions, fallacies and flat out false statements.

    As you were completely and utterly unable to argue with anything I said, and you had no intention or ability of defending your position: you had to make up an excuse to silence me.

    from this, you decided that the best way of shutting down the arguments you couldn’t cope with, was by making up this utterly nonsense and delusional claim that my engagement on this forum, my replies to you and my arguments were somehow breaking the terms of service.

    Im sorry; but just because you are unable to have an honest and open debate, and are unable to entertain criticim doesn’t give you the right to manufacture absurd claims, nor gives you the excuse to abuse your moderator powers to make you feel happier about the arguments you’re making.

    Our conversation lasted several pages. Mostly of me making valid points with scientific evidence and demonstrations, and of you ignoring such and asserting you are always right.
    No: our conversation lasted several pages: and consisted of you making incorrect and untrue claims and dodging every last argument aimed at you with fallacies; together with me going through point by point and demonstrating that they were reliant on either falsehoods or fallacy.

    if you don’t believe you; I have a significant number of them saved. Perhaps I can repost them peice by peice and you actually provide a justification of why you think my replies were “asserting I am always right”.

    thus far; I am showing that you’re hurling accusations and not supporting anything you say.

    its like you’re deliberately arguing black is white in an attempt to bamboozle your audience.
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Assuming the conclusion/circular reasoning/begging the question:

    "Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusionweren't already assumed to be true. The fallacy is an informal fallacy."

    The opponent is assuming the heliocentric model by implying that the earth is or should be compared to those lights in the sky. Were we to NOT make this assumption, we could deduce logically that they have no relationship to the ground beneath our feet. 

    How is does that assumption figure into his argument? How is it the premise? again: hurled accusations, no substance.

    Your opponent is not assuming the heliocentric model. The earth could revolve around the sun, the sun could revolve around the earth: we see objects in the sky that have clouds, mountains, weather, moons, etc and posit if they exist, why would the earth be different? 

    Thats not assuming any conclusion; and certainly the premise doesn’t rely on the earth being a sphere or flat.

    like so many other examples of you hurling accusations that end up being exactly what you’re doing: you ARE assuming your conclusion in your “rebuttal”.

    your explanation is asserting they must be different, because you don’t believe in the heliocentric model, and if they must be different: they will be different.

    as you don’t explain WHY they are different, your only justification for your conclusion is that which you present as your conclusion.

    you see: that’s how to argue someone is assuming their own conclusion.


    you also left out the entire rest of the argument.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    ok, I know this may be hard for you to understand, but assuming the earth(and those planets) is a ball huddling around the sun (heliocentrism) is THE SAME THING AS ASSUMING THE EARTH IS A BALL HURDLING AROUND THE SUN. Ignoring arguments is your department, I've ignored your baseless assertions.
    Evidence
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 440 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Assuming the conclusion/circular reasoning/begging the question:

    "Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusionweren't already assumed to be true. The fallacy is an informal fallacy."

    The opponent is assuming the heliocentric model by implying that the earth is or should be compared to those lights in the sky. Were we to NOT make this assumption, we could deduce logically that they have no relationship to the ground beneath our feet. 
    You've just presented this as a general statement without reference to any particular argument.

    Based on your past record it's very likely that you are misusing this fallacy, especially based on your attempts to explain it in your own words in the third paragraph.

    Your description of whatever statement you are meant to be rebutting only claims that the opponent is assuming the heliocentric model by implying the earth is or should be compared to those lights in the sky. That is not circular reasoning, if you are comparing things then you are testing them - that is not circular reasoning because you are looking for evidence rather than drawing circular conclusions.

    In fact you seem to be exhibiting circular reasoning yourself. "Were we to NOT make this assumption, we could deduce logically that they have no relationship to the ground beneath our feet." This is logically false. If I have an unknown object hidden from me in a bag and a second object I can see and understand, though I might not make the assumption that the two objects are related I could not logically state that they were unrelated.

