Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
The Bottom Line
Believing that the Earth is flat requires not only a world-wide conspiracy to fake decades of space exploration, but also the wholesale denial of many branches of science and the evidence of our senses. It requires the invention of new forces and laws of nature without evidence, and implicitly relies upon the actions of a deity-like being or beings.
Despite the rising prominence of Flat Earth ideas, there has never been evidence to suggest that the world could be flat. Advocates simply assume the “obvious truth” of a Flat Earth on the basis of religious faith, intuition, or humor, and then invent a reality to match.24 Although surprisingly frustrating, the rhetoric of Flat Earthers does nothing to change the simple fact, definitively proven for centuries: we l
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.14  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
References
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 29  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
No it’s not affirming the consequent - the clue is that it is a negation.
if you have flu - you have a fever.
you have a fever - you have flu is confirming the consequent.
You don’t have flu - so you dont have a fever is denyinf the antecedent.
You don’t have a fever - so you don’t have the flu - is what I’m doing and is called “Modus Tollens”, and is acceptable, valid logic.
You should stop accusing people of fallacies as you get them wrong 99% of the time. Just like this.
For the second part, let’s see whether we can trick you into being a scientist!
Are you claiming that the image you just showed, and the throwaway explanfion you have is the reason the sun appears to set for all individuals on the earth.
So let’s presume that you’re not just determined to believe a flat earth - and are using whatever reason you can find to explain why the evidence doesn’t agree with you (this is what you’re doing, though)
As you’ve given few details, let’s ask:
- What experiment or test have you made to show that this is what is happening every single day for every single person.
- What way have could your position here be falsified? What experiment could prove you wrong.
and the most important.
- do you actually believe this is credible? Are you willing to double down and tell me how valid this is? Are you willing to be caught in a lie by telling us all that you’ve researched this, obtained evidence this is what’s happening, proved it, and will defend it?
If you are, then are you willing to change your mind if I prove it is impossible?
If not: why are you offering up idle speculation you haven’t proved.
we all know that you’re just throwing out nonsense that you can’t prove and won’t support, so you’ll probably just accuse me of shifting the burden, or that I have to disprove the tenuous argument you won’t even stand by. We should all take that type of non response as proof that even Erf understands he is wrong.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.4  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 23%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  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: 71%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thats why I focus on what I do, there’s no point in challenging the claims any more - they were refuted on page 1. Now it’s just a case of watching him wiggle between claiming he’s being scientific - and him making a series of unsubstantiated claims without evidence and arguing we have to disprove them all.
Its fun when you pin him down and get him to commit to a specific claim is awesome, because watching him explode when you disprove it is perfect!
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let's play a game. I do not believe that England exists. I believe that all the people saying they are from England are liars and all of the photographs showing England are made with photoshop. Every person who believes that they have gone to England are just brainwashed by the government. Even if you take me to England, there is still the possibility that the government has put me in a virtual world without me noticing it. Why is the government lying about this? Because there is actually a secret military base that controls human minds where England is supposed to be.
Now, according to you, this is a valid argument. It is possible after all, right? So, I challenge you to prove the existence of England!
Hah, ignorant sheep! How can you disregard the possibility that the government actually somehow makes you feel like you see England but in reality it is just a simulation!
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is false, and you have no evidence for the claim. All that is needed for a mirage is varying temperatures in one area, which is in an observers field of view. Here is the Smithsonian channel, proving you wrong.
With inferior mirages, the surface is heated by the sun, and in turn the air at the surface is heated, as cooler air is just above that.
"That only works very close to the surface, so your Sun better be within 1-2 meters of the surface, if you really want to use this effect as an explanation."
As I said, the variance in temperature can happen anywhere, and since we are nearly always close to the surface, will always be looking through those variable density mediums.
As you know, perspective causes objects to appear lower, where the top of mount Everest from a distance will be close to the surface. That is ignoring the possibility of a glass/water dome, which can cause the object to appear even lower. So you claims thus far are not based in any fact.
"Further, this effect allows you to see the oasis which you cannot see directly as a reflection. It does not hide an oasis which you can see directly from you. There is no mechanism to hide such an oasis mathematically. Nor there is to hide your sun from direct view."
The experiments are there. You may have missed them. The ones that hide objects by bending the light up.
"You throw a lot of buzzwords in, but we both understand that you do not have a clue about how any of this actually works."
Maybe you were the one that did that?
Let's compare your first post to this one.
"The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."
Your position was that refraction is impossible in air, or we would not see it, due to the refractive index of air. Now that it has been proved that atmospheric refraction is a thing, you just going to make other baseless claims? Where do you get your information from?
@MayCaesar
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: 82%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
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: 95%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you willing to actually stick by that claim?
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
This gradient bends the light up, making an object appear lower. In some cases, the light being bent up, in relation to the angle it hits the medium, the light will be intersected by the ground plane.
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: 94%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
"The refractive index of air (and of any gas in normal conditions, really) is so close to 1, you might as well assume it to be 1, because any effects will not be visible with a naked eye in any case."
You have no idea what "normal conditions" is, do you? If you did you would understand what MayCaesar was trying to say. I wish you listened to your chemistry teacher in high school.
http://www.wikizeroo.net/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvU3RhbmRhcmRfY29uZGl0aW9uc19mb3JfdGVtcGVyYXR1cmVfYW5kX3ByZXNzdXJl
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
It’s a good habbit to make him double down on his claims - you let him make this insane and unscientific assertions, get him to confirm this is definitively what happens, and he’s researched it thoroughly, then when you show it’s impossible - it’s far more satisfying.
Obviously, that’s why he won’t confirm this is what he believes, or confirm this is his theory - because if he doesn’t confirm it, he can wiggle out of it later - like a true scientist!
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
You just proved @MayCaesar right.
"As I said, the variance in temperature can happen anywhere, and since we are nearly always close to the surface, will always be looking through those variable density mediums. "
Yes, it can happen anywhere. But can it happen to such extent that it is enough to make the sun dissappear? How can air far away from the ground get that much difference in temperature?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say this and then we can clearly see in the video that the experiment is done near the ground... This kind of helps @MayCaesar 's prove his point.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  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: 95%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  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: 81%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size.
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: 78%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 9%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is the sneakiness of his pseudoscience! He’s basically shown an object appears lower ( ignoring all the other facets of the observations - like seeing two objects, distortion, shimmering), then proceeded to claim this specific observation in one place in specific conditions applies all around the world without exception, though he can’t provide any evidence this is what’s happening.
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
You just said that the answer is "magnification" without trying to show how this is an answer and then you claimed that I do not understand the experiment. Quoting, is not the same thing as quote mining.
"You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size."
Shifting the burden? I was asking for this from the start of the conversation. You are just avoiding the question again and again.
Do you know what needs to happen for the sun's apparent size to not change? Do you even know how magnification works? You clearly do not. When you look through a magnification glass, you are not just seeing a magic vision. The way the magnifying glass makes objects look bigger is BY REFRACTING LIGHT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPUhgxwB9U
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.66  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED!
How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
Claim: You claim that there is an invisible and unreachable shape-shifting dome that magnifies the sun more and more as the sun gets away from it.
And even this IDIOTIC assumption does not make your flat earth possible.
  Considerate: 27%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Sunset refutes the flat earth."
If I have paraphrased it incorrectly, there's that, but the way you formed your argument is affirming the consequent.
If the earth is a ball, there would be a sunset.
There is a sunset, so the earth is a ball.
You can change it to modus tollens,(somehow) but without rewording your argument (which you haven't) it remains fallacious.
As shown in the experiments above, sunsets aren't mutually exclusive to a spherical earth. You can have a fever and not have a flu. You can have a sunset, and not have a ball earth.
My argument is more logically sound.
If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, it should have measurable curvature.
It does not have measurable curvature, so earth is not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.
That is the most logically sound argument in the entire debate, and is largely ignored, for whatever reason.
In order for your argument to be sound, you should prove that sunsets are mutually exclusive to the ball earth, and deny or disprove the experiments that show it is possible.
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: 78%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
No.
My claim is that the earth isn't a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, and a shrinking sun is in no way mutually exclusive to a flat earth.
Try again
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: 31%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
"@Erfisflat ; "You know full well that isn't all I said, you are quote mining me now, which is a sign of ignorance or deceit."
You just said that the answer is "magnification" without trying to show how this is an answer and then you claimed that I do not understand the experiment. Quoting, is not the same thing as quote mining.
"You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size."
Shifting the burden? I was asking for this from the start of the conversation. You are just avoiding the question again and again.
Do you know what needs to happen for the sun's apparent size to not change? Do you even know how magnification works? You clearly do not. When you look through a magnification glass, you are not just seeing a magic vision. The way the magnifying glass makes objects look bigger is BY REFRACTING LIGHT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPUhgxwB9U"
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.84  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 28%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
If the sun is at zenith, you will be looking through less atmosphere than anywhere else, therefore you will have less refraction.
As the sun moves away from you, as per the laws of perspective, you are looking through more and more atmosphere, which in turn magnifies the sun more and more.
The point is, as noted above, a shrinking sun is not mutually exclusive to flat earth, because of refraction.
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: 82%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED!
How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA.
---
Sending this again, as you are ignoring my main points.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
"@Erfisflat ; "You know full well that isn't all I said, you are quote mining me now, which is a sign of ignorance or deceit.""
Where did you disprove this claim? It was just posted, and this is your first response.
This is your quote:
"you have literally just said that "Oh you do not understand the experiment.". How is that answering the question? Explain how a sun couple miles ahead could always look the same size and still produce the same results with that shadow experiment."
You have taken a portion of my quote, and said that is literally what I said. In actuality, my argument was specifically answering your question:
That is by definition, quote mining.
"You just said that the answer is "magnification" without trying to show how this is an answer and then you claimed that I do not understand the experiment. Quoting, is not the same thing as quote mining. "
Yes it is.
"You are again shifting the burden with your diagram. Both the atmosphere, and the image of the bear prove that the sun could be magnified as it gets further, and still keeping the same results of the experiment, which depend on the actual position of the sun, not it's apparent size."
" Shifting the burden? I was asking for this from the start of the conversation. You are just avoiding the question again and again.
Do you know what needs to happen for the sun's apparent size to not change? Do you even know how magnification works? You clearly do not. When you look through a magnification glass, you are not just seeing a magic vision. The way the magnifying glass makes objects look bigger is BY REFRACTING LIGHT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPUhgxwB9U""
Agreed, relevance?
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: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.4  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, you claim that as we get further away from the sun, it becomes more magnified. But for this to happen, the light needs to be refracted in a different way. And IF THE LIGHT IS REFRACTED IN THAT DIFFERENT WAY, SURPRISE SURPRISE, THE RESULTS WILL HAVE CHANGED!
How can you not understand this SIMPLE IDEA.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is not my argument. The light is refracted in perfectly explainable, and demonstrable ways. This is known and established. It is therefore a possible alternative cause for your specific issue, and should not be ignored, or dismissed outright, as you two seem to be trying to do.
The result is that by pointing out the claim is not mutually exclusive to a ball or flat Earth, it isn't even relevant, and more supporting evidence is needed to make a conclusion.
"Let's play a game. I do not believe that England exists. I believe that all the people saying they are from England are liars and all of the photographs showing England are made with photoshop. Every person who believes that they have gone to England are just brainwashed by the government. Even if you take me to England, there is still the possibility that the government has put me in a virtual world without me noticing it. Why is the government lying about this? Because there is actually a secret military base that controls human minds where England is supposed to be."
It's a somewhat valid argument. Governments are known for lying to answer the question. I suppose there are ways of confirming that England exists. I'm searching for relevance here, so this doesn't seem like a false comparison....
" Now, according to you, this is a valid argument. It is possible after all, right? So, I challenge you to prove the existence of England! "
We can go to England, confirm what we are seeing, and verify that it is england via GPS, or from observations of england exclusive animals or building and monuments. We could go visit the Queen of England.
Are you suggesting that we can go to the FIRMAMENT, and verify it?
" Hah, ignorant sheep! How can you disregard the possibility that the government actually somehow makes you feel like you see England but in reality it is just a simulation! "
This is a valid argument. As it is a possible alternative cause.
If we are in England, we will see the Queen of England in her castle.
We see the Queen of England, so we are in England.
"But this could all be a simulation! That could be a hologram of the queen"
is a valid counterclaim, as it is possible today.
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: 68%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.66  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  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: 91%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you saying that because there is no magnifying glass in front of our face that atmospheric refraction isn't a thing?
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: 93%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Firstly, it’s definitely modus Tollens. Textbook modus Tollens.
If the earth is flat with the sun above, then the sun can’t appear bellow. The sun appears below therefore the earth cannot be flat with the sun above. This is basic logic.
Half of your strategy consists of asserting that everyone else is engaging in logical fallacies without any justification or understanding. But anyhoo.
Now, your position is NOT, that if the earth is spherical there should be measurable curvature - and there isn’t. That is flagrantly dishonest, and a grotesque misrepresentation you have made so far.
This is what you pretend your position is; in order for people to produce all the innumerable examples of measurable curvature.
What your position REALLY is, is that all the substantial myriad examples where the earth appears definitively curved can be unilaterally dismissed by you without evidence.
Sunset - is a conclusive demonstration of measurable curvature.
Objects falling over the Horizon is conclusive demonstration of measurable curvature.
Images and videos of measurable curvature is conclusive demonstration of measurable curvature.
The position of the sun through the day, it’s size, seasons, time zones, rotation of stars, eclipses, and a while myriad of examples are conclusive demonstrations of curvature.
You know the drill.
Your whole position is not that there is no evidence - it is that none of the evidence counts.
And as I’ve pointed out, the way you reject evidence, is by making absurd claims that you cannot and will not substantiate, then demand everyone to prove them wrong.
You must give reasoned evidence and justification as to why you can claim all images of earth from space are faked. Claiming that they are faked is not enough.
You must give reasoned evidence and justification that the sun is being refracted into a sunset despite it being above the earth - you can’t simply claim this is what’s happening.
Your entire strategy is simply making unsubstantiated claims to excuse the fact that for a flat plane - almost every detailed observation one can make of it shows it to have curvature.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.4  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  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: 91%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 11%  
  Learn More About Debra
That wasn't my only argument. I also agreed with your statement and asked you for clarification on relevance.
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: 80%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
In this experiment, please explain how changing the sun's apparent size slightly will change the results significantly...
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: 94%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
Look at that picture that I drew.
Let's suppose that the sun in that image is at the right height to not contradict with the shadow experiment.
You say that the dome magnifies the sun as it gets further away.
Are we clear so far? Alright. Now, tell me, how does magnification work? It refracts the light in a certain way that makes it look like the sun is bigger, correct? No objections so far?
Now, look at my picture again. The sun was placed at an height where the experiment would work on a flat earth because the rays come with the correct angles. As you have agreed, magnification is possible only through the refraction of light.
Now, I will repeat it one more time. In my drawing: The sun light comes in a way that produces the same results as the shadow experiment. Meaning if the way that the light comes is changed, the experiment would not work anymore. Meaning, if the sun light was refracted, the results of the shadow experiment would change.
And, as you agreed, magnification requires refraction. THEREFORE, if the dome magnified the sun, the shadow experiment would give different results.
Clear enough? Or do you need a 12th explanation?
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
The only part where you try to make a logical case against me was that quote mining part. Yes, you agreed with me on how magnification works. But this is not an argument made against me, correct? In fact, if we were to take the literal definition: "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory."
"I agree" is not an argument.
You are not trying to understand what I am saying, you are just trying to find mistakes.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
If the earth was a rotating sphere, with the sun at a long distance:
a.) the suns movement through the sky should be constant.
b.) the suns size shouldn’t change.
c.) the angle and length of shadows should be consistent with hypothesis 2
If the earth was flat - with the su rotating above.
a.) the suns movement through the sky should vary depending on the time of day.
b.) the suns size would change significantly through the day.
c.) the angle and length of shadows should be consistent with hypothesis 1.
All 3 of the observations fall conclusively on the size of a spherical earth, and refute the flat earth.
Its funny how much of your supporting arguments for a flat earth involve trying to argue that the observations of a flat earth would be identical to that on a spherical earth.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
Look at the left example. Now consider that we add in a dome that refracts light more and more as the lenght between the dome and the sun increases. Do you see how the results would change? You are literally changing the way that the light moves. How the hell can the results not change?
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.28  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.44  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra