Best Recent Content - The Best Online Debate Website | The Best Online Debate Website |

Best Recent Content

  • God doesn't exist - Change my mind

    poco said:
    you:  Exactly, because there is no gravity, only density/mass traveling to it's buoyancy point of rest within whatever medium it is taking place in. In a vacuum chamber where the air is removed, we can see that all things move at the same rate towards their buoyance rest. If gravity existed as described by the rules of gravity, the bowling ball would have traveled faster, using logic and math.

    me:  You are forgetting the other factors that influence how mass travels, in this example anyway, when not in a vacuum.  Is there not air?


    What "other factors"?
    In air, mass/density like the bowling ball travels slower. In water even slower, why? because the air, or the water absorbs much of the mass from the bowling ball, like for us when we go swimming.
    In a vacuum, all they did was remove the air to eliminate the air resistance, especially on the feather, and we realize that gravity doesn't exist, like in the NASA vacuum chamber experiment.

    Read over the rules of gravity I keep posting, I didn't make that up, I took it off science sights explaining gravity.

    This is why "weight" is described by objects traveling either up, or down towards their place of buoyancy rest, and not by it's own gravitational force. If gravity was real, then weight of objects would be calculated by its g-force, not how fast they travel in air.
    This never occurred to me until I seen that Brian Cox NASA experiment, which I would never have noticed if my buddy @Erfisflat would never have introduced me to Flat Earth. May God bless him for that, .. he changed my entire outlook of our reality, and my understanding of the Bible.

    I laughed my head off when I seen them all laughing at time 3:22 - !
    It reminded me of the joke of this patient in the nuthouse who put his palm over his face and asked the other patient to see if he was fast enough to punch his hand?
    The other patient than throws a punch, and the guy quickly moves his hand away from his face and, like Brian Cox and the NASA tam of scientists there, laughs because the guy missed his hand.
    Same here, they just proved to everyone that gravity doesn't exist, and here they are laughing, which also revealed that they've been lying to us about EVERYTHING!

    Now watch the theatrics from time 2:26 on, I mean Wow! They are so used to pretending (since no rocket, space shuttle, ISS, space probes or satellites have ever gone into imaginary space, they made this bowling ball/feather drop event a big occasion. This was the same way they acted when they watched the Mars Rover Lander set down in the desert somewhere in Greenland: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 ..

    To lift rockets, they are calculated by their density to buoyancy, adding force till the rocket is off the ground. Just like my scuba diving buoyancy jacket, I keep adding or removing air from it depending on what depth I'm at in water, and stop adjusting when I'm buoyant. It's not an anti-gravity jacket, and I never heard anyone use that phrase.
    Because gravity does not exist.
    So have you looked into Erfisflat's 'Flat Earth' debates yet?
  • I've changed my mind, the earth is a flying ball, and here is the evidence.

    "@Erfisflat "Explain this picture even though you know nothing about how it was taken, or where and when it was taken. You can't? Then the earth is flat buddy." I thought that was your picture so I said it was anecdotal evidence. If it's not, the problem still remains though. I believe you can see the problem by looking at the quote.

    You are not going to say anything about those views of the planets through telescopes? Understandable. You just deny whatever you don't want to think about anyways."

    This point originally stemmed from the argument "other planets are round". Since you have never stated or supported this position, this point is moot, unless you do support this position.

     "Hah! The ships were slightly distorted so I do not have to explain they disappear starting from the bottom!"

    That is a strawman argument. Paraphrasing me with something I did not say is a fallacious attempt to win an argument.

    "the building getting out of view, was not mentioned, understandibly."

    It was irrelevant. The point is ships go over horizons. If you would like to discuss buildings being hidden from view, i can give several examples of entire cities being visible that should not be so. You haven't even shown that you are capable of calculating the earth's alleged curvature. State the video's evidence in an argument. Give the distance involved, how high the observer is, and what should and shouldn't be visible, then you have an argument.

    " By the way, I said that specific mirage would not happen. The one where the mirroring effect had happened. I did not say anything about distortions. "

    That specific mirage DID happen,  and does every time,  in every video of a boat that goes to a variable distance over water. As i pointed out with screenshots, inferior mirages obscur the light from the ships starting at the bottom.

    "You are just trying to dodge the question. Even if the ships were distorted, why did they start disappearing from the bottom? "

    This is where the most moisture is. Breaking waves, evaporation, etc. Not to mention swells that can also obscur the bottom of ships.