    You are essentially using the logic:

    1) The Earth shouldn't be compared to the lights in the sky

    2) Because there is no relationship between the two

    3) Because the Earth is flat.

    4) Therefore we know that the earth shouldn't be compared to the lights in the sky
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    for the logically impaired
    Pogue
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    as always, goober has constructed another red herring to ramble on about. 
    Pogue
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 440 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    ok, I know this may be hard for you to understand, but assuming the earth(and those planets) is a ball huddling around the sun (heliocentrism) is THE SAME THING AS ASSUMING THE EARTH IS A BALL HURDLING AROUND THE SUN. Ignoring arguments is your department, I've ignored your baseless assertions.
    Do you understand what a hypothesis is in the scientific method, how it is based on assumptions and yet how it is not circular reasoning because it uses evidence to test the assumptions rather than self-referential and therefore invalid logic?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    and now that I've taken the time to clarify my position, and gone into great detail about the fallacy, which likely will go ignored, I'll begin typing a rebuttal to our debate, which was interrupted, again, by the community stalker.
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    as always, goober has constructed another red herring to ramble on about. 

    Please explain, and detail the reasons why you feel my argument is a red herring.

    Could you also explain why you continually barrage me with accusations of “asserting” my position: and then you continually produce posts along these lines, that contain no justification, no argument: simply a statement with no supporting evidence or words: an assertion.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts


    As is obvious, goober drops one red herring in favor of another, anything to further disrupt any constructive conversations from anyone else. Actions from a control freak stalker.
    PogueEvidence
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    ok, I know this may be hard for you to understand, but assuming the earth(and those planets) is a ball huddling around the sun (heliocentrism) is THE SAME THING AS ASSUMING THE EARTH IS A BALL HURDLING AROUND THE SUN. Ignoring arguments is your department, I've ignored your baseless assertions.
    But that’s not what he’s doing: this is a misrepresentation of his argument, and then arguing against the misrepresentation.

    You have failed to show, or even bother to explain why you feel he has made this assumption to support his position.

    in reality, the reasons for believing the heliocentric model are actually the same as to believe the earth is a sphere: stuff up in space is spherical, spinning, etc; why would the eart be different?

    so, as pointed out (and ignored thus far): as with so much in this thread: you very much ARE assuming your conclusion in your reply: its almost metronomic the way your accusations against every one else are the very crimes you are committing. It’s bordering on Orwellian now.
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    ok, I know this may be hard for you to understand, but assuming the earth(and those planets) is a ball huddling around the sun (heliocentrism) is THE SAME THING AS ASSUMING THE EARTH IS A BALL HURDLING AROUND THE SUN. Ignoring arguments is your department, I've ignored your baseless assertions.
    But that’s not what he’s doing: this is a misrepresentation of his argument, and then arguing against the misrepresentation.

    You have failed to show, or even bother to explain why you feel he has made this assumption to support his position.

    in reality, the reasons for believing the heliocentric model are actually the same as to believe the earth is a sphere: stuff up in space is spherical, spinning, etc; why would the eart be different?

    so, as pointed out (and ignored thus far): as with so much in this thread: you very much ARE assuming your conclusion in your reply: its almost metronomic the way your accusations against every one else are the very crimes you are committing. It’s bordering on Orwellian now.
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:


    As is obvious, goober drops one red herring in favor of another, anything to further disrupt any constructive conversations from anyone else. Actions from a control freak stalker.
    Why is my argument a red herring? Considering I listed half a dozen issues and errors: such as you not knowing what a straw man is, committing a straw man in your rebuttal, assuming your own conclusion: you’ve not replied to any of those; only a single point.

    I am arguing; I am showing how you’re wrong, my posts aren’t “stalkerish”, or “Harrassment”: they are straight up proving you wrong.
     
    That youre continuing to manufacture your own reality to the absurd degree you are, is getting silly now.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    he still doesn't understand, or does he? 
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • edited March 2
    Posted a couple of pretty simple arguments for a globe, wasn't really hard. It seems @Erfisflat is doing whatever possible to dodge questions, and claims anyone who doesn't agree with him just "doesn't understand".

