Best Disagree Content - | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!

Best Disagree Content

  • Is the bible the most immoral book ever written ?

    @with_all_humility ;

    I’ve heard it all before and substituting the term slavery for bondservant is a pretty pathetic ploy and sadly typical , modern versions of the Bible have the term slave re-interpreted to become bondservant as it seems so much more palatable doesn’t it ?

    You sound exactly like a plantation owner would and did  whilst defending slavery and hilariously you’re using the self same tactics as in softening the terminology to suit your narrative 

    let’s attempt again to correct your defence of the indefensible ,

    Selling your daughter as a sex slave , no doubt this will translate into “ actually that’s a way of saying servant “ ?

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    So these are the Bible family values!  A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!

    What is the correct “ context “ for sex slavery ? 

    What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing

    So beating a slave or bondservant as you call them is alright ?

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

    You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

    The Bible states clearly it’s opinion and gods opinion regards slavery so your amusing dance attempting to re-interpret what’s clearly written into something that’s not is amusing but pretty sad to be honest 

    Your smarmy comment at the end as in “ which one  do you want me to de-bunk next “ was noted , I play fair in debate but I always say “ if you throw the first insult well anticipate the same back “

    Incidentally I’m a former Catholic and trained and tutored by the intellectual branch of the church as in the Jesuit’s I know the Bible back to front in my native tounge , English and Latin 

    I may be leaving this site as my experiences have not endeared me to the site , I will address the rest of your argument dependent on your reply to my counter to your defence of biblical slavery 

  • Left Wing Sources VS Right Wing Sources.

    @someone234 When did I ever say CNN, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post are unreliable? I never did. It's unfair thought to say you trust Daily Mail but not the Huff Post. That's favoritism. Daily Mail on most bias rating sites is far more right then showed on the picture you have. But again, that picture is from this Sheryl person that seems like a complete hypocrite and not trustworthy as a source. Again, she can NOT be trusted because for her working for a LEFT biased station is bad, but working for a FAR RIGHT company is ok. Except, that's not right, it's hypocrisy. She has biases shown A LOT just with that. She appears praised in CYDdharta's Puedo-science Christian biased source so I'm thinking it's no wonder. If you said right wing is ordered wrong on the pic, why are you relying on it?  @CYDdharta And yes, I know I haven't been here in a while but yes, I can and will report you. I critisized your SOURCES not you. You DIRECTLY criticized me AND acted very condescending. ALSO, you said "Why are you drawn to the completely irrelevant?" as if I typed THIS MUCH and yet it means NOTHING to you!?!? THEN WHY DEBATE ME? WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME? If my words mean NOTHING to you, then STFU and go away! Either respect me or get outta my face! If you can't have RESPECT for opponents, DO NOT debate them! You need to have respect before you debate somebody you disagree with. Either fix your attitude or this debate ends for good and you WILL be reported. And don't lie and try to defend yourself. You know who you are. I only pointed out your sources seem a bit odd, but ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, is find another source, and we can go from there. Period. Also, when you said the thing about China's newspaper, that same info right under is from the SAME website I USED to check biases. THEY THEMSELVES admit that there are problems with that paper and likely you got info from there. What happened to that bias check being unreliable? You have INFO from them yet I can NOT? That's HYPOCRITICAL. BUT, it goes with what you have shown. YOU show that YOU think you are BETTER than me. YOU ARE NOT. This is a debate between two opinions, not right and wrong unless solidly determined, but even then, there will still be differentiating opinions, like it or not. The fact that you are trying to make it seems my arguments as 100% fallacies is BS. I really don't know why you bothered to debate me if you already had in mind that I MUST be in-superior because of different opinions. You are wasting your time. And you are wasting mine. And, actually, I am going to report you. Really, I am sick of being looked down at by everyone I meet whether online or in real life. Learn a lesson the hard way. And what the reporting does will determine if you see me again. READ my user name. SLANDER is NOT debate. Don't you forget it!

    I'm not sure what to make of this word salad rant, but I do have a couple of observation.

    1) You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "slander"

    2) You are correct, this is a debate site.  Pointing out logic fallacies is pretty common around here.  The best way to get people to stop pointing out your logic fallacies is to quit committing them in the first place.
  • Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?

    I agree with Pascal that life is a wager. The belief or disbelief in God/deity is both made on an assumption.  In a physical world, the spiritual cannot be proven, nor disproven.   Just as pointed out by Paul...

    1Co 2:13-14  These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    So the argument that there is a God is as old as civilization.  

                     God exists (G)                    God does not exist (¬G)


    Belief (B)+∞ (infinite gain)                   −1 (finite loss)   
    Disbelief (¬B)−∞ (infinite loss)                   +1 (finite gain)

    The gamble here is really about eternity thus the use of infinite gain/infinite loss. I see a missing variable in the Pascal equation. That is what is a meaningful life here on earth or the physical world. From the information given, a clear assessment of what is being lost in the physical cannot be made.  So, there are two possible outcomes.

    Assumption 1: A good life is one that results in happiness.   Assumption 2: A belief in God makes a man miserable 

    If our mission statement in life is just to simply live a happy life, then believing in God, is a win-win wager
    If however, being a Christian leads to make oneself miserable or something else that results in a negative outcome then Pascal's wager may hold true.

    So, with those two assumptions added to the mix if assumption #1 is correct, then I believe a person can live the life of a Christian and still have a happy meaningful fulfilling life. Then, God's existence is irrelevant because they will either gain eternity in heaven or obtained finite gain from living a happy life. While the nonbeliever can only obtain finite gain/infinite loss 

    If assumption #2 is correct then the God existence does become relevant and you have two outcomes as purposed by Pascal.

    I think it should be noted that a non-believer in God always results in an infinite loss. A non-believer can never bring about the possibility of infinite gain regardless of the existence of God.  Thus the point that Pascal was trying to expose.

    To the non-believers: What is the definition of a good life in context to the individual?
    We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe. 

    You still make the assumption that those will get you into heaven. So: 
    Pogue said:
    It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven. 

    This can also promote evil. These were taken off of's_wager.
    "More troubling than this are occasions where you might theoretically be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity. This forms a flip side to the argument that Pascal's Wager emphasizes belief over worthiness in that it suggests that outright evil people can gain reward and avoid punishment simply through belief. In the Old Testament,  there are numerous instances when worshipers had to kill and hurt others as commanded by God. In fact, there are occasions in which God was extremely displeased that they didn't take the abuse of fellow humans far enough. Even with the Pascal's Wager metric in place, one could argue that it's more moral to resist these commands for the sake of others even if it results in an infinite loss for you." 
    "If, as Pascal's Wager must assume, God is willing to punish good people simply for a lack of belief, this would preclude God being "good" by any sense that we understand the concept of "good" — and "good" is a necessary property of God, at least as understood by Christianity. As it can be demonstrated on Earth that no single specific religion has a monopoly on good and moral people, a God that causes Pascal's Wager to be valid cannot be focused on spreading good around the world. Various responses to Pascal's Wager involve pointing out that to be at the constant beck and call of such a clearly evil being would be preferable to hell, and so it is favorable to disbelieve."
    "If you ask most Christians whether children who die when they are very young will go to heaven, they will say yes. So it would be most reasonable to kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith."

    The accompanying text:
       "It's just the ocean playing tricks on us. Just because it looks like we're on land, and it doesn't seem like we're moving, doesn't mean we should risk getting out."
       "Our ancestors wouldn't have sacrificed so much to stay in the boat if it wasn't really on the water. And I wouldn't feel such a dark, frightened feeling every time my doubts say we've been fooled."
       "Absolutely. There's no other explanation for it."

    The wager can also be turned around. The chart for the Agnostic Atheism Wager is as follows. 
    God existsGod does not exist
    Be a good personBelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    Be a bad personBelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    "Lord, I did the best I could with the tools you granted me. You gave me a brain to think skeptically and I used it accordingly. You gave me the capacity to reason and I applied it to all claims, including that of your existence. You gave me a moral sense and I felt the pangs of guilt and the joys of pride for the bad and good things I chose to do. I tried to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and although I fell far short of this ideal far too many times, I tried to apply your foundational principle whenever I could. Whatever the nature of your immortal and infinite spiritual essence actually is, as a mortal finite corporeal being I cannot possibly fathom it despite my best efforts, and so do with me what you will." -Michael Shermer

    If you compare them, the AA wager adds another part of behavior. This takes into account how God would act, rather than just the blind faith. 

    If it does convince you, I ask you, how do you know that the God that you believe in is the right one and not the others. 
    For the last part, good is subjective. My philosophy might not make someone happy. However, wasting your time on something that does not exist is a waste of time no matter what. 
  • The Christian God is real

    As @Dee said, there is not a single solid proof of any god(s). There are, however, multiple unrefuted scientific proofs that prove evolution, the Big Bang, etc. 
  • Donald Trump thinks vaccines cause autism! They don't. Thoughts

    @Pogue ;

    1) There is a stack of information online regarding this issue, if you can be bothered to read it.

    2) There is no actual proof that vaccines do cause autism disorders.

    3) There is no actual proof that vaccines do not cause autism disorders.

    4) It is widely regarded that vaccines may be associated with autism disorders. (Information freely available online)

    I have not for one minute, stated that there is an undeniable link between vaccines and autism.  

    Whereas, you continue to state unequivocally that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

    You have absolutely no way of unequivocally validating your statement.

  • Donald Trump thinks vaccines cause autism! They don't. Thoughts

    @whiteflame Everyone must have it.

    Only one company for all.
  • The Big-Bang Story

    The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists. 

    I’ve made that mistake with Erf before, working under assumption that the images he posts are of exactly what they say the are: but in this example, as with so many others; both he and the people on the video he shows are just scientifically incompetent, or intellectually dishonest, as I will show.

    Erf produced this video in order to give evidence that “earth is flat”, and in part later to claim that we are asserting that refraction happens; the best part of that video is that it provably demonstrates both of those facts.

    This is why I have asked Erf whether he still supports this claim, and whether he bothered to check the claim before posting it. His repeated refusal to answer that question, combined with this disproof below demonstrably shows he doesn’t bother checking his claims, and implicitly knows that the claims are invalid and makes them anyway.

    This post will both refute Erfs claims, and point out the pseudoscience strategy he uses to make the claims. The video shows two things:

    1.)    Almost exactly the right amount of curvature for the viewed distance.

    2.)    Almost exactly the same type of refraction I’ve explained and reproduced with other evidence.


    As Erf, or the video hasn’t bothered to check or make any measurements, and have simply unscientifically declared that the image “doesn’t look like there is curvature”, let’s do the science for him. 

    To determine what, if any, curvature there is, you need, given a known distance to the object you need:

    1.)  Known geometry about the object in question, enough to work out how tall it is.

    2.)  A comparison image with multiple points you can use to compare the image with the image you take, multiple points required to determine the refraction occurring.

    3.) A detailed scientific comparison between the two to determine the changes in size/shape/cut off.

    This video simply posts a comparison image, and leaves it there...


    The video shows 5 images. Let’s deal with these one at a time:

    1.) claim: “the image with the black cranes, boat, and gantry doesn’t show 60 feet of cut off”

    This claim is BS. Not only is it BS, when the cut off is explained: it proves that you didn’t bother to even google the object you were looking at.

    This image, is taken of downtown mobile, and the BAE systems boat yard (You can tell this because the gantry on the right even says “BAE Systems”. This is part of a larger “dry dock” complex, there are plenty of images on the internet of it, and some as you will see that explain exactly what you’re seeing…

    Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to estimate how many times the width that gantry is high: and then comparing the two images to see if they are the same relative height:

    The answer is no they are not: The “video” shows the gantry at 6 times its own height, with the real image showing 9 and a bit times its real height. Given this, we can actually estimate where the cut off is occurring (shown by the red line).

    If the cut off was because of water: it would mostly look like the boat that is currently hoisted up out of the water because it’s in a dry dock.

    The most interesting part of this is that as I will show: the height of the dock above the water (the concrete), is around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like the cut off is around 4 times the height of the dock wall: so about 60 feet.

    How much curvature did they claim was missing again???

    You can cross reference this again with the image on the right-hand side: this is showing the dry dock, with the cranes sitting on concrete barriers so that they can actually be ABOVE the boat they are servicing. This corresponds nicely with the image on the left: the cranes stand well above the water line and appear to be on the water line in the other image.

    1/1 Debunked!

    2.)   The images of the cranes is a really great one. 

    This is another example of Flat earthers and you not bothering to check anything that they post. Any simple google or even LOOKING at the image would reveal the curvature. The curvature, once revealed, indicates that the claims are desperate and unverified nonsense that anyone with a brain that bothered to check the images should have noticed

    Let's try and establish some scale here… According to the port authority, the boom of the crane has a reach of 150 feet; we can use this to come up with approximate sizes: the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom part: so we can estimate 120feet and 80 feet. 

    In the “cut off image” the bottom part is the same size as the top part; meaning that 40 feet of the bottom of the crane is missing.

    Add in the bottom of the dock: which we can see based on the car in the foreground is about 3-4 truck heights high, making it around 15-20 feet, gives us missing curvature of between 55-60 feet.

    2/2 debunked.

    This image also proves that there is refraction going on. Look at the bottom portion of the image compared to the top. Measuring the higher portions for scale reference gives us the right numbers: but you can see what’s happening lower down; even though the bottom and top portions are roughly the same height in the video, the top of the horizontal bar is much higher up than it should be in a direct image comparison:

    If the image was the same scale at the top as it was at the bottom: for example non-magnification, or constant magnification: the geometry of the cranes you see in the real image would mean that the horizontal bar at the bottom in the video should appear lower than it is.

    This is demonstrable and visible proof of the refraction you have scoffed at; proven by a flat earth video, no less!

    How can I tell that? Easily: look at the far right: I have copied and pasted the crane on the right; and drawn lines from the top/middle and bottom bars to it.

    The top two bars are exactly in line: on the video image: looking through the atmosphere over water…. The bottom bar in the video is HIGHER than the bar on the closeup image.


    It’s not simply magnification, that would change the top bars: The lower portion of the image is refracted more than the top: refuting your unsupported assertions that objects only ever appear lower, and measurably demonstrating that objects appear HIGHER due to refraction. 

    3/3 Debunked


    3.) The third image is of the USS Alabama the video says this should be hidden by 50-60 feet of curvature (based on its actual distance)

    Again: no one bothered to check anything. You’ve just swallowed the claims verbatim and not checked the height and position of the ship. The video slapped a line high through the ship at at least 40-45m and asserted that this is where the cut off should be. This is again just BS claim by people too stupid or too dishonest to scientifically analyze their claims.

    The draft of the ship is 11m, and it’s height from keel to the truck is just a shade under 60m, meaning the entire ship is 49m above the water line. (It could also be up to 1m higher than this: different images I have seen show the draft might markers - the white numbers on the front of the ship, showing it is higher out of the water)

    The 1/4 line of the ship will be around 45 feet and the 1/3rd point of the ship will be a fraction under the 60 feet point.

    I have an image of the ship, and it’s real-life counterpart for reference (actually 2): drawing a red line at around the ¼ and 1/3rd point give or take.

    I’ve drawn comparison points (in green), a thin orange line JUST BELOW the waterline on the video image; and a pink, black and orange line from the truck, to three different points of reference. This is so we can compare sizes in one image with the other for scale in 3 different ways

    What we can do, is what I’ve done in the second set of images: resize the ship until the comparison lines are the same size: and then compare where the water line is.

    Note: despite Erf lying by repeatedly asserting this experiment “accounted for refraction” when it obviously doesn’t: using multiple points of reference does account for refraction, by measuring the ship from different points, it allows you to quantify the distortion of the ship due to refraction.

    If we use the orange line as reference: the water is Faaarrr below the red line, if we use the black line, for some odd reason; the water line is a little closer: just a shadow below the ¼ line, which is closer.

    The pink line, the water line is around the red line where the boat should be cut off; and appears to be showing a tiny bit less than the 50 feet of cut off or so expected.

    Which is almost exactly the amount of curvature you’d expect at the distance to the USS Alabama (which is the closest of the mobile images), as the refraction appears to decrease as you go up (and as the image is the grainiest, especially when measuring the top portion which will reduce the perceived cut off), being a few feet from exactly the curvature that should be seen, it could be accounted by even small measurement error (such as if their camera is 6 feet rather than 7feet off the ground)


    4/4 Debunked.

    In addition, as I mentioned with the cranes before; there is measurable refraction: you can see it in the image: as the lines from the top to different positions on the boat do not scale the same way:

    The bottom of the boat is measurably compresses compared to the top. 

    This is exactly how science explains how refraction over water works, and exactly how I have described it.

    5/5 debunked.

    4.)    The final set of crane images is harder than it looks.

    Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.


    I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!

    In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high: 

    Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.

    6/6 Debunked


    5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.

    I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.

    The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.

     7/7 Debunked

    @erfisflat is obviously lying or flat out stupid when he claimed he “validated” the images shown. He has done no such thing, as everything I’ve noted is revealed with less than 5-10 minutes of basic google searching and looking at images.

    As shown: EVERY claim he and the video makes is flat out false; and when you do the science, they are objectively false. Every image show the amount of cut off and curvature that would be expected on a spherical earth.

    In addition, the video provides proof that refraction produces measurable effects which are identical to how I’ve described them.

    This experiment proved that the required cut off due to curvature is almost identical to what you’d expect on a spherical earth: because the video and Erf spectacularly and embarrassingly failed to perform even basic analysis.

    I mean come on; how stuoid do you have to be to decide not to google how tall the USS Alabama is? Or to not google what you’re looking at to know that you’re taking an image of a dry dock?

    On what planet are you on where you think just looking at an image is justification for saying there is no curvature? When even a basic analysis demonstrates the curvature is right there in the image. 

    This was just an unfounded assertion: Erf wanted to believe it was true, so asserted it was true.

    This is, in general, the flat earth strategy: throw out insane and incorrect claims with no justification or scientific validity or analysis: and simply rely on the actual scientific minded individuals to refute their claims: then instead of defending the poor claims they make, simply attack the analysis without any acknowledgement that the original claim has been destroyed which I’m sure is what erf will do now.

  • The Big-Bang Story

    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.

    You mean like when I said:

    "I mean, this was basically my intent when I provided the video, was it not? "
    I’m asking whether you did any sort of validation of that video? Or did you just swallow it whole because it agreed with you?

    I want you to tell us all how accurate the video is, and that you went and confirmed their results by performing a basic analysis of the video....

    You haven't seen me shy away from it yet... Even after the insults. 
    If you have never shied away from it; why haven’t you explicitly said:

    ”this video is 100% accurate, and I have personally validated and confirmed that the claims in the video are accurate.”

    You seem to be giving politician responses.
    because I won't repeat what you say word for word? Maybe you missed my last response. 
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you now conceding that "muh refraction" argument is a load? Would you like to discuss some axiom from the experiment, or are you just going to bait me until I ignore you again?

    You’re giving a politicians answer because you’re refusing to unambiguously or explicitly say that the video is 100 accurate; and that you have validated that what it claims is accurate.

    Thats a politicians answer: it’s like you’re now not sure whether the video is correct, you didn’t bother to check it; and are wanting to give yourself enough wiggle to so that if it is disproven: you can say “well that’s not what I meant...”

    I’m just looking for you to actually stand behind your claims by explicitly stating that you have personally validated that the claims are correct. 

    The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
    So you don’t stand by the claims you make?

    And you just post videos without bothering to check them?
  • The Big-Bang Story

    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    "Anyway. This is a debate concerning the "Big Bang"."

    Exactly, and if the earth isn't a ball, this bang story starts with a false assumption. Get it?
    Basically every single debate on this website relies on us assuming that our senses are correct and the world we perceive exists. If that isn't true, then this and pretty much every topic would start with a false assumption. Get it?

    Although the above is true, I would still be a distracting off-topic a-hole if I tried to turn every single topic into a solipsistic discussion of "But how do we know our senses are real, what if we're just butterflies dreaming we're people who have heard information about the big bang/religion/whatever!".

    If you want to argue about the shape of the earth, go back to your thread. it's just basic courtesy.
    You know, I searched the entire OP for even the slightest mention of being "dreaming butterflies" to no avail. I did however find flat earth reference...
    Are you conceding your original argument then and retreating to a separate one or just making a meaningless non-sequiter? Your original argument - as show in the quote trail - is that flat earth arguments are valid because the earth being round is an assumption that other observations rest on. The same applies to being able to trust our senses.

    I do believe that you've constructed a strawman here, I've made no mention of ANY observations that prove either big bangism or spherical earth. My senses and observations say the earth is a motionless plane... 
    Please confirm or deny if you are conceding your original argument.

    Are you arguing that it is okay to argue about the flat earth in a big bang thread because:

    a) As per your original argument if the earth isn't a ball then the big band theory has false assumptions in it


    b) As per your new revised argument it is okay to focus in on anything that is mentioned in the OP.

    When it's pointed out that your arguments are wrong, running away from them and just throwing more stuff at the wall to see what sticks isn't a valid form of debate.
    Maybe a bit of both. and just for the record, you are backing @Fredsnephew argument of magical lenses and very wrong math "as pointing out my arguments are wrong"?
    There isn't a quantum uncertainty theory of debating - you can't choose to 'maybe' make 'a bit' of an argument. You either do or you don't make an argument so man up and say what you think.

    Also I'm backing me having showed the flaw in your original argument and you trying to backslide into a different one without acknowledging you were wrong.
  • The Big-Bang Story

    Erfisflat said:
    or for that matter, the very many failed tests for curvature? They're multiplying.
    You mean like the video of Mobile Bay where you professed that it is a valid experiment, it proves the earth is flat...

    ... and you don’t seem to be sounding too confident about it now that I am explicitly challenging you about it.


| 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