    "It is NOT irrelevant to the discussion. It is NOT a panorama as you keep asserting. Regardless of how you think the images are edited, the point remains, and you concede to the fact that the images were edited, even thrown together, for lack of a better description."
     So.. your only argument is: "No that is not how it is!". Then let me respond in the same manner, yes! That IS how it IS. If you decide to actually respond to the argument, go back up and read what I said."

    I read it. So, just to be clear, your position is that NASA, who makes close to $20,000,000,000.000 each year, sees a very large sky,  and "take(s) 3 separate pictures of it and you add them together properly."? When anyone else does this, the image looks something like this:

    ...but when NASA does it, it looks like a regular image? It certainly wasn't elongated, so why the need to take 3 images? Regardless, the point was conceded long ago. The image was, like you said, edited in photoshop before public viewing.

    " Wait, let me get this straight. So you are saying NASA faked the space flights."

    Obviously, they couldn't get past the firmament, or Van Allen radiation belts, whatever they're calling it.

    "They made photos in CGI."

    Admittedly created in photoshop.

    "You were just saying that black and white picture was a drawing. "

    Nope, i believe it is real, I was playing devil's advocate when I said the flat earth image was fake. The other photos were "drawings" as I already proved.

    And now you are saying: "It looks flat in this NASA photo! I proved it!". You are not only contradicting yourself and your beliefs,"

    Explained above as a misunderstanding. Technically we've both "contradicted our beliefs and ourselves" here.

     "and but you make the assumption that the photo should show a curve. We do not know the altitude. "

    Incorrect, the altitude was stated on the link you provided as 65 miles.

    "We do not know what kind of lens was used(I am surprised you hadn't thought of this. Flat earthers love bringing lenses up when we see a curve.)"

    Please, explain what type of lens causes a curved line to be flat dead middle of the screen? I know about the lenses, as you implied, there is no such lens.

    " If NASA was trying to trick people, and they took a photo of the flat earth, would they post it? Your claim makes 0 sense no matter how we look at it."

    This image was taken before NASA in 1946 with a 35-millimeter motion picture camera as that camera was propelled skyward on a German V-2 missile. It is, officially, the first photo of Earth to be taken from space. It is perfectly flat. I'm sure you can Google some ad hoc conjecture to explain it away though. Try "how to beat these flat earther guise!"

     " So, your claim started out as heat doesn't travel through a vacuum. When that was pointed out to be a lie, " Hmm.. that is weird. I do not remember it being pointed out as a lie. Could your statement be a lie? Probably."

    Zzzz. So the sun's heat cannot travel through a vacuum again... Every planet should be a frozen wasteland. Right...

    " You are not debating google. I linked you a site that explains what you are asking about clearly. What you asked was a scientific question so it is only natural I gave you a site that explains it in full detail. I am not a manufacturer of satelites so I do not hold this information. I could copy and paste it, but that would not be practical. "

    A simple explanation in your own words will suffice. I do the same courtesy for you, so that both of us are on the same level of understanding...

    "What you are doing is, again, wasting time. "You linked me to somewhere! Haha am I debating google now?!" yes, you are just wasting time. You don't want to reach at a conclusion. You are only trying to make your opponent look bad."

    You're doing a fine job of that yourself. 

    " I presented explanation of the lunar eclipse. And you denied it because you think it is an assertion. Yeah let's forget the days actually become longer when this phenomenon occurs! "

    That is a non sequitor. Days become longer in my model, due to the sun being on a circuit that is closer to the observer. The days get longer in your model because of axial tilt. What exactly does this have to do with this point, or support your argument again?

    "Whenever I have performed refraction tests, the apparent position of object affected by refraction appear lower, not higher." what? I do not understand what is being said here. Refraction can make objects appear to be higher."

    Yes, depending on angles of incidence and the change of density, but in the circumstances of celestial bodies on the horizon, they appear lower, which is how we have sunsets, sinking ships, and cities on a flat earth.

    " Do you know what refraction is?"

    Of course, do you?

    "And what did you make these tests on exactly? You just threw that out there without any explanation. By the way, this would be considered anectodal evidence, right?"

    No. I included a test similar to the one I performed, you ignored the video, obviously.

     "Just a question for you. If your teacher won't tell you the truth, the governments won't tell you the truth, what makes you think that Google will tell you the truth?" google will offer you explanations. So before one-sidedly jumping onto conclusions, you need to listen to both sides at first. What you do is, you think you find an evidence, and without any research you start to use it. "

    Really? How much flat earth research have you done? I have researched the dichotomy for 3 years now, comparing evidence for either side. How do you think I became a flat earther? I tried to debunk it. 