    AGAIN.


  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Posted a couple of pretty simple arguments for a globe, wasn't really hard. It seems Erfisflat has completely abandoned honest debate, so GG.
    If you pay attention to previous arguments: I don’t think his previous style ever used honest debate.

    For example here, if you pay attention, Erf is mostly asserting his points, not providing any justifications, evidence or arguments for the majority of angry accusations he’s making: he’s ignoring most everything being said, and the arguments he is making are horribly flawed as pointed out.

    given that, look what he’s saying about everyone else:

    that we’re “asserting everything”, that we’re committing red herrings and fallacies, and ignoring his points.

    this is a technique called “gaslighting”, he’s trying to repeat untruths so much that he, or we aren’t sure of what is true any more.

    The great thing is; people aren’t stupid: the more it is pointed out that he’s not engaging, he’s not providing arguments and he’s just hurling accusations, and the more and more denies it: the more and more he destroys his own credibility for anyone he would otherwise be able to convince. I suspect this complete lack of his credibility that he shows is what helped convince you and tttflat.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Posted a couple of pretty simple arguments for a globe, wasn't really hard. It seems @Erfisflat is doing whatever possible to dodge questions, and claims anyone who doesn't agree with him just "doesn't understand".

    AGAIN.


    flip flopper has jokes!
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @SilverishGoldNova Great arguments in the debate.

    @Gooberry It seems Erf's intentions on this website aren't to actually debate in any shape or form, he wants to use this website as a platform to loudly shout that he is right. I won't be too suprised if he uses the same dishonest tactics in his debate with Silv.
    GooberryEvidence
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Firstly, the earth is not in the sky, which makes this a strawman. Common sense, right? 

    Secondly, I'm not saying the earth is a disc in space. Assuming the wandering stars are other earth like places IS an assumption, we've never been there to see that they are spheres, or physical terra firma. 
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    It's hilarious that you all think I'm claiming the earth is a giant frisbee in space. Honestly it's like I'm in the friggin twilight zone, surrounded by morons.
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    @SilverishGoldNova Great arguments in the debate.

    @Gooberry It seems Erf's intentions on this website aren't to actually debate in any shape or form, he wants to use this website as a platform to loudly shout that he is right. I won't be too suprised if he uses the same dishonest tactics in his debate with Silv.
    I've planted the seed of truth, the rest is up to the individual. You don't have to be here if you claim this is all I'm doing.
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Firstly, the earth is not in the sky, which makes this a strawman. Common sense, right? 

    Secondly, I'm not saying the earth is a disc in space. Assuming the wandering stars are other earth like places IS an assumption, we've never been there to see that they are spheres, or physical terra firma. 

    Why are you asserting he’s committing a straw man? How? Why? What’s your reasoning: stop asserting thing.

    A straw man is a misrepresentation of an opponents argument.

    how is the earth not being in the sky and other planets being in the sky misrepresenting your position?

    as you have defended none of your other botched accusations; I suspect you won’t defend this one.

    given how obviously wrong the claim of a straw man actually is, it seems you don’t understand what a straw man actually is.

    We can observe the objects as always circular, we see them appear to rotate, we can map a number of them. We see moons circle around a large object, and pass behind.

    we have justifications, observations and evidence to justify the statement that the planets are rotating spheres: as a result by definition we can’t be assuming them.

    that is literally the opposite of an assumption.

    For the 7482th time thus far; you are deliberately not understanding the arvument.

    the argument is not that earth is a planet, and all other planets are spheres. Please stop saying it is; it is a straw man (as explained), and now it pointed out repeatedly: you continuing to state it makes it a lie.

    The argument is that everything we see in space is a rotating sphere: why would you presume the earth is special, and doesn’t orbit the sun when everything else appears to?

    its literally a challenge for you to try and refute the heliocentric model with evidence.

    all you’ve done, IS assume your own
    conclusion, by asserting earth is special and thus you don’t need to explain the difference.

    Youre literally committing every crime you just accused him of committing.



  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    It's hilarious that you all think I'm claiming the earth is a giant frisbee in space. Honestly it's like I'm in the friggin twilight zone, surrounded by morons.
    Im not. That is either a lie, or you are misrepresenting my position (a strawman)
    Erfisflat
  • PoguePogue 517 Pts
    I feel like posting more evidence so I will. I will debunk the spotlight sun idea. Now there are other ways to disprove it but these are the easiest to do. I will use the flat model for this and say the sun goes above the Earth. 

    We know the angular velocity of the sun because it must complete one circuit of the flat Earth in 1 day. At the equinoxes, when overhead the equator, approximately 10,000km (6,213.7mi) from the center of this planet. When here it must travel at 2,618km/h (1,626.75mi) factoring in distance at the equator and how long it must be. However, during the June solstice, it is on the Tropic of Cancer. On the flat Earth, it is 2,604km (1,618mi) closer to the center. Here it covers a smaller distance but at the same time so it must move slower. At about 1,936km/h (1203mi/h). On the December solstice, it is on the Tropic of Capricorn. This is 2,604km (1,618mi) south of the equator. The sun has to cover a larger distance in the same amount of time and so moves faster. This means it is about 3,300km/h (2050.5mi/h). 

    A question I have is what is moving the sun. What force is doing it? Back it up with evidence when you answer/respond. Also, the speed difference would be easy to detect. In one hour it should change position much differently. 

    This video explains everything in more depth and it also has more arguments to debunk a spotlight sun. 
    Erfisflat
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @SilverishGoldNova Great arguments in the debate.

    @Gooberry It seems Erf's intentions on this website aren't to actually debate in any shape or form, he wants to use this website as a platform to loudly shout that he is right. I won't be too suprised if he uses the same dishonest tactics in his debate with Silv.
    I've planted the seed of truth, the rest is up to the individual. You don't have to be here if you claim this is all I'm doing.
    We’re planting the seeds.

    at best, you’re providing the fertilizer.
    Erfisflat
  • So uh "Adam the Great", make an account and debate me. Thanks.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    So uh "Adam the Great", make an account and debate me. Thanks.
    who? how are you talking to someone without an account?
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • edited March 2
    Erfisflat said:
    So uh "Adam the Great", make an account and debate me. Thanks.
    who? how are you talking to someone without an account?
    Just some guy I sent the website link to. Maybe he'll see the post. Are you gonna post your arguments or just lurk in this thread?


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    So uh "Adam the Great", make an account and debate me. Thanks.
    who? how are you talking to someone without an account?
    Just some guy I sent the website link to. Maybe he'll see the post. Are you gonna post your arguments or just lurk in this thread?


    I was wondering the same about you. You just posted other people's arguments
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    I'm not going to spend a lot of time on their arguments tbh, I have a job and family
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • edited March 2
    @Erfisflat Hmm, some random short film you found on Vimeo. Great argument! (jk).
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    and I'm not sure you used the term "lurking" very accurately. I've been very active here, mr. "look, spacex car cameras r invisibul..."
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • edited March 2
    Erfisflat said:
    and I'm not sure you used the term "lurking" very accurately. I've been very active here, mr. "look, spacex car cameras r invisibul..."
    Just talking about your fallacy flagging and otherwise silence of course!

    And sure, we can definitely count you making fun of me FOR ARGUING FOR YOUR POSITION IN THE PAST (am I dreaming?) and the gaslighting directed at everyone else as activity, Mr. Rolltide Pods. But, I'm not interested in fighting with you. 

    The fact that you're resorting to literal movies to prove your claims... Sorry. But I digress. It's becoming apparent to everyone as McName said that you want to use this website to shout loudly that you're right, not debate. Atleast I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.
This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| 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