How it's made: satellites edition - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

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!

How it's made: satellites edition
in Science

By ErfisflatErfisflat 1645 Pts


In 1957 the first satellite was put into space. Since then, about 8,000 satellites have been launched, of course none of these satellites are seen in any of the footage or photos from space, but that is because the highly reflective IR material, along with their relatively small size makes them near invisible to the naked eye. 

To begin making a satellite, a technician builds the internal computer that serves as the brain of the satellite, ensuring constant communication with the earth.


Circuit boards are created, and double checked by a worker.



These proprietory circuit boards are a crucial component to making the satellite function.

A robot makes high-tech maneuvers behind a cage and preassembles the heavier satellite components.


More than 800 man hours are spent creating a satellite. 

Satellites are used for many purposes including military, communication, navigation, and space based satellites.

Once the satellite is built, a team prepares to launch it. Workers attach a balloon to the satellite, and fill it with helium.





The balloon, er "satellite", is now ready to launch into space, er the atmosphere, er, they release it into the sky. These satellites, I mean balloons, I mean satellites, stay in constant contact and sometimes seamless synchronization with ground based towers, and undersea cables.


After an artisan creates a digital painting of the satellite, a programmer writes a complex algorithm that controls Google search results, making sure that when people search flat Earth, or satellites, they only see what they are supposed to see.


The digital rendering is then uploaded to Google's hard drive, to complete the process.




SilverishGoldNovaGooberryZombieguy1987Nathaniel_BEvidence
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

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
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • edited October 2018
    Interesting. But you forgot to put "wóo".  

    Now, I'd like an explanation.  

    To assume that the Earth is flat, we would have to assume gravity does not exist, because gravity would not allow Earth to be flat, and gravity would be far, far stronger. 

    So, the only other explanation is, well, quite frankly, that the Earth is constantly accelerating, but given our currently knowledge of this, we know that the rate of it's acceleration would rapidly increase until the Earth is moving faster than the speed of light. You can make posts sniping at me and follow me back to my Google account, but that doesn't prove anything.  
    Anyway, I won't have time for this debate, so I'll let @Ampersand and @Gooberry take it from here.

    You wouldn't just have to assume NASA is in on the conspiracy. Every astronomer, scientist, and physicist in the last few thousand years.

    Not only this, but you would have to assume, the following, including but not limited to, are on the conspiracy:

    1. All shipping companies.
    2. All airline companies.
    3. Any transnational company who's goods are transported around the world.
    4. Telecommunications companies.
    5. Odometer manufacturers. 
    6. Satelite TV providers.
    7. The engineers of those satelites.
    8. The employees of all of these companies.
    9. Yes, the government too. Literally every government entity, if applicable their militaries and space agencies.

    ErfisflatZombieguy1987Nathaniel_BEvidence
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Just mark the post as a fallacy and say nothing? My work here is done.
    GooberryZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • You can see satellites with the naked eye on on most clear nights, even in cities, by looking up and seeing the fast, constant moving lights cross the sky. You can distinguish them from planes because they don’t have port/starboard running lights and you can also watch as they pass into the earth’s shadow. if you were board, you could even prove where they went into the shadow is consistent with the earth being a sphere: using your location, time, and the satellites location.



    Now: you’ve made a claim - that satellites are “faked”. That claim is broad and massive, and requires overturning almost everything we know.

    It requires thousands of companies, and millions of engineers to be actively lying - and to have been doing so for the last 60 years, it requires some magical equivalent of time synchronized GPS, satellite links and communications, satellite TV and internet to be deployed on earth somehow - leaving no evidence and no one in any of those fields ever noticing the difference.

    You have no specific evidence any satellite launch was faked, no evidence that satellite TV doesn’t work with satellites, No evidence that GPS could or does work in a different way than cited, no evidence that GPS time synchronization is possible without satellites, no evidence that any satellite company is faking its satellites, no evidence that the ISS is a plane, no evidence that the satellites we see with the naked eye are balloons or planes, no evidence that google is covering anything up - as opposed to you just not being very good at googling things.


    In fact, other than being very emphatic about how right you are: you have no appreciable evidence that actually supports this rather incredible claim at all.


    ErfisflatZombieguy1987Nathaniel_BEvidence
  • Just mark the post as a fallacy and say nothing? My work here is done.
    That’s not true. He often says something.

    Some times when he repeatedly marks other people’s posts as fallacies, without any argument or justification : he then acts outraged and demands that people explain what about his posts are fallacies.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • edited October 2018
    Gooberry said:
    Just mark the post as a fallacy and say nothing? My work here is done.
    That’s not true. He often says something.

    Some times when he repeatedly marks other people’s posts as fallacies, without any argument or justification : he then acts outraged and demands that people explain what about his posts are fallacies.
    Oh, not surprising. 
    GooberryZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • edited October 2018
    Ed I'm waiting for an explanation. 

     
    GooberryZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Welp, my work here is done.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1645 Pts
    edited October 2018
    Interesting. But you forgot to put "wóo".  

    Now, I'd like an explanation.  

    To assume that the Earth is flat, we would have to assume gravity does not exist, because gravity would not allow Earth to be flat, and gravity would be far, far stronger. 

    So, the only other explanation is, well, quite frankly, that the Earth is constantly accelerating, but given our currently knowledge of this, we know that the rate of it's acceleration would rapidly increase until the Earth is moving faster than the speed of light. You can make posts sniping at me and follow me back to my Google account, but that doesn't prove anything.  
    Anyway, I won't have time for this debate, so I'll let @Ampersand and @Gooberry take it from here.

    You wouldn't just have to assume NASA is in on the conspiracy. Every astronomer, scientist, and physicist in the last few thousand years.

    Not only this, but you would have to assume, the following, including but not limited to, are on the conspiracy:

    1. All shipping companies.
    2. All airline companies.
    3. Any transnational company who's goods are transported around the world.
    4. Telecommunications companies.
    5. Odometer manufacturers. 
    6. Satelite TV providers.
    7. The engineers of those satelites.
    8. The employees of all of these companies.
    9. Yes, the government too. Literally every government entity, if applicable their militaries and space agencies.

    Sorry, I saw your post and noticed the fallacy(s) on my way out the door to an appointment. As per your request:

    "To assume that the Earth is flat, we would have to assume gravity does not exist, because gravity would not allow Earth to be flat, and gravity would be far, far stronger. 

    So, the only other explanation is, well, quite frankly, that the Earth is constantly accelerating, but given our currently knowledge of this, we know that the rate of it's acceleration would rapidly increase until the Earth is moving faster than the speed of light."

    Is a false dichotomy fallacy. Another choice would be the one you yourself have argued in the past, it's amazing how Goober has lulled you back to sleep with rhetoric and ad hominems, and you seem to have forgotten about this third choice altogether!


    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

    "Gravity does not exist. Rather, density and buoyancy are independent forces which cause this to happen. For example, if we are to drop something like, for example, a book, it will fall as it is more dense than the air in which surrounds it. If we drop a balloon, it will rise, because the helium in the balloon is less dense. Got it?"



    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/17461/#Comment_17461

    The second fallacy is a broad assertion that require justification, a hasty generalization fallacy.

    "You wouldn't just have to assume NASA is in on the conspiracy. Every astronomer, scientist, and physicist in the last few thousand years.

    Not only this, but you would have to assume, the following, including but not limited to, are on the conspiracy:

    1. All shipping companies.
    2. All airline companies.
    3. Any transnational company who's goods are transported around the world.
    4. Telecommunications companies.
    5. Odometer manufacturers. 
    6. Satelite TV providers.
    7. The engineers of those satelites.
    8. The employees of all of these companies.
    9. Yes, the government too. Literally every government entity, if applicable their militaries and space agencies."



    Except in your case, none of your examples have even been shown to be remotely connected to the spherical earth/flat Earth dichotomy in any way. 

    For your argument to be considered valid, you would out of necessity have to prove that all of your examples know, assume, or can prove that the earth is a sphere. Since there isn't a valid argument at all, we can safely dismiss your post as nonsensical drivel.


    Zombieguy1987Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • GooberryZombieguy1987Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @SilverishGoldNova, also, several arguments from silence have been made, reason that I simply haven't had time to respond to your fallacies.
    GooberryZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @SilverishGoldNova, now, if you can explain why my OP is "irrelevant"? That is obviously an asanine mark and position to take against a new OP.

    Also, I'm curious as to what fallacy the OP made, @Gooberry. Your post is also:

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue
    GooberryZombieguy1987Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @SilverishGoldNova, the second part of your post is also a false dichotomy. All of those people are not actively measuring the earth, so it could be that they all assume the earth to be a sphere, as many do, or they are ignorant of the fact that it is not a sphere.
    GooberryZombieguy1987Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @erfisflat

    1.) Saying it is a false dichotomy, without explaining how, why, or providing any justification of what the dichotomy is present and why it is false, is a poor argument. It’s an assertion. 

    2.) Bouyancy isn’t an explanation as to why objects fall to earth, because Bouyancy requires there to be a force pulling the objects: We use Gravity - what force do you use?

    3.) Saying it’s a hasty generalization - and providing no details, argument or justification - is not an argument. It’s an assertion. 

    4.) Your claims here are willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest:

    Are you really trying to claim, with a straight face:

    - That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?

    - Ditto for airlines.

    - That companies moving goods around the world wouldn’t notice the time differences in travel due to changes in distances on a flat earth?

    - That telecommunication companies that rely on satellites and GPS wouldn’t notice that their GPS algorithms don’t work, or that the satellites don’t appear to be where they should be.

    - for satellite TV, and their engineers See (1) and (2)

    - And worse, your claiming that the worlds governments aren’t connected to the flat earth dichotomy - Despite you repeatedly claiming the government is involved in the flat earth dichotomy over and over and over again.
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • Erfisflat said:
    @SilverishGoldNova, now, if you can explain why my OP is "irrelevant"? That is obviously an asanine mark and position to take against a new OP.

    Also, I'm curious as to what fallacy the OP made, @Gooberry. Your post is also:

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue
    Argument from assertion (as you’re just asserting this is what happens, and evidence). Fallacy of composition - by using a single balloon launch to argue all nasa launches are balloons.

    I thought that was clear by response where I pointed out in detail that your claims are completely unsupported.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • edited October 2018
    I never saw Goober insult me at all, but we cannot let facts get in the way. The only valid explanation for gravity on a flat Earth, is to assume it is constantly accelerating, but as I have said, this would eventually cause it to be traveling faster than the speed of light. It is the only valid explanation, because buoyancy, density, and mass altogether, cannot exist without gravity, unless we assume inertial mass still exists.

    But, you vehemently claim that any flat Earther who promotes the acceleration model is a troll or a "shill". 
    GooberryErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • I await my X badge.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • "1.) Saying it is a false dichotomy, without explaining how, why, "

    Maybe there is something you missed from my post? For clarification:
    The claim: (it is a false dichotomy)

    A link was provided that defines and explains the fallacy, in case you are ignorant of it.

    The justification: "Another choice would be the one you yourself have argued in the past, it's amazing how Goober has lulled you back to sleep with rhetoric and ad hominems, and you seem to have forgotten about this third choice altogether!"

    or providing any justification of what the dichotomy is present and why it is false, is a poor argument. It’s an assertion."

    SGN asserted that there are only two choices in his argument to choose from. That gravity exists, and that the earth is accelerating upwards. He ignores the third choice, which he himself has made previously, as pointed out.

    The fact that you cherry pick my arguments, asserting that there is no argument or justification where there obviously is, is one of the many reasons that I have come to generally dislike discussion with you. 

    I've pointed out numerous fallacies that you commit, and the claim, and justification goes largely ignored, and you move on to another fallacy. It's a dishonest approach, and a testament to your cognitive bias.


    "2.) Bouyancy isn’t an explanation as to why objects fall to earth, because Bouyancy requires there to be a force pulling the objects: We use Gravity - what force do you use?"

    The first statement is an unsupported assertion, and you've given no justification for it. Gravity is in fact not a force, but a bending of "space time" in theoretical science, aka pseudoscience.

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1059-if-gravity-isn-t-a-force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced

    As for buoyancy, it is a force.


    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/sc527_notes01/buoyant.html

    3.) Saying it’s a hasty generalization - and providing no details, argument or justification - is not an argument. It’s an assertion. 

    It meets the very definition of a hasty generalization. SGN, who seems to have gotten the point, and "is done here" (sic). He has generalized that literally all of these people would necessarily be lying if the earth is flat, he hasn't given any justification for the claim at all.

    "4.) Your claims here are willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest:

    Are you really trying to claim, with a straight face:

    - That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

    Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar. It is a non-sequitor nonetheless. Distances between continents and the flatness of the water they float on are not mutually exclusive, so claiming that the distance between the continents proves the flatness of the water is a false equivocation. The explanation is there, what you now want to imoly that it isn't or be honest and recognize it is up to you.

    Chances are you'll deny it and claim that I've asserted it without justification, as you repeatedly do, due to your cognitive bias.

    "- Ditto for airlines."

    See above.

    "- That companies moving goods around the world wouldn’t notice the time differences in travel due to changes in distances on a flat earth?"

    Ditto.

    "- That telecommunication companies that rely on satellites and GPS wouldn’t notice that their GPS algorithms don’t work, or that the satellites don’t appear to be where they should be."

    This ignores the OP, where satellites do exist, but aren't orbiting the earth as claimed, just as you have done in your post here:
    Gooberry said:
    You can see satellites with the naked eye on on most clear nights, even in cities, by looking up and seeing the fast, constant moving lights cross the sky. You can distinguish them from planes because they don’t have port/starboard running lights and you can also watch as they pass into the earth’s shadow. if you were board, you could even prove where they went into the shadow is consistent with the earth being a sphere: using your location, time, and the satellites location.



    Now: you’ve made a claim - that satellites arefaked”. That claim is broad and massive, and requires overturning almost everything we know.

    It requires thousands of companies, and millions of engineers to be actively lying - and to have been doing so for the last 60 years, it requires some magical equivalent of time synchronized GPS, satellite links and communications, satellite TV and internet to be deployed on earth somehow - leaving no evidence and no one in any of those fields ever noticing the difference.

    You have no specific evidence any satellite launch was faked, no evidence that satellite TV doesn’t work with satellites, No evidence that GPS could or does work in a different way than cited, no evidence that GPS time synchronization is possible without satellites, no evidence that any satellite company is faking its satellites, no evidence that the ISS is a plane, no evidence that the satellites we see with the naked eye are balloons or planes, no evidence that google is covering anything up - as opposed to you just not being very good at googling things.


    In fact, other than being very emphatic about how right you are: you have no appreciable evidence that actually supports this rather incredible claim at all.




    - for satellite TV, and their engineers See (1) and (2)

    Hmm. (1) is:

    "Saying it is a false dichotomy, without explaining how, why, or providing any justification of what the dichotomy is present and why it is false, is a poor argument. It’s an assertion."

    I don't see how this is relevant to satellite TV and their engineers.

    "- And worse, your claiming that the worlds governments aren’t connected to the flat earth dichotomy - Despite you repeatedly claiming the government is involved in the flat earth dichotomy over and over and over again."

    Once again, you present a strawman. Not once have I stated that "the world's governments aren't connected to the (shape of the earth) dichotomy". This is another false dichotomy in and of itself.

    The claim was that "literally every government entity" is in on it. Not all governments have a space agency, and all of the space agencies can be shown to have a connection, and can be shown to have lied.



    Governments, on the other hand, never lie...

    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2810/an-independent-investigation-into-the-attacks-that-happened-on-9-11-is-warranted
    SilverishGoldNovaZombieguy1987Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • edited October 2018
    @Erfisflat Yes, literally every government entity. Not just countries. States/Provinces, counties, cities, towns, tiny villages from the Volapük Wikipedia. 

    I literally just refuted the 3rd option and it leaves a glaring hole in the flat Earth model. If you want to play the fallacy game, ad nauseam.

    Also, shipping and airline companies would have to lie due to flight paths. They would have to be actively lying about flight patterns, and literally all of their employees would have to keep quiet about it. The same goes for literally any transnational company whos goods are shipped around the world, because these shipping and airline companies service them. Should I really have to explain odometers? I mean, there are plenty of differences in distance flat Earth vs globe Earth. So they would have to be VERY deeply involved. Not only this, but if the Earth is flat we have to assume satelites do not exist. Which explains telecommunications companies, and satelite tv providers (obviously), and the employees of all of these companies too. And very obvious, the engineers of those satelites.



    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • I never saw Goober insult me at all, but we cannot let facts get in the way. The only valid explanation for gravity on a flat Earth, is to assume it is constantly accelerating, but as I have said, this would eventually cause it to be traveling faster than the speed of light. It is the only valid explanation, because buoyancy, density, and mass altogether, cannot exist without gravity, unless we assume inertial mass still exists.

    But, you vehemently claim that any flat Earther who promotes the acceleration model is a troll or a "shill". 
    This is well known, that the organization tfes is a shill organization. Even you admit so SEVERAL times.




    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @Erfisflat Wow, you have the ability to take screenshots! And you also have the ability to go through my post history! Wow
    Zombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • "@Erfisflat Yes, literally every government entity. Not just countries. States/Provinces, counties, cities, towns, tiny villages from the Volapük Wikipedia."

    Can you prove that "literally every government" claims the earth a ball, or agrees with the premise?

    "I literally just refuted the 3rd option and it leaves a glaring hole in the flat Earth model. If you want to play the fallacy game, ad nauseam."

    I'm going to have to ask you to point this out in a quote or something, where you literally refuted the 3rd option, of buoyancy and density, which is a known force in physics.

    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/sc527_notes01/buoyant.html


    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @Erfisflat ;

    You are missing the point. Name one government entity that claims the the Earth is flat.

    Exactly. You seem comittee to ignoring my rebuttals to gravity, sin i consider myself the winner.

    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • @Erfisflat ;

    You are missing the point. Name one government entity that claims the the Earth is flat.

    Exactly. You seem comittee to ignoring my rebuttals to gravity, sin i consider myself the winner.

    This is shifting the burden. I have not claimed that the governments hold any preferences as to the shape of the earth, or "are in on it". This was your argument, without justification.
    SilverishGoldNovaGooberryZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • @Erfisflat.

    1) Blurting our how everyone is making false dichotomies, fallacies, and linking what fallacies mean, is a meaningless non-argument, if you make no attempt to explain how, what, and why what he said is a false dichotomy.

    I mean really, do you honestly think that just yelling at everyone about how wrong they are, without explaining why is an argument?


    I am glad however, you now demonstrate that you provided no actual argument before - by adding one now. 



    2.) Now, you also claim that you keep pointing out fallacies. In reality, they all fit the same pattern. 

    You assert, with no justification, explanation or argument that I’m commiting one fallacy or another: then pretend as if this unsupported nonsense is proving anything.

    As you, strangely, like every other such claim - offer no evidencs whatsoever - I will just chalk this up to you dishonestly throwing dishonest accusations that you can’t back up - as normal.


    3.) Bouyancy can’t exist without gravity, which is what is being explained by your links. That’s our whole point, throwing out the same
    meaningless assertion again and
    again doesn’t make it
    more true.

    4.) You accused SGN of a
    hasty generalization. You offered no reasons, explanations or justification: just blurted it out like you normally do. 

    That, is not an argument.

    5.) what you’re describing Is not even a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is when you jump to a conclusion based on incomplete information, or information that doesnt support your position - that’s not what your claimimg he’s doing.

    6.) are you now claiming that you have never ever argued that there  are no flights between South America and Africa because the earth is flat. I’m happy to prove you a liar if I get that claim in writing.

    7.) At no point in this argument at any point have I said anything about the flatness of the sea - why on earth your making such a big deal of talking about it as if that’s the argukent I made - is a misrepresentation and thus a dishonest strawman.

    8.) Even so you’re argument is obtuse denialism - that all maps are wrong is a fundamental assumption of flat earth by definition. Maps as they are shown cannot be accurate if the earth is flat. Denying this obvious and basic fact - that you yourself have stated is true - is just an attempt to dismiss, rather than deal with the argument.

    9.) in this context 1 and 2 are OBVIOUSLY the first two examples of the list of supposed liars. Again, you’re seeking to dismiss rather than engage.

    10.) You have repeatedly and continuously stated that the government is in on the conspiracy. All the time in almost every thread.

    That is not a straw man: and claims that it is a straw man is such a flagrant lie - due to how you often you make retarded argument - is bad even for you.

    I can’t understate how terrible your arguments from 8, and 10. 


    You must be really desperate not
    to answer questions if you are forced to pretend as if you haven’t repeatedly made the claims you have made - all the time - in order to pretend as if we are misrepresenting you.

    no one is buying it.





    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • @Erfisflat

    I have to point this out separately - your reply was a systematic attempt
    to not answer any issues raise against you.


    I pointed out you have no shred of evidence for your claims about satellites, you’ve ignored it.

    It has been pointed out in most of the points above, you have dismissed most of the arguments against you with no justification, no argument and no rationalization: - just you asserting that everyone else is wrong.

    You don’t even seem to understand the fallacies that you’re claiming everyone else is committing without explaining how and why.


    With Bouyancy - you offered no explanation: merely an assertion that I am wrong and a citation of some links that actually show I’m correct.


    You then present no reasons or justification why the list of people that must be lying presented is wrong - not one justification for why any element on that list is wrong. Not one.

    what you’ve done - is just thrown barely related accusations: and acted incredulous - Despite the fact that several of the items on that list are directly related to claims you make repeatedly.


    This is not a debate, or an argument: You’re last post was a systematic attempt to throw chaff, assertions and red herrings - in order to reply to every line - but offer not a single refutation of anything said.

    This is cretinously pathetic, and no one is falling for this outrageous dishonesty.





    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflatZombieguy1987Evidence
  • edited October 2018
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat.

    1) Blurting our how everyone is making false dichotomies, fallacies, and linking what fallacies mean, is a meaningless non-argument, if you make no attempt to explain how, what, and why what he said is a false dichotomy.

    I mean really, do you honestly think that just yelling at everyone about how wrong they are, without explaining why is an argument?


    I am glad however, you now demonstrate that you provided no actual argument before - by adding one now. 



    2.) Now, you also claim that you keep pointing out fallacies. In reality, they all fit the same pattern. 

    You assert, with no justification, explanation or argument that I’m committing one fallacy or another: then pretend as if this unsupported nonsense is proving anything.

    As you, strangely, like every other such claim - offer no evidence whatsoever - I will just chalk this up to you dishonestly throwing dishonest accusations that you can’t back up - as normal.


    3.) Buoyancy can’t exist without gravity, which is what is being explained by your links. That’s our whole point, throwing out the same
    meaningless assertion again and
    again doesn’t make it
    more true.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He now mainly seems committed to ignoring my argument as much as he can.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4.) You accused SGN of a
    hasty generalization. You offered no reasons, explanations or justification: just blurted it out like you normally do. 


    That, is not an argument.

    5.) what you’re describing Is not even a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is when you jump to a conclusion based on incomplete information, or information that doesnt support your position - that’s not what your claiming he’s doing.

    I have already explained to him why it was not a hasty generalization fallacy (in an edit). I'll simplify it. Our knowledge of flight routes and shipping routes are inconsistent with the flat Earth model. So, for the Earth to be flat, we would have to assume that these companies lie about their routes, all of them, and all their employees are keeping quiet. And because transnational companies whos goods are shipped around the world rely on shipping companies, we would have to say that all of these companies are lying and their employees. Should I even have to explain Odometers? We would also have to say satellites do not exist, so satellite tv providers, telecommunications companies, and the engineers of those satellites are all lying. Oh, and yes all government entities.

    6.) are you now claiming that you have never ever argued that there  are no flights between South America and Africa because the earth is flat. I’m happy to prove you a liar if I get that claim in writing.

    7.) At no point in this argument at any point have I said anything about the flatness of the sea - why on earth your making such a big deal of talking about it as if that’s the argument I made - is a misrepresentation and thus a dishonest strawman.

    8.) Even so you’re argument is obtuse denialism - that all maps are wrong is a fundamental assumption of flat earth by definition. Maps as they are shown cannot be accurate if the earth is flat. Denying this obvious and basic fact - that you yourself have stated is true - is just an attempt to dismiss, rather than deal with the argument.

    9.) in this context 1 and 2 are OBVIOUSLY the first two examples of the list of supposed liars. Again, you’re seeking to dismiss rather than engage.

    10.) You have repeatedly and continuously stated that the government is in on the conspiracy. All the time in almost every thread.

    That is not a straw man: and claims that it is a straw man is such a flagrant lie - due to how you often you make retarded argument - is bad even for you.

    I can’t understate how terrible your arguments from 8, and 10. 

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You must be really desperate not
    to answer questions if you are forced to pretend as if you haven’t repeatedly made the claims you have made - all the time - in order to pretend as if we are misrepresenting you.

    He is clinging to every last reason he can think of to why the Earth is flat. 

    no one is buying it.

    He's angry that especially I am not buying into his anymore.
    GooberryZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Erf kinda strikes me as the kind of person that would talk about how he used to be so sick at skating but has never skated in real life.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • @SilverishGoldNova

    My favourite part was when he claimed that companies that use satellites and governments “cant be shown to be remotely connected to the flat earth Dichotomy in any way”, in a thread he started essentially about how the government and satellite manufactures are all lying about satellites being real because the earth is flat.

    He just refuted his own thread - we can go home now.
    JoesephErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • @Gooberry

    He is unintentionally hilarious as he  dos this every time,  and actually if you let him ramble on enough he argues against his own arguments brilliantly and defeats himself , I think he’s schizophrenic .


    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry ;

    He is unintentionally hilarious as he  dos this every time,  and actually if you let him ramble on enough he argues against his own arguments brilliantly and defeats himself , I think he’s schizophrenic .


    My hovercraft is full of eels!
    Erfisflat
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Erfisflat said:

    Image result for david leggio gif
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry

    He is unintentionally hilarious as he  dos this every time,  and actually if you let him ramble on enough he argues against his own arguments brilliantly and defeats himself , I think he’s schizophrenic .


    It is pretty apparent to me Edl or Erf or whatever he wants to call himself is desperately clinging on to any reason the Earth is flat (as I once was). But, he already refuted himself trying to explain a simple, but major and glaring flaw in the flat Earth that I pointed out, has accused me of hasty generalization multiple times, etc. He is now doing what he made fun of me and harassed me for after I had stated I'm not a flat Earther anymore.

    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • JoesephJoeseph 561 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @SilverishGoldNova

    The guy is a moron at least he excels at this as everything he says is moronic 




    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1645 Pts
    edited October 2018
    "1) Blurting our how everyone is making false dichotomies, fallacies, and linking what fallacies mean, is a meaningless non-argument, if you make no attempt to explain how, what, and why what he said is a false dichotomy."

    I don't know why you would assert that I am just blurting things out and linking the definitions. I've explained explicitly how they are fallacies, now you seem to be offended because of that. If you made a fallacy, don't just deny the arguments are there, explain how I am wrong. Pretending something isn't there when it obviously is is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

    "I mean really, do you honestly think that just yelling at everyone about how wrong they are, without explaining why is an argument?"

    As well as asserting that I am just yelling at anyone without explaining in detail thus, with valid sources.


    "I am glad however, you now demonstrate that you provided no actual argument before - by adding one now." 

    The argument was there, you've twice claimed it wasn't, without justification or explanation. Maybe you should take your own advice.



    "2.) Now, you also claim that you keep pointing out fallacies. In reality, they all fit the same pattern. 

    You assert, with no justification, explanation or argument that I’m commiting one fallacy or another: then pretend as if this unsupported nonsense is proving anything."

    You're doing exactly as I predicted:
    "Chances are you'll deny it and claim that I've asserted it without justification, as you repeatedly do, due to your cognitive bias."

    The explanations are there, learn to read and understand English, is all I can advise.


    "As you, strangely, like every other such claim - offer no evidencs whatsoever - I will just chalk this up to you dishonestly throwing dishonest accusations that you can’t back up - as normal."

    Again... Restating your assertion makes it no more true than the first half dozen times you've asserted it. The fact that you don't recognize the explanations, arguments and sources is evidence only that either you cannot read, do not understand English, or are just lying to dismiss the arguments altogether.


    "3.) Bouyancy can’t exist without gravity, which is what is being explained by your links. That’s our whole point, throwing out the same
    meaningless assertion again and
    again doesn’t make it
    more true."

    You haven't referenced anything in particular, and your post is an assertion without explanation or evidence. You at first claimed that gravity was a force, that was shown to be an ignorant statement, unless you want to dismiss general relativity, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

    You then asserted, without source, that buoyancy wasn't a force, then that was shown to be an ignorant statement, unless you are willing to dismiss that... 

    And your argument has now devolved from:

    "Bouyancy isn’t an explanation as to why objects fall to earth, because Bouyancy requires there to be a force pulling the objects: We use Gravity - what force do you use?"
    (All shown to be ignorant statements) to simply:
    "Buoyancy can't exist without gravity"

    It is apparent that you don't have clue what you are saying, and when called out on it, you move the goalposts or change your position. Will you recognize and recant your statements? Probably not. 


    "4.) You accused SGN of a
    hasty generalization. You offered no reasons, explanations or justification: just blurted it out like you normally do."

    I didn't think I had to actually define a basic fallacy to anyone in a debate, you are obviously wasting my time with little more than a "nuh-uh, prove it".

    "That, is not an argument."

    I agree, blurting out "you committed a fallacy" isn't an argument, this isn't what happened. The hasty generalization fallacy is assuming that because one instance has been shown to be true, all instances are therefore true. I also pointed out that no connection has been made at all to the spherical earth and those positions (which is currently in discussions) so it is a hasty generalization from an assertion.

    "5.) what you’re describing Is not even a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is when you jump to a conclusion based on incomplete information, or information that doesnt support your position - that’s not what your claimimg he’s doing."

    I specifically pointed out the information doesn't support the conclusion, this is in this very discussion. Even if it were found that one from each of his examples "knew" the earth were a ball, it is impossible to show that "all" from each field knew about the it. Then, if any individual had the moral integrity to admit the earth were flat, how would we know about it? Would they play it on the news?

    That's not even the point. Haave anyof these professionals seen the earth from space? 

    No.

    Have any of these professions measured the earth? 

    No.

    "6.) are you now claiming that you have never ever argued that there  are no flights bet gift youween South America and Africa because the earth is flat. I’m happy to prove you a liar if I get that claim in writing."

    I'm not even entirely sure what this paragraph means. Talk about incoherent...

    I tried, I really did.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Youween+definition

    "7.) At no point in this argument at any point have I said anything about the flatness of the sea - why on earth your making such a big deal of talking about it as if that’s the argukent I made - is a misrepresentation and thus a dishonest strawman."

    Wait. The earth is over 2/3 water. If water is flat, the earth cannot possibly be a ball. 

    Are you claiming that me pointing out this fact is a strawman? 



    If they are not lying about the shape of the earth by lying about the shape of the earth, what are you or SGN referring to?

    "8.) Even so you’re argument is obtuse denialism - that all maps are wrong is a fundamental assumption of flat earth by definition."

    Wrong

    " Maps as they are shown cannot be accurate if the earth is flat. "

    Actually, I think it is the other way around. This is publicly admitted. Maps cannot be correct if the earth is a globe. The maps are flat.
    The fact that ship's captains aren't navigating by plotting their course on a globe is testament that the globe is incorrect(according to your logic) and I currently stand by no map.

    The Mercator map, now commonly used for world maps, distortion increases according to the distance to the equator.



    It is common knowledge that no map is 100% accurate. It is also common knowledge that in the year 2018, every navigator uses the GPS navigation system to navigate. If a navigator were to navigate the earth using a flat map, it would prove that (flat) map to be correct, at least on that particular path.

    Throughout history, (and before GPS) navigators have used a wide array of (flat) maps, including the AE map, which some flat earthers subscribe to.



    "Denying this obvious and basic fact - that you yourself have stated is true - is just an attempt to dismiss, rather than deal with the argument."

    Please quote where this happened, or you are once again, lying. Stating that any map at all should represent the flat world is ridiculous. If one finds error with a map, that means the map is wrong, not that we live on a giant testicle.

    "9.) in this context 1 and 2 are OBVIOUSLY the first two examples of the list of supposed liars. Again, you’re seeking to dismiss rather than engage.

    10.) You have repeatedly and continuously stated that the government is in on the conspiracy. All the time in almost every thread."

    That is not a straw man: and claims that it is a straw man is such a flagrant lie - due to how you often you make retarded argument - is bad even for you."

    Your feels are showing. Of course some members are invloved in the lie. NASA is a government agency. 

    Are you suggesting that the government cannot lie?

    "I can’t understate how terrible your arguments from 8, and 10."

    Why are they terrible?


    Appeal to the Stone (argumentum ad lapidem): This is dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity. This is a classic example of simply not giving a clear reason for rejecting an argument or proposition. It is not an error in reasoning; it is the refusal to use it. We can also say an argument is “crazy,” “,” “non-sensical,” “idiotic,” “f’ed up,” etc. Each possible adjective does not require its own fallacy.

    Https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/6/Pseudo-Logical-Fallacies

    "You must be really desperate not
    to answer questions if you are forced to pretend as if you haven’t repeatedly made the claims you have made - all the time - in order to pretend as if we are misrepresenting you."

    No clue what this is referencing.

    "no one is buying it."

    Good thing I'm not selling it. I, unlike you, do not force my ideas on anyone. I put the evidence out there, and let people make up their own minds. You can believe what you want, you can rhetorically assert all you want. The fact that you can't offer a single source for any of your dozens of assertions on this page alone shows this fact. 
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry

    He is unintentionally hilarious as he  dos this every time,  and actually if you let him ramble on enough he argues against his own arguments brilliantly and defeats himself , I think he’s schizophrenic .


    It is pretty apparent to me Edl or Erf or whatever he wants to call himself is desperately clinging on to any reason the Earth is flat (as I once was). But, he already refuted himself trying to explain a simple, but major and glaring flaw in the flat Earth that I pointed out, has accused me of hasty generalization multiple times, etc. He is now doing what he made fun of me and harassed me for after I had stated I'm not a flat Earther anymore.

    My handle has not changed on the site, cat47, or SGN, or whatever you want to call yourself...

    You've actually explained nothing. 

    WHY would all these people necessarily be lying if the earth were flat? Because of a preassumed map? Are you not aware that in 2018, people navigate by GPS, not a map? Are all transnational companies travelling all over the world? No. This is a ridiculous argument that you yourself have refuted before. 

    What exactly am I doing that I made fun of you for before?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • What gets me, is that your "evidence" seems to be that humans are incapable of lying or keeping silent to hold their jobs. What sort of irrationality is this? It's completely illogical.

    @SilverishGoldNova
    SilverishGoldNovaGooberryZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • Just mark the post as a fallacy and say nothing? My work here is done.
    I approve of this message 
    Erfisflat
  • Joeseph said:
    @SilverishGoldNova

    The guy is a moron at least he excels at this as everything he says is moronic 





    @Joeseph ;
    You forgot that it's funny to laugh at.
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 452 Pts
    edited October 2018
    Erfisflat said:
    Interesting. But you forgot to put "wóo".  

    Now, I'd like an explanation.  

    To assume that the Earth is flat, we would have to assume gravity does not exist, because gravity would not allow Earth to be flat, and gravity would be far, far stronger. 

    So, the only other explanation is, well, quite frankly, that the Earth is constantly accelerating, but given our currently knowledge of this, we know that the rate of it's acceleration would rapidly increase until the Earth is moving faster than the speed of light. You can make posts sniping at me and follow me back to my Google account, but that doesn't prove anything.  
    Anyway, I won't have time for this debate, so I'll let @Ampersand and @Gooberry take it from here.

    You wouldn't just have to assume NASA is in on the conspiracy. Every astronomer, scientist, and physicist in the last few thousand years.

    Not only this, but you would have to assume, the following, including but not limited to, are on the conspiracy:

    1. All shipping companies.
    2. All airline companies.
    3. Any transnational company who's goods are transported around the world.
    4. Telecommunications companies.
    5. Odometer manufacturers. 
    6. Satelite TV providers.
    7. The engineers of those satelites.
    8. The employees of all of these companies.
    9. Yes, the government too. Literally every government entity, if applicable their militaries and space agencies.

    Sorry, I saw your post and noticed the fallacy(s) on my way out the door to an appointment. As per your request:

    "To assume that the Earth is flat, we would have to assume gravity does not exist, because gravity would not allow Earth to be flat, and gravity would be far, far stronger. 

    So, the only other explanation is, well, quite frankly, that the Earth is constantly accelerating, but given our currently knowledge of this, we know that the rate of it's acceleration would rapidly increase until the Earth is moving faster than the speed of light."

    Is a false dichotomy fallacy. Another choice would be the one you yourself have argued in the past, it's amazing how Goober has lulled you back to sleep with rhetoric and ad hominems, and you seem to have forgotten about this third choice altogether!


    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

    "Gravity does not exist. Rather, density and buoyancy are independent forces which cause this to happen. For example, if we are to drop something like, for example, a book, it will fall as it is more dense than the air in which surrounds it. If we drop a balloon, it will rise, because the helium in the balloon is less dense. Got it?"



    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/17461/#Comment_17461

    The second fallacy is a broad assertion that require justification, a hasty generalization fallacy.

    "You wouldn't just have to assume NASA is in on the conspiracy. Every astronomer, scientist, and physicist in the last few thousand years.

    Not only this, but you would have to assume, the following, including but not limited to, are on the conspiracy:

    1. All shipping companies.
    2. All airline companies.
    3. Any transnational company who's goods are transported around the world.
    4. Telecommunications companies.
    5. Odometer manufacturers. 
    6. Satelite TV providers.
    7. The engineers of those satelites.
    8. The employees of all of these companies.
    9. Yes, the government too. Literally every government entity, if applicable their militaries and space agencies."



    Except in your case, none of your examples have even been shown to be remotely connected to the spherical earth/flat Earth dichotomy in any way. 

    For your argument to be considered valid, you would out of necessity have to prove that all of your examples know, assume, or can prove that the earth is a sphere. Since there isn't a valid argument at all, we can safely dismiss your post as nonsensical drivel.



    Oh, I see in that video, there's a snippet from the Vsause video  

    0/10 find something original 
  • @Erfisflat ;

    1. I explained why they would have to lie multiple  but the only response I got from you has been Blatant dodging and 
    2.  I am well aware that the Ae  map is not the end-all be-all Map for flat Earthers.   By the way, why can’t we get an accurate projection of the flat earth that is consistent with our current knowledge of  geography? Before you bring up the Mercator projection ask yourself ever heard of a globe?
    3.  Lastly I never said that people who work in those fields  are in capable of lyine, strawman fallacy, but to maintain the  conspiracy THen literally all of them would have to be lying. And we arerefering to millions of people here.

    SPeaking of logic, It is no highly apparent to me that you aren’t making an actual effort to debate you’re just desperately clinging onto any reason possible for the FE model to be true
    Zombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • Actually, billions of people!
    Zombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • @Erfisflat

    1.) Your response is “Nuh-uh”


    2.) And “Nuh uh” again.


    3.) And another “Nuh-uh” you literally providing no reasons why what I said is wrong


    3.a) Bouyancy can’t exist without gravity. Is the same argument as “Bouyancy requires a force pulling down to exist- we use gravity.” They’re literally saying the same thing.


    3.b) You claim that I provide no links - omitting the fact that what I said is implied  by your link. I mean - how can your “force” create the concept on “up” and “down”, when it relies on “up” and “down” being defined already!


    4.a) “Nuh-uh” again.


    5.) again - a paragraph of telling me how wrong I am - and not one addressing the actual point.


    A hasty generalization isn’t just when facts don’t support a conclusion: that could be ANY number of different logical fallacies depending on WHY the facts don’t support the conclusion.


    You’re claiming hasty generalization which is - essentially - when you draw conclusions from incomplete or inadequate data.


    For example: “this one measurement indicates the world is flat - so the world is flat”.


    What you’re claiming SGN is doing - falsely I may add - is saying his facts are irrelevant to the conclusion. That’s a Non-Sequitor.


    Blurting our accusations without even knowing what they mean is not a good look.


    6.) “Nuh-huh” again. You’ve claimed multiple times the earth is flat, and the lack of flights between the South America and Africa prove it. And you’ve also claimed maps of the earth is wrong. It’s also obvious that you can’t take the surface of a sphere and make it flat without altering distances between points.


    7.) and another “nuh-uh”


    You told me that my argument was relating to the flatness of water or not. It was about distance between objects if the earth was flat. What you said I was arguing was not what my argument was.


    That was a misrepresentation of my argument - and thus a straw man.


    7.a) You also misrepresented my objection to your misrepresentation. Perhaps you can go one deeper and misrepresent my objection to the misrepresentation of my objection first misrepresentation. 


    Strawmanception!


    8.) And Boom - push hard enough and he refutes himself.


    Before you tried to change the subject by talking endless about accusations of fallacies and ignoring everything everyone actually uses as an argument - the point was made that shipping companies - those that move lots of things around the globe - must be lying.


    They must be lying because they can’t use longitude and latitude bound by straight lines in a global sense (that’s how navigation works) - because the earth is flat.


    You’re whole diatribe here is basically confirming this - and thus confirms the underlying point SGN was making - and you objected to.


    9.) You ignored this one.


    10.) The argument is that governments are required to be lying about the flat earth. 


    If you disagree with this claim - which you do - this means that your position that governments aren’t lying about this. 


    Your response is to basically agree that governments are lying about this - and for some odd reason that makes no sense and you don’t explain - that we are arguing that governments don’t lie.


    As you effectively just conceded your claim accidentally - there isn’t much point saying more.


    10.a) The arguments and reasons why your response to 8 and 10 were bad is I explicitly provided - spanning several paragraphs” under the headings “8” and “10”, and we’re partially quoted by you.


    Or, if you want me to rephrase it:


    You are objecting to SNGs claims that shipping companies, satellite companies and governments must be lying about the earth being flat. This conclusion is based on the implication of multiple and repeated claims YOU have made about flat earth. 


    It’s bad, because you are asking everyone to suspend their recollection of everything you have ever said, and everything anyone knows about the basic geometry of a flat earth - just so you can win a single point against someone who disagrees with you.


    And - more specifically - You’re not even trying to win the point by showing how your opponent is wrong - by explaining how shipping companies, governments, satellites etc, need not be lying: you’re trying to win the point by endlessly trying to assert that his argument isn’t good enough.


    That goes for this whole thread:


    Concrete objections are being put forward to prove you wrong, or to point out that your arguments are incorrect.


    SNGs responses are attempting to demonstrate why your claims are incorrect, as are mine. If you pay attention, when I provide explanations of why you’ve committed a fallacy - it is regularly in addition to an explanation of why your claim is actually wrong. 


    You are using fallacies not to explain how and why anything we say is wrong - but to argue that our arguments aren’t good enough.


    I mean - look at the above - you have repeatedly failed to engage on any point of substance in all but 3 examples - and all 3 examples you’ve ended up refuting your own position. That’s probably why you do it. 

    Zombieguy1987SilverishGoldNova
  • Erfisflat said:
    What gets me, is that your "evidence" seems to be that humans are incapable of lying or keeping silent to hold their jobs. What sort of irrationality is this? It's completely illogical.


    Your argument against his position so far, is that no one on his list is “connected to the flat earth dichotomy”, so there’s no need for them to lie.

    Now your argument appears to have changed to saying that it’s reasonable to believe that all these individuals would be able to lie.

    As such, Erf in post 30, is refuting the position of Erf in post 10.

    Now, your justification is that because an one specific individual may lie about something to keep his job - that millions of people would keep arguably the largest lie and secret ever concocted by man without exception and without any substantial whistleblowing with evidence  is nonsensical.

    Turning that same logic on its head: as individuals often chose to whistleblow and being confidential information to the public: You’re argument appears to be that it’s not reasonable to believe that they would have done so, Despite more people whistleblowing with much more concrete substantiation for much less much quicker in almost every other example.

    Thats not particularly logical. Indeed, you draw wide and broad conclusions from small individual examples of individual liars and apply it to broad sets of the population: THAT is a hasty generalization.
  • @Gooberry If you include all of the categories then it would be safe to say billions of people would have to lie. Literally, just one person out of billions and one of the biggest secrets on the globe would be exposed.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • "1. I explained why they would have to lie multiple  but the only response I got from you has been Blatant dodging and "

    And I also explained why they would not have to lie. I also explained that the majority of the navigators on that list use GPS to navigate, and an indifference in maps is irrelevant. 

    You've not adressed this, and you accuse me of dodging?

    "2.  I am well aware that the Ae  map is not the end-all be-all Map for flat Earthers."

    So you now admit that assigning any map to my position is a strawman.

    "By the way, why can’t we get an accurate projection of the flat earth that is consistent with our current knowledge of  geography? Before you bring up the Mercator projection ask yourself ever heard of a globe?"

    You straight face just asked me if I ever heard of a globe ...

    Do navigators, before GPS, carry globes and plot their courses on a globe?

     No. 

    Have navigators always used a flat map to navigate, often a variation on the AE map?

    Yes.

    Your point is therefore negated.

    "3.  Lastly I never said that people who work in those fields  are in capable of lyine, strawman fallacy, but to maintain the  conspiracy THen literally all of them would have to be lying. And we arerefering to millions of people here."

    Like the satellite technician that builds the computer for the satellite, then sees it no more?

    What about the janitor that takes out the trash?

    The odometer, you still haven't explained the relevance of that one. How does a device that measures the distance travelled by a vehicle make any relevance to the shape of the earth?

    For that matter, seeing how the map argument is irrelevant, how are any of your examples proved knowledge on the shape of the earth now?

    You just going to repeat your assertions, and refuse to give any justification? I can go through each of your fields and logically eliminate the better portion as irrelevant to the conclusion, but you haven't shown even one example of how they would be lying., but in reality, there are very few that would be lying, and let's face it, lying is human nature.

    Governments swear oaths of secrecy, navigators could theoretically be lying, if they made certain trips, without GPS, and they didn't attribute the inconsistency to: "well, the map is innacurate because the earth is a ball, obviously"

    But let's say they did find the integrity to tell the truth. Who would they tell? Facing classic groupthink and ridicule from multiple globetards is something you have been subject to, it actually reverted you back to sleep! It took you weeks before you even made your views public. That took integrity, something very few people have now.

    "SPeaking of logic, It is no highly apparent to me that you aren’t making an actual effort to debate you’re just desperately clinging onto any reason possible for the FE model to be true"



    @SilverishGoldNova
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • edited October 2018
     @Erfisflat I'm still waiting for an explanation on gravity.

    Your reasoning why they would not have to lie is because the "AE map is only a map.", and people use GPS and not maps. But the problems with the AE projection go beyond a few inaccuracies (or slight differences in distance compared with reality). As a glaring example
    IMG
    IMG

    And there are more examples. If we review them, we can safely conclude that the AE map is far from somewhat inaccurate. This leads to 2 possibilites. 

    1. The earth is not flat.
    2. Airline and shipping companies, all of their employees, most especially pilots, odometer manufacturers, and cartographers are deeply involved in lying about distances to promote a pointlessly elaborate conspiracy.


    Odometers are used to measure distances traveled by vehicles, since you clearly do not know what they are.

    Otherwise, you'll have to show me an alternative flat Earth map consistent with our knowledge of geography, and demonstrably so. 
     
    You showed one example of an AE projection being used, and you can't even keep your position on it consistent. 

    "But let's say they did find the integrity to tell the truth. Who would they tell? Facing classic groupthink and ridicule from multiple globetards is something you have been subject to, it actually reverted you back to sleep! It took you weeks before you even made your views public. That took integrity, something very few people have now." 

    The difference is, we're not talking about someone who doesn't have a job. We're talking about millions of people here, and just one of them could very easily expose to the world the biggest conspiracy to ever exist. What would they get out of hiding it? To claim that not a single one of them would even attempt to whistleblow is illogical. Also, you want to think that ridicule is what turned me away from the flat Earth, but you'd be wronger than wrong.

    PS: I am still awaiting an explanation for gravity.
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • "Your argument against his position so far, is that no one on his list is “connected to the flat earth dichotomy”, so there’s no need for them to lie."

    Actually, my argument until any justification was put forth was:

    "Except in your case, none of your examples have even been shown to be remotely connected to the spherical earth/flat Earth dichotomy in any way."

    That's a great quote mine fallacy though, keeping me on my toes.



    "Now your argument appears to have changed to saying that it’s reasonable to believe that all these individuals would be able to lie."

    Wrong again. Learn to read notice you didn't quote at all that time, just implied that "it seems..." Dishonest.

    "As such, Erf in post 30, is refuting the position of Erf in post 10."



    Liar.

    "Now, your justification is that because an one specific individual may lie about something to keep his job - that millions of people would keep arguably the largest lie and secret ever concocted by man without exception and without any substantial whistleblowing with evidence  is nonsensical. "

    Strawman fallacy. These are things I've never said.

    "Turning that same logic on its head: as individuals often chose to whistleblow and being confidential information to the public: You’re argument appears to be that it’s not reasonable to believe that they would have done so, Despite more people whistleblowing with much more concrete substantiation for much less much quicker in almost every other example."

    Assertion without justification. There are several whistleblowers in the FE community. As the media, and dishonest people like yourself like to ad hominem them into nonexistence, it's not likely that any of them will be taken seriously, even if they made the news, and told you on your TV. Most of the discussions are on YouTube.

    See here's the thing that you guys seem to be either ignorant of, or avoiding, because I know we've discussed this before. In several of these fields, there is what is called compartmentalization. Obviously, everyone does not know everything about everything in any current field. This is done for this very reason, amongst others.

    We can cross #'s1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 off of SGN's list, for now, and soon, we can eliminate the list entirely.








    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • Unrelated, the Winnipeg Jets just lost about 80% of their "fans".
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer use this site and replying to me is useless. Many things I have posted here (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • @Erfisflat I'm still waiting for an explanation on gravity."

    You've ignored it. Buoyancy is a force, and acts dependent on the fluid it is in. I'll refer you to the last arguments, that are sourced and fact based, as opposed to your bare assertions from your response.

    "Your reasoning why they would not have to lie is because the "AE map is only a map.", and people use GPS and not maps. But the problems with the AE projection go beyond a few inaccuracies (or slight differences in distance compared with reality). As a glaring example
    IMG
    IMG

    And there are more examples."

    Well, that is nice, two images with a line with no reference to what your position is, even if it is referring to a map that is no relevant to my position, or even reality. How do these images support your position? I think you are done here, to quote you.

    " If we review them, we can safely conclude that the AE map is far from somewhat inaccurate. This leads to 2 possibilites. "

    I agree that the AE map may be innacurate in some ways. This does not prove the earth is a ball. A non-sequitor.

    "1. The earth is not flat.
    2. Airline and shipping companies, all of their employees, most especially pilots, odometer manufacturers, and cartographers are deeply involved in lying about distances to promote a pointlessly elaborate conspiracy."

    Debunked.


    "Odometers are used to measure distances traveled by vehicles, since you clearly do not know what they are."

    I actually gave the definition of an odometer in my last post to you, since you clearly cannot read. Nonetheless the existence and definition of an odometer does not prove your position. Another non-sequitor.

    "Otherwise, you'll have to show me an alternative flat Earth map consistent with our knowledge of geography, and demonstrably so. "

    If I were a cartographer, this would be a reasonable request, or demand, I am not, so I will point out that this is a non-sequitor.
     
    "You showed one example of an AE projection being used, and you can't even keep your position on it consistent."

    There were actually 3 different AE map projections that navigators effectively used to navigate the earth. 

    "But let's say they did find the integrity to tell the truth. Who would they tell? Facing classic groupthink and ridicule from multiple globetards is something you have been subject to, it actually reverted you back to sleep! It took you weeks before you even made your views public. That took integrity, something very few people have now." 

    "The difference is, we're not talking about someone who doesn't have a job. We're talking about millions of people here, and just one of them could very easily expose to the world the biggest conspiracy to ever exist. What would they get out of hiding it? To claim that not a single one of them would even attempt to whistleblow is illogical. Also, you want to think that ridicule is what turned me away from the flat Earth, but you'd be wronger than wrong."

    See whistleblowers from most examples, you know, the relevant ones, in my last post.

    PS: I am still awaiting an explanation for gravity.

    I'm still waiting on a rebuttal to my explanation.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    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
  • Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat I'm still waiting for an explanation on gravity."

    You've ignored it. Buoyancy is a force, and acts dependent on the fluid it is in. I'll refer you to the last arguments, that are sourced and fact based, as opposed to your bare assertions from your response.

    "Your reasoning why they would not have to lie is because the "AE map is only a map.", and people use GPS and not maps. But the problems with the AE projection go beyond a few inaccuracies (or slight differences in distance compared with reality). As a glaring example
    IMG
    IMG

    And there are more examples."

    Well, that is nice, two images with a line with no reference to what your position is, even if it is referring to a map that is no relevant to my position, or even reality. How do these images support your position? I think you are done here, to quote you.

    " If we review them, we can safely conclude that the AE map is far from somewhat inaccurate. This leads to 2 possibilites. "

    I agree that the AE map may be innacurate in some ways. This does not prove the earth is a ball. A non-sequitor.

    "1. The earth is not flat.
    2. Airline and shipping companies, all of their employees, most especially pilots, odometer manufacturers, and cartographers are deeply involved in lying about distances to promote a pointlessly elaborate conspiracy."

    Debunked.


    "Odometers are used to measure distances traveled by vehicles, since you clearly do not know what they are."

    I actually gave the definition of an odometer in my last post to you, since you clearly cannot read. Nonetheless the existence and definition of an odometer does not prove your position. Another non-sequitor.

    "Otherwise, you'll have to show me an alternative flat Earth map consistent with our knowledge of geography, and demonstrably so. "

    If I were a cartographer, this would be a reasonable request, or demand, I am not, so I will point out that this is a non-sequitor.
     
    "You showed one example of an AE projection being used, and you can't even keep your position on it consistent."

    There were actually 3 different AE map projections that navigators effectively used to navigate the earth. 

    "But let's say they did find the integrity to tell the truth. Who would they tell? Facing classic groupthink and ridicule from multiple globetards is something you have been subject to, it actually reverted you back to sleep! It took you weeks before you even made your views public. That took integrity, something very few people have now." 

    "The difference is, we're not talking about someone who doesn't have a job. We're talking about millions of people here, and just one of them could very easily expose to the world the biggest conspiracy to ever exist. What would they get out of hiding it? To claim that not a single one of them would even attempt to whistleblow is illogical. Also, you want to think that ridicule is what turned me away from the flat Earth, but you'd be wronger than wrong."

    See whistleblowers from most examples, you know, the relevant ones, in my last post.

    PS: I am still awaiting an explanation for gravity.

    I'm still waiting on a rebuttal to my explanation.
    Bouyancy requires Gravity to work. Even your own source says this. We’ve pointing this out repeatedly.

    You have spent dozens of posts and
    paragraphs making accusations of straw men and other fallacies - and none that explain this point.

    Which is kind of odd - as this is literally the only actual real argument you’ve made.

    So lets ask a simple question, that will demonstrate how Bouyancy can’t replace gravity:

    You very strong sealed box - so that the pressure outside doesn’t affect the jnsid  with six sides labelled A-F. This box contains water, and pieces of balsa wood - and no air at all.

    As balsa wood is Bouyant, it will float to one side of the box. Which side of the box will the wood float to?

    According to you, Bouyancy is a force that pushes most things in one direction - down. Therefore, it should be easy for you to tell which direction Bouyancy will push the balsa wood.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch