Luke Combs on his new album "Fathers & Sons"
In less than a decade, Luke Combs has topped Billboard's country airplay chart 17 times, and was named Entertainer of the Year twice by the Country Music Association. He talks with "Sunday Morning" contributor Kelefa Sanneh about his latest album, "Fathers & Sons," which was inspired by his two young sons, and was also an opportunity to pay tribute to his father, Chester...
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Yeah, a lot!
Where is the sun?
Use your model to calculate the position of the sun, at sunset on the equator at the equinox.
How can you calculate how much curvature you should see in a photo?
What would “curved” water look like?
Also, how is the Earth the only flat planet?
Everything is round, but the Earth is flat. How? Why?
I have given many other questions in this debate but I do not want to go looking for them (if I find them I will post them) and I do not want to give you too much trouble with the first round of questions.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
If I find a fallacious argument, I do the same. If I disagree, I'll thumbs down, not flag as fallacy. Where is the fallacy in the last instance I was with Aristotle quote?
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
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, Adam Ruins Everything was created to be educational and funny, not just for comedic purposes. No, that is not the argument, fallacy. The lights could not make the same shadows. They had experts on it.
Edit: You committed a straw man fallacy.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
I counted around 66 lies, and 35 fallacies in 3 posts.
So yes, it is indeed fallacious reasoning; as I am pointing out SNGs fallacies (Or others are), and neither of them really want to defend their reasoning, I think tagging their fallacies as such, is relatively fair.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Pouge
1. I will work on that
2. That depends, for example, lets talk about long distance curvature tests.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GGC65FtNOcM/Vb-R8aTeXqI/AAAAAAAAQBk/MMazD4n2qKo/s1600/corsica.jpg
This is the Island of Corsica, from 99 miles away at 70 feet above sea level. Should be hidden 5,252 feet under the horizon.
Try this for yourself! Put these results into a curvature calculator
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=99&h0=70&unit=imperial
3. It can't happen, that's what it would look like.
4. The other planets don't exist they are part of the firmament.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.88  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whatever I will get onto it.
2. Refraction and how high up is the camera?
3. I do not know what question it is.
4. How? Why? What evidence?
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.6  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Arguing about people marking your posts as fallacies, as if this is the only thing people are doing, when substantial arguments and refutations have provided is the “red herring fallacy” where you raise an unrelated argument to defend your position. I have it as such.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. I give actual arguments. You ignore or misrepresent or give alternative facts.
3. You committed a fallacy there but I do not care to mark it as such.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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!
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bedford level proved that water is not flat.
Also, the Earth not moving (which it does) does not prove a flat Earth. To actually slow the speed of light down (by a considerable amount) you need a telescope filled with BEC.
www.santarosa.edu/~yataiiya/4D/Phys4D-SlowingLight-BoseEinsteinCondensate.ppt
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/dec/15/slowed-light-breaks-record
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/1999/02/physicists-slow-speed-of-light/
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 19%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.1  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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...
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
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
And now, for the extremely simple rebuttal to Gooberry's constantly posted hot air
P L H P W B
l e o e o u
e a w r r d
a r s k
s n p s
e e
c
t
i
v
e
Lets see how long it takes for this post to get marked as a fallacy for no good reason.
Unrelatedly, the stars are winning 2-0, 9:30 left in the 3rd Period. Go Stars!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 55%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.26  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 4%  
  Learn More About Debra
Either way I've been looking forward to the 500 fallacies badge.
I'll wait.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://i.imgflip.com/24r6mc.jpg
or when someone claims that the video appears to have been made for comedic purposes
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://i.gyazo.com/9bd8094001e78ac7c3a86cfc2fcabdbc.png
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have no even attempted to discredit @Pogue’s argument on gravity and everything you have put fourth hs failed and/or does not make sense and/or not given other alternatives. Gravity exists so a flat Earth can not. Also, how come you guys said other planets do not exist and/or the moon (in the moon landings debate).
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
2.) what, exactly, is this a rebuttal of? Because it is unrelated to my argument:
You’re claiming that sunset and ships going over the horizon is due to “perspective”. which is not possible.
Your rebuttal to this is an image in which neither ships nor the sun go over the horizon, and at no point shows the ground interfering with or getting in the way of objects above the ground. It doesn’t show anything you’ve claimed
You offer no argument or explanation as to why it’s a rebuttal. Nor offer a description of what it is intended to show, or refute; nor did you even describe or referwnce anything I said.
As I pointed out, parallel lines don’t meet; and as a result, the ground (or the sea) can’t appear in front of an object above the ground (or sea) if they’re flat: and this is actually mirrored - and shown - by your perspective non-rebuttal image.
So no: your argument makes no sense, it’s literally an irrelevant image asserted as if it shows something It doesn’t.
As a result, your post constitutes both a non sequitur/red herring and an argument by assertion: so are genuinely fallacious.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
an attack on the person in lieu of an argument.
i am happy to explain in detail how you’re arguments are fallacious: I did with Erfisflat, for example.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.94  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.16  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.
When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances.
When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.
When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.
This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.
Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.
If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.
The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.
The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.
You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.
The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.
So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.12  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
I particularly like the way you assert we’re both wrong, hurl an insult; and claim we’re the ones acting like 8 year olds!
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 14%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
The shadow thing is inconclusive, for either side.
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
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 43%  
  Learn More About Debra