     "I did not understand the video. "

    Not surprising. Go back and watch it again.

    "They make their first measurements at 500 feet. No measurement was done before."

    Did you watch your own video? Here's a screenshot of the first measurement:

    Literally not even 20 seconds into the first action scene. I guess it could have been missed, but we now see who is "incapable of simple research", as I pointed out in my FIRST rebuttal to this ridiculous weekend at bernie's sponsored clown show.

    "Yet the guy claims that "The laser should not have gone up that much". They did not even claim it did yet? This was the first measurement. They make 2 measurements and they look at how much difference there is between them. The first measurement can not be false because there is nothing to compare it to. We do not know the exact height of the laser. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the difference between the 2 measurements."

    And just like that the rest of your rebuttal is nonsense.

      "I guess that answers that question, if you are still incapable of understanding the impossibility of this experiment, you are probably by yourself by now. The fact that I included an entire mathematical refutation, and you neither recognized this or pointed out any errors speaks volumes."  Oh don't we all love this reasoning?
     "If you can not get this, you are the one who is wrong!"

    Are you implying that because you failed at both the mathematics, logic, and basic observations of both the experiment and the rebuttal, that you are, by default, right? 

     "After a third time asking you to explain what the eötvös and coriolis effects are, and how they prove the earth is a ball, you continue to dodge the request. Sincere discourse is where two intellectuals have honest conversation about any given topic. If you have no comprehension of what these phenomena are, what makes you think you will begin to understand the rebuttal? I am not debating Google."
     Oh my god. You are not debating google."

    Thanks for clarifying what I just said.

    " I am asking you to look into what the two effects are so we can have a discussion about them. What do you want me to do, copy and paste the wiki page?"

    Nope, a simple explanation as to what the effects are and how they support your position, in your own words is traditional in any scientific discussion, and not too much to ask, right?

     " This is exacly what you did when you presented me that math video. "Watch this video it explains how the experiment is wrong!" I did not say: "I will not watch that video!? What am I doing here, debating youtube?!". Your own actions are contradictory."

    Actually that's incorrect, again. I first gave a detailed logical and mathematical refutation of this experiment that proved it was faked. When you denied that, or implied that you didn't understand it, I then resorted to a video to help you understand.

    " I will explain again so you do not dodge it this time. I know what the eötvös effect is. I am asking you to look into it so that we can have a discussion about it. "

    Saying you know what something is does not equal explaining what something is and how it is relevant to this discussion. I could just tell you to research the Fibbonacci sequence and without explanation, tell you this proves the flat earth, I don't think you'd take me seriously. I honestly don't have the time to explain exactly what these effects are to you. I think probably you are wasting time, in your own words.

     I may have dropped some points(maybe not, don't have time to check). I will be back though.

  • The universe requires a Creator.

    you:@poco said: Please name anything that exists that didn't have a beginning.

    Infinite/God, .. no beginning nor end, .. Infinite is without borders and Eternal.
    Infinite is conscious, as he told the Prophet Moses: "I Am", a conscious Creator.

    me:  If you'd see, I haven't commented on this thread until this very posting.  That said, the above quote should not be attributed to me.  thanx.

  • Should abortion be legal?

    I say no unless the mother's medical safety is threatened, or the baby might die. I believe life begins at conception for Biblical (Job 3:3), and scientific (this is the very beginning of our DNA. I am genetically the same now as I was as a zygote. I believe that from the moment of conception, people have the right to choose. I am not a conservative, I am a social democrat. Bernie in the primary, Hillary in the general. I support Medicare for all, including birth control and sterilizations for any grown a woman who has need. I was sterilized because I don;t want children either, but I am prolife, so no abortion. I live by my own code of honor. JMO, people, do not strawman me at all, but as always, stay awesome, and enjoy your free and honest speech. Love you, and Jesus bless you. Let me know if their is anything you need re this debate, or re the Christian faith, PEACE!
  • Should abortion be legal?

    DrCereal said:
    @DrCereal abortion is murder. People in general have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, have your tubes removed, or don't have sex. It is really that simple.
    You say it's murder because you classify the zygote as something that's the moral equivalent of an actual entity. This is not the case for all people so some don't see it as murder.
    I'm not so sure that's the complete argument, in the majority of the United States there are very special laws in place that provide very special punishment for those who Kill a fetus.

    Now I'm not all about crushing your side here but I think we should consider both ends of the spectrum on this and so I present the following:

    What happens if you put an abortion pill in your Girlfriend's food while she's 3 weeks pregnant, her fetus dies and you get caught?  What happens if you rob a store with a gun and in the process you shoot a pregnant Woman and kill her fetus?

    There's no simple answer for these but in general, the overwhelming majority of the United States has very special punishments for people who kill the unborn child of a Woman.  So where is the line between legal and illegal?  Understanding the why and how is critical in determining whether or not something should or ought to be.  So follow my logic here:

    •  Is it illegal to kill a Woman's unborn child because she wants it to live?
    •  Is it legal if she wants the fetus to die?
    •  Is the desire of the Mother the determining factor in whether or not it's right (Justified) or wrong (Unjustified)?
    Logic Split

    If the desire of the Mother truly is the determining factor then logically                                                                                                   If the desire of the Mother isn't the determining factor then we must determine what other
    we must presume that the reasoning is simply because the fetus is a                                                                                                    factor could account for the reasoning that the act is unjustified.
    part of the Mother's body and the Mother has the ultimate authority in
    determining what she wants for her body.

    • If the fetus is truly just a part of the Mother's body of which she has ultimate authority of then how can Criminal Manslaughter charges be brought against someone who kills the fetus against the Mother's wishes?
    • Is the Mother's desire for life or death of the fetus the determining factor in which the decision that the fetus is a living Human Being and if
    • How is it that a Medical Professional can legally kill a fetus but if an average citizen does it then it's Manslaughter, Fetal Homicide or Infanticide?
    • Can the Humanity of a living creature be determined by the qualifications of the person killing it?  (You're not a Human Being if you're killed by a Doctor, you are a Human Being if killed by your Mother's Boyfriend)

    I feel that the bottom line is this:  You logically can't have it both ways.  
  • If you could go back in time, what would you change in world history?

    Events happened for a reason. Wouldn’t change history.
  • What do you think of Conspiracy theories?

    There are some conspiracies that are real. But we'll get to that in a moment.

    The wacko jobs are convinced that Man never traveled to the moon. That the Van Allen Radiation Belts are the limits beyond which man dies. Contradiction: The Belts follow the magnetic fields of the Earth.  These cut in around latitudes 75 or so. That means that the South Pole and North Pole are outside of the belts. Someone better tell the Russians at the Vostok Ice Station on Antarctica that they're dead.

    The World Trade Centers were exploded by the CIA. That amateurs could never fly an airplane as they were supposed to have done. Contradiction: Most people can drive an 18 wheeler and flying a commercial aircraft is a LOT easier. Maybe you couldn't takeoff or land it but they're a cinch to fly. And of course there's the questions about how they got thousands of people to lie for the CIA. Tower 7 burned for seven hours before it collapsed. Supper large structures ALWAYS fall into themselves. There is nothing powerful enough to make them fall over.

    Now, NOAA and NASA have conspired to lie about man made climate change. This is completely documented by their own scientists. Not one of the so-called theories makes the slightest sense. Virtually ALL "models" haven't been bad - but totally untenable. This has been nothing more than a power grab by government supported by "environmentalists". One chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, "This isn't about climate change - this is about redistribution of the world's resources." Or in other words - Grand Theft Nation.

    The government has become so large and overbearing that they believe that you and I are nothing more than slaves for their use.

  • What do you think of Conspiracy theories?

    I think the majority of conspiracy theories are ridiculous and can have a negative effect in that, by utilising the most far-fetched of factors and scenarios, we might not notice when much more likely and realistic actual conspiracies are taking place, right under our noses.

    As for people that follow conspiracy theories, often referred to as 'conspiracy theorists' it would be more applicable top call them 'conspiracy fans' as the overwhelming majority just latch on to and perpetuate existing theories, rather than come up with any of their own.
    It's also worth noting that there is a pattern, nearly all conspiracy fans latch on to any and all conspiracy theories that come along, it's like a hunger for them rather than a conviction they have about any one theory. In some cases there are even unrelated conspiracy theories that contradict one another when compared (such as people saying we've never been to the moon, then claim that there's a colony living inside the moon conspiring alongside reptilian overlords).
  • What do you think of Conspiracy theories?

    I believe that conspiracy theories are not true. @fredsnephew , conspiracy theories are not backed with true evidence or a large if any amount of it.
    Couldn't disagree more, have you seen the preponderance of evidence for 9/11 and the flat earth? What about the Boston bombings or Sandy Hook?

  • What do you think of Conspiracy theories?

    I don't believe that conspiracy theories, or most of them are true. 

    They are created with little evidence to back the claims.

    The flat earth has hundreds of proofs.

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, All rights reserved. | 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
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch