DDO Tier Tournament 2-Flat Earth Theory vs Spherical Earth Theory

1. Falling Off- My opponent hasn't adequately addressed this argument. My opponent is using Einstein's theory of relativity and Newton's laws of gravity. The 2 don't go together. Einstein's theories have proven Newton's to be inaccurate. The theory of relativity predicts the motions of the planets, much better than Newtonian physics. It seems like my opponent is using Newtonian physics to attempt to prove my contention wrong, but is using proof of relativity to prove Newtonian physics, when in fact the 2 are conflicting. So just to rehash what I said. You can't use Einstein's relativity to prove Newtonian physics to disprove my contention. It's nonsensical. My opponent asserts that Newtonian physics accurately predicts the motion of planets is just wrong. Let me start by saying scientists use Newton's laws for practical purposes. They work quite well to calculate weaker gravitational fields. However when we look at stronger gravitational fields it needs to be swapped out using the more accurate theory of relativity. . http://www.scienceclarified.com...Gravity doesn't exist according to relativity. In relativity it's referred to as a fictional force due to the curve in space time. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...Anyway moral of the story is my opponent hasn't shown how people would stick to the bottom of a round Earth given gravity doesn't exist, and I'm under no obligation to do it for him.2. Bedford Level Experiment"The Bedford Level experiment was designed and first carried out by the *president of the Flat Earth society*, Samuel Rowbotham . This is obviously a problem, seeing that there would obviously be some biases and preconceived notions involved that could very likely affect the results of the experiment. "Everybody is biased when it comes to the shape of the Earth. Either you think it's round or you don't and are therefore biased. Anybody can go out and repeat these experiments. My opponents link showing the Bedford Level experiments were repeated and failed is not working. However I do think I found the page he was referring to and I will link to it. The last experiment I found on that article was 1 conducted on May 11, 1904 by a photographer hired by Lady Anne Blount. According to the article the photographic evidence confirmed the results of the first experiment. . http://www.theflatearthsociety.org... Level Experiment Here is the photo, for proof that the Earth is flat. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... The only experiment on that page or the Wikipedia page it seems to be copied from, is the one exception where they did have results that conflicted with Mr. Rowbotham. However the 2 guys conducting the experiment had a large sum of money they bet with each other on the shape of the Earth, and the guy who won is the one who set up the experiment. Later on the loser of the bet believes he was cheated and sued on several occasions. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... From a Plane I almost want to disregard my opponents statement about first hand testimony of a round Earth, but I won't. First hand accounts aren't evidence. People quite honestly see what they want to see. If they believe in a round Earth, they'll swear they can see a slight curve from high up. This doesn't even account for hallucinations, lying and numerous other phenomenon. . http://warp.povusers.org... The picture I've provided has no curve in it. I did place a ruler next to it on my cell phone screen and it seems flat. The pictures my opponent linked to are edited as admitted by the photographer, particularly figure 3 and figure 4. Figure 5 looks flat, but even if my eyes are tricking me, the photographer is the same one who openly admitted to faking (editing), the other photos. Not to mention the entire document has to be read to truly understand the content of these pictures. It's really unfair to ask the voters to read that entire document, in order to understand the context of those pictures. It 'a the equivalent of linking to some documents and allowing those documents to do your arguing for you. Isle of Wright My opponent asserts that the curvature of the Earth wouldn't be visible when looking at the Isle of Wright or the Isle of Man. This is simply untrue. Rowbotham estimated the circumfrence of the Earth to be 25,000 miles. . http://www.sacred-texts.com... Round Earthers now believe it to be 24,900 at it's widest point. . http://geography.about.com... Based on these measurements a visible curve should be present over the 50 mile length of the coast of the Isle of Wright. According to the Norsemen estimates of the circumfrence of the Earth an over 400 foot drop should occur in the landscape. This would be clearly visible to the naked eye. . http://www.sacred-texts.com... However, no such drop exists. Surveyors The curve of the Earth is certainly not negligible should it be real. Bridges that as long as the Chadong Expressway in China, would not stand if a curve existed and surveyors not taken it into account. The bridge is the longest in the world and stretches for multiple kilometers. . http://www.cnn.com... The curve of the Earth as I've already discussed should be at its peak in the middle of every 6 mile stretch. It would be impossible to view somebody 6 miles ahead on the same surface if this is true. It's hypocritical to say you can see boats disappear behind the curve with your naked eye, but than immediately dismiss all the evidence I bring forward from telescopes and the naked eye, or to dismiss things that need even more precise measurement, such as the land that an over 2km bridge is being built over. Plumb Bobs It's not enough to dismiss my argument based on the fact the source video is long. I gave information that doesn't rely on the source. I explained how plumb bobs wouldn't work if the Earth was round. Buildings would have to be taller at the top than the bottom. That's not what we see, though. This argument was dropped by my opponent. Random points My opponent starts out his rebuttal of this, by asking the judges to throw out Occam's Razor. I don't buy that my opponent's logic that the more complicated answer is usually the better answer. I know people like Alex Jones make a living assuming complex things are more believable than the simple common sense answer, but typically it's not. As has been observed throughout the ages. Compass- I didn't think I'd have to get into this, but I was saying that the compass would equally point to both directions. Both sides should have an equal magnetic force if they both actually existed. The reason you get the affect my opponent mentions with a southward pointing compass is simple to explain. There is a reason we only use north facing compasses. They are the only reliable ones as you'll shortly understand why. What round Earther's believe to be a magnetic South Pole is actually another magnetic force directly underneath the North Pole loops around the planet. This affect is known as a magnetic dip to roundy scientists. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Check out this image and it's pretty easy to reimagine the lines on a Flat Earth map. . http://www.debate.org... Oceans- my opponent keeps flipping between Newton's laws and the theory of relativity. Honestly since the 2 aren't compatible, I'm completely confused as to what model I'm supposed to refute. I'm afraid if I refute one my opponent will claim he was talking about the other, and my whole rebuttal will be wasted. It's up to my opponent to make a coherent argument as to why water supposedly magically sticks to the bottom of the universe. Why doesn't water stick to the bottom of an orange? Seasons Sorry about the video, being taken down. Perhaps that YouTube user was too close to the truth and possibly murdered by NASA. This doesn't change my contention. You can easily take a globe and spin it around a fake sun in the way scientists claim it does now. You can do this first hand and see the sun will be over the equator 4 times a year and would melt the caps in the way I suggested. The only way a round Earth model could support such an absurd accounting of the current seasons, would be to add some sort of uncontrollable wobble to the planet. This is just ludicrous. Earths Rotation Again my opponent mentions gravity and provides no sources or explanation as to how gravity would help us hear sound when we are traveling faster than the speed of sound. He just makes a bare assertion that it does and expects us to believe it. He provides no sources or real argumentation. Also when attempting to discuss how water sticks to the planet he brings up Einstein's theories, but when refuting this argument he mentions gravity which only exists in Newtonian physics. It appears he is using whatever contradictory school of thought that fits his needs, in that particular moment. Without regard to the fact the 2 aren't compatible. Geocentric Model Me and my opponent are debating Flat Earth theory and all it entails and Round Earth theory and all it entails. I'm sorry but round Earth theory discusses a Geocentric model. All arguments in this portion of the debate have been dropped by my opponent and should stand as counting towards my preponderance of evidence. Conclusion Thank you Romanii for participating in this interesting debate. I look forward to more like it in the future.