The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
With the mountains of proof of a flat Earth in mind it's more likely there is something situated below us
So far in this thread these mountains of proof haven't materialised and based on his comments in another thread ErfisFlat, who had been trying to make the argument for a Flat Earth in response to me, will not be continuing to defend his position, which I think i've shown is faulty, anti-science and based on basic misapprehensions on his part of geometry and spacial awareness.
We would feel if we were moving so fast.
How would we feel it?
Either who knows
Couldn't work, positioning of the sun and moon don't match up with what we see in reality.
Or infinite plane
Couldn't work, assumes people in South America and Australia wouldn't be able to see a 5000 mile high ice wall that surrounds the earth.
However the issue is that either way you are saying it is wrong to make assumptions - then immediately make two more assumptions based of nothing more than your personally support these theories. Not only that but the explanations are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
Well this has gotten way off topic. MDM didn't attack the argument, she attacked the flat Earth based on an assumption.
Which assumption? That "The problem with your model is that we need to assume more things, as the force pulling down so the question must be asked, what is under the earth?" That is her accurately representing your model, yes? That there is a single downwards force effecting everything? And the earth is a flat plane?
So the assumption of there either being something under the earth or there being some mystery mechanism which means there doesn't need to be anything under the earth is not an assumption of MissDMeanour, she merely pointed it out. The assumption is inherent in the claims you have made about the idea you support.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can feel and measure the slightest westward breeze, but we can't feel ourselfs spinning at 1000 MPH and blasting around the sun at 66,000 MPH. The point is, if the flat Earth was falling down in an infinite vaccum (which is an assumption), then we would feel it. Obviously the ice wall isn't that tall, its a graph, and the position of the sun is much different.
Me and Erf provided mountains of evidence for the flat Earth in this thread, despite you attempting to cherry pick and lie your way out of refuting it. Now, here is some more evidence if you're interested in continuing to cherry pick and lie your way out of refuting evidence http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1372/formal-debate-the-earth-is-flat
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
As already explained in it, simply making baseless claims someone's argument is wrong or fallacious but offering no evidence to support this is poor reasoning that can be ignored as fallacious. It's the kind of argument children get into when they just shout at each other "No, I'M RIGHT!". If you want to claim that my argument is irrelevant you need to show that is the case, which is the standard burden of proof that applies in all claims in debates.
Also as mentioned a lot of the points in your argument have already been refuted in my argument with ErfisFlat - sometimes even down to the exact same image and video you have used - so I await your response on those.
My previous post which somehow got deleted:
@SilverishGoldNova
You can feel and measure the slightest westward breeze, but we can't feel ourselfs spinning at 1000 MPH and blasting around the sun at 66,000 MPH. The point is, if the flat Earth was falling down in an infinite vaccum (which is an assumption), then we would feel it.
Feeling the breeze is based the sense of touch.
Touch is based on the the kinetic energy transferred as particles collide, which is dependent on relative speed within a frame of reference. If two objects are moving with the same velocity in the same direction, they have zero relative kinetic energy.
Hence there would be no expected difference between a 20 mile an hour wind on a static stationary earth and 1020 mile an hour wind where 1000 miles of that is caused by the rotation of the earth and effects the observer too. This is basic science that is testable and observable not just in experiments but in everyday life - you feel a much much greater breeze riding a motorcycle at 40 mph than you flying in a plane at 400mph because in the plane the atmosphere will have accelerated with the plane and is also moving at 400 mph.
That your claim contradicts both very basic science and observable reality represents a massive hole in your argument.
Obviously the ice wall isn't that tall, its a graph, and the position of the sun is much different.
So what is the actual orbit of the sun and moon? Erfisflat was incredibly evasive on this point, but with worldwide communication and modern equipment this should be something that you Flat Earthers should easily be able to prove as it's position in the sky should be able to be recorded from multiple positions on earth and then its apparent speed and distance worked out based on the distance travelled and the change in orientation from a static point - from which its size can then be calculated. Unless of course the results are utterly inconsistent with a flat stationary earth. Same with the ice wall please.
Me and Erf provided mountains of evidence for the flat Earth in this thread, despite you attempting to cherry pick and lie your way out of refuting it.
Now, here is some more evidence if you're interested in continuing to cherry pick and lie your way out of refuting evidence http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1372/formal-debate-the-earth-is-flat
Baseless attacks that you haven't bothered to back up with a shred of evidence. If you are going to make claims that I have lied or cherry picked information, the onus is on you to prove it. Otherwise arguments just degenerate into childish name calling - which currently is all your accusations amount. You'll note that in my debate with ErfisFlat while he several times made accucsations of "fallacy" or "chery picking" with no evidence or logic to back it up, when I did the same to him I actually explained it, e.g:
"Secondly, this is VERY much a strawman argument you are making and an appeal to authority wouldn't apply here even if you did reason that appeals to authority are fallacious. I did not say we take scientists at their word as you claim, did I? I gave the example of reading their study in a scientific journal. If you aren't aware of how scientific journals and publican work this would be the results of a study or experiment that had been peer reviewed and presented in high detail to allow for independent checking of the results and the claims being verified. therefore it is not relying on someone's word but relying on high quality evidence so your suggestion is a strawman.
Likewise, at no point did I suggest that scientific studies were infallible, rather the opposite point was made in fact. I was saying that we don't automatically reject experiments of others as empirical evidence just because we have not personally conducted the experiment ourselves. There should be testing of ideas so we have multiple experiments confirming and refining each particular area of research but I think you'll find that there is nothing in the scientific method that expects you to reject all evidence as non-empirical until you have personally conducted an experiment verifying or rejecting it. It is your claim which is therefore pseudoscience and again you tried to strawman."
That's an example of me not simply claiming that his argument is a strawman fallacy, but actually explaining why his argument is a strawman and walking him through the steps involved. That is the standard you should meet if you want to make similar accusations against me. If you aren't able to, I think that speaks volumes as to who is making valid arguments here.
As for your link, large parts of your post there arguments I have already refuted in this thread, so my responses are already there waiting for you if you want to try and take up the baton.
Similarly if you want to defend Erf's position I think you'll find it a hard bargain, as he seems to have claimed several untenable positions. My latest post is http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/12031/#Comment_12031 so please feel free to reference it if you want to actually back up your claims
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.62  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Baseless claim unsupported by evidence. Thankfully my arguments as to why Erf was totally wrong have explanations and evidence to support them so your irrelevent claim here can be disregarded.
Also I notice that even you only said "Most"? Is there some you agree with me are faulty or poorly thought out. I believe all of Erfs arguments except for his point 4 example were very poor and a lot of them (claims about the rotation of earth, expected POV of an eclipse, not knowing angular velocity) go beyond being wrong and betray a lack of understanding of basic geometry or terminology and show poor spacial awareness - as explained and laid out in my posts.
Poor argument again, more trying to argue against evidence, logic and explanation with baseless claims.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Ampersand You're extremely biased, holy.. idk what to say.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra