azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

You are surfing the internet. Via satellites. Orbiting the earth. Quite literally, the fact that you are reading this is proof that the earth cannot be flat."But!" you say. "It could all be buried cables!"Right now I'm writing this on an aircraft carrier in the Atlantic. No buried cables out here. Trust me, satellites are involved.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

1. Why would you share this information that you are on an aircraft carrier?2. That big thing (sorry I don't know proper term) that houses the control center? That sends signals genius. not through satellites.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

Because the fact that my ship is out to sea is unclassified, and the fact that I'm stationed on said ship is unclassified.And I'm sorry, but if the extent of your knowledge of signal projection off of a ship is "the big thing that houses the control center", I don't consider you qualified to assert that the signal isn't bounced off of a satellite.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

Do you know what a pylon is? What a cell tower is?
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

Do you know what the middle of the Atlantic is? Out of reach of cell towers.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

Don't you know they have cell towers all over the middle of the Atlantic? I mean... cell towers reach about...45 miles away and the ocean is what.....41.1 million miles so it's LITTERED with cell towers. XD I'm sorry I'm laughing too hard to keep that up.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

As mint tea said, you are lying. Reception would be worse due to the wind though.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

Sorry no, I was being sarcastic. The Atlantic sea is a dead zone, you have to have a ship that has access to satellite reception, they absolutely do not have cell towers all over the Atlantic sea.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

Keep believing what you are told then. The reason you have reception is sonar waves.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

That's not how sonar works. At all. Just so you're aware.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

Have you ever been on a cruise? If so have you seen a cell tower that is NOT near land? Have you ever lived in a dead zone or gone through one like the desert or Alaska wilderness? I fully believe things that I experience and see with my own eyes. So if you believe that the world is flat, why is it such a conspiracy? Not just even a little one, a GLOBAL one? Why would astronauts, scientists, astronomers and the like from around the world keep up the charade?And sonar waves? Do you know what they do?
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

In time, you will know what is to be known. Aliens control what we see. The sky is fake, we are a tiny snow globe on a massive construct.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

You didn't answer any of the questions at all. That shows me that you have none. If you can't even answer why it is some MASSIVE global cover-up why in the world would I entertain the idea that it is flat when all the evidence points otherwise?
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

...Aaaand, there. Right there. That's where I am no longer able to tell whether you're being serious or sarcastic.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Flat Earth

At times like this I genuinely hope it's the latter.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

Not to mention, every ship captain and navigator that would have to steer the ship between the cell towers out to sea, not just for Navy ships but ALL ships, to keep the secret from the rest of the crew, while deploying signal interference so the sailors don't have cell signal but somehow maintaining ship's internet connection. Also, apparently, every sonar technician, ever, to include every civilian that has ever gone out to sea with a fish finder and risks detecting sonar waves that carry internet signals. How would that work? Is there a contract included in the instruction manual stating that by purchasing this product you're in on the secret, that this is lawfully binding, and if you ever breathe a word of what you know then a delta force squad will immediately rappel on top of you from a stealth helicopter and shoot you in the back of the head? It's just too damn big a lie to keep a secret, and there would be nothing to gain by keeping it a secret. Seriously, what is the endgame here? If the world were flat, and the government were actually able to keep that a secret, why the hell would they bother? What's in it for them? Money? Cost of maintaining the lie would be astronomical, far more than any potential gains. Power? What the hell difference does a flat earth over a spherical one make over individual or governmental power? None of it makes any damn sense.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

I truly try to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who believes differently than I do. You want to believe in Zeus? Gotcha, go for it. Spaghetti Monster? No worries, go for it, I won't mock you. That the earth is 6000 years old?......ok....well there's a lot of evidence to prove otherwise but whatever... This though.....if you can't even tell me WHY there is a big cover up, why Scientists of ALL fields would say the Earth is round when it isn't. Why ALL this evidence was concocted for so long......then you are either bat crap insane or intentionally catering to the weak minded. That deserves several snorts of derision and a healthy dose of mocking.
Debate: Flat Earth Versus Spherical Earth
Side: Spherical Earth

Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet."Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the planet's, and it’s a great clue about the spherical shape of the Earth.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

I figured this out a while ago, when I was around 17 or 18, so it may be rusty... If there was a creator, then possibly. I can't test that so that's the end of that train of thought. If there was no creator though, I assume that what exists does so infinitely, with no beginning and with no end. I assume this because It's the quickest way to the same conclusion. If you assume that nothing came from something, that is just another plain of existence that could be dealt with in the same manner... so I'll just assume that everything that is, has been and will be forever existent and forever changing. Bah, it's such a big theory... if energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, then we get:A) Matter is infiniteB) Energy is infiniteC) Time is infinite (For the sake of understanding)D) We are aware of this If matter and the exchange of energy continues infinitely long, the combination that lead us to this point must have without a doubt, happened infinitely many times in the past (we have lived these exact same lives infinite times, and infinite lives that were different from our own, even if it's extremely different, or seemingly no different whatsoever. We have lived an infinite amount of lives, forever, and once we die we'll be reborn again in the same life until we die the same death over and over, into infinity.  We are, in a sense, always alive, and there is always an "Afterlife", though it's not really an afterlife, it's just a life. Nothing can happen after anything in infinity because it's sort of, not on a linear time line that we're used to thinking it. It's all at once and only seems to happen linearly to human life.  Let me know if you don't understand something, I'll elaborate.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: No

In your argument you make a couple of assumptions that I disagree with.First, we do not know time is infinite. We know that our own universe began around 14 billion years ago, and that (assuming the universe continues to expand) eventually all energy and matter in the universe will eventually become uniform heat (second law of thermodynamics). What this means is that, although time will stretch for a very long time, it is not infinite. This is important because it means that not every extremely improbable event has to happen. Now let me examine your second claim: that we have lived our lives infinite times, and will live our lives again, infinite times. I'm going to use you as an example.What are you? You could say a human, a living organism, or any number of vague terms, however at the most basic level, you are a collection of atoms. What is most important though, is that your collection is not arbitrary. There was no dice rolled, or anything of that sort. A very long series of events, starting billions of years ago, and ending with this very moment has led to the ever changing grouping of atoms that is you. That grouping is different now then when you first began reading this argument, and will be different again when you finish. Each moment of your life has changed you. And before your life, it was your parents lives that shaped you, up until your conception. And before them it was there parents and so on until you trace yourself all the way back to our primitive single celled ancestors who had just come out of the primordial soup.I am not even including in this the multitude of outside factors that played a part in shaping who you are today. There were solar flares, asteroids, windy days, snow, and floods that all played a part in the arrangement of the cells which make up you.I am going to assume that you are familiar with chaos theory, and therefore know that any change during the past 14 billion years, up until now, no matter how infintesimally small, would have meant that you, as you are right now, would not have existed.What this also means is the chances of the same type of atoms of the same number coming into the exact same formation is indescribably improbable. In an infinite universe, like the one you described, it may still be possible for this to happen, however, in the actual universe, there is a limited window for you or anyone else to be created. Therefore I can safely say that this is your only life...enjoy it.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

Alright...1. If you assume that the universe will at some point expand to a point were no matter will have an effect on any other matter or energy in the universe and everything will stop moving (because matter and energy moving through space is still an event), then you're saying that the universe will essentially die. That it will be inactive without end. My answer to that, very quickly, is that you cannot have an end to infinity. Infinity is one point whereas a "very long time" is a linear string that exists within the point of infinity. Everything that is happening now in space and time, must happen forever or we couldn't be here now. If you think that the universe will die or collapse on itself, that's fine though, it doesn't conflict with my idea though because like I've said, infinity doesn't end, it is infinite, and if we're here now we'll be here forever, just as infinity is forever. If the universe ceases to change at some point and it must reach the linear equivalent that we understand it to be now again, then there is a higher nature that will reset the universe to it's linear beginning through some means. Anyhow2. If you look at the existence as a calculation, with numbers being matter and mathematics being the laws of physics, time being the change of one number to the next, it doesn't seem as radical an idea, that all of what is now could easily duplicated in infinity. Existence works like a machine, laws governed by a higher level of existence, and that one too, has a higher existence, and so on. The only thing that hinders a simple grasp of this concept is our consciousness and how we expect a final existence by which everything is governed but itself, which would be immediately erroneous (and is the reason why we cannot think this). It really is something that I should be working on more, but I don't see any great importance in thinking that the universe is nothing and something all at once governed by something and nothing all at once and how time will continue indefinitely and we'll all live our shitty lives over and over... It's not meaningful to anyone, even scientists who are looking for answers... they would just give up and say "Science is bull, and we'll never learn anything because human consciousness cannot understand infinity, and that's what we're dealing with on every level of existence except with our consciousness (which too, we deal with but not seemingly)" It really is too great a subject to simply argue on CreateDebate after drinking too much. :^/
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

Thanks Bradf0rd(1136), I feel your arguement has alot of good meaning and virtual thinking embedded in it, and, like you, I don't believe we have an ending to this journey and it doesn't take a philosopher to realise that because when the first man saw the first ever complete day and then unexpectantly saw the sun rise again, he knew it would never end.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: No

Excellent posts btw, but, and I fear I may be wrong on this, if the universe and time are destroyed then we will not only not exist we will also have never existed. So once we reach the stage that the universe never existed there's no reason to think that it would exist again.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

What exactly do you mean by "destroy" and are you talking about existence (reality) or are you literally referring to the universe?
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: No

Destroyed was the wrong word, when this universe returns to its theoretical "at" big bang state.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

Well, I don't really understand what you mean, but I'll go with what I think you mean... I think you're looking at my argument, as if I'm saying, if we exist in one state now, we do so forever on a linear timeline, and what is true for linear time is also true for infinity... while this may be true in some respects, this is not what I'm saying. Since you're talking about the universe specifically, I can explain, basically, what I know.  All of the matter in the universe will slow to a halt, and contract into one point. Sure, all of the matter in the universe is expanding at a constant rate of acceleration, but we cannot tell just by looking at it that it won't halt and contract. Dark matter, which can only be identified by it's effects on visible matter, makes up a large majority of the universe, and is probably the cause of the expansion. Something is still being forced away from the center of the universe, something dense. It is also forcing visible matter away, too. The universe will contract into one place, and condense until all of the matter and energy are uniform, which is to say, when everything reaches the total sum of 0, or it reaches complete equilibrium, in that same instant that it does, the universe will explode again... It would have to explode in the very same way that it did the time before us. I say this because all matter and energy were uniform at one point in space time. It would always explode into the same structure, always. Now, the linear time that we see, if it is one point in infinity, would always exist within infinity, but so would every other point on that linear timeline. When the universe reaches it's equilibrium, it would stay that way forever, sure, but not on a linear timeline, only to infinity. Every point in time, where one tiny event takes place, would exist on the plain of infinity forever, as one point, but for things, like us, that read these linear strings of time, it cannot exist forever, only for one instant.  It's difficult to explain. Imagine a graph where X is a string of time, and Y as a string of events. If you only trace Y, the event would always exist at one time. One single change in the state of the entire universe would happen FOREVER. Time would, in a sense, not exist. If you trace X only, without Y, you have one infinite amount of time with no events. Each of these lines become meaningless. Trace them both and you have what humans can understand, a time with events in it. It's meaningful. Now, if you imagine that graph as a single point, all of that entire graph as nothing more than a point. One value, and that value is its own existence. It is a point where time and events take place infinitely. The point only validates the existence of space time and events... That point is infinity.  So in a sense, you're right in thinking that when the universe collapses on itself, it will stay that way forever, but only to the Y axis. The X axis is time, that exists forever in the point of existence. It will continue to be, forever.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: No

You cannot assume the universe will collapse upon itself again into a singularity. Current understanding of the universe dictates that the universe will expand indefinitely, causing the density of matter and energy to asymptotically approach zero, hence the death of the universe.Your theory lacks a mechanism to cause the universe to contract after the aforementioned period of expansion. Scientists have already concluded that the force of gravity has been overcome by the mysterious force accelerating the expansion of the universe, which had led to the general acceptance that our universe will die a cold and dark death.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

If current understanding dictates, as it always does, I guess I should just go back to church?That theory of mine wasn't my theory and it wasn't a theory. It was an loose explanation of a theory (and the simplest one that I know of), but one that's rules exist inside of existence itself. All of this started with existence, I was merely answering a question that I didn't fully understand.  If you have a better explanation do us a favor and answer his question.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

I like your argument, one up vote. One question though, is the child the same as the man? I mean, what constitutes the individual? His thoughts, the atoms that make him up or the continuity of the body. If the thoughts, then the child and the man should be the same because the child can adquire the thoughts of the man. If the atoms, then they will never cease to exist but they may separate and become something else. If the body, then that rots in the ground.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

Is a child the same as a man, no. I don't really get the meaning of the question though... It seems like an interesting question, so explain a little better and I'll see what I think.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

OK, the question is, what constitues that thing you call "you."is it your brain/memoriesis it the atoms that make up your bodyis it your physical body
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

Ah, alright.Quickly, because I'm almost late for work:- Me (you) is the external I. (Your physical body, shape mass and volume, etc.)- I is your consciousness if you are self aware.- Self is an image of me that is created by I. (How you see yourself and what you act through) I think your question is more concerned with the "I". I believe that it's a combination of all of those things, but the atoms in your body aren't particularly important, like legos they can be swapped out with like legos and it'll make no difference... Your physical body, including your brain and memories are important in form, because they create an I and from there a sense of self.  To get a gist of what I'm trying to say you'll have to read Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy" (or maybe "Discourse on Method", I don't really remember), where he says "I Think therefor I am". Also, a lot of psychology concerning self image and self-awareness. I've gotta run now, sorry for the shabby response.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: yes

That's pretty cool. I have never heard that theory before which is impressive especially if you thought it all up yourself. I don't completely agree but some of it went over my head so I'm not gunna go down that road. (; Just thought it was good old, entertaining, food for thought.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: questionable

Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes. What to we don't know. So i guess in that sense it is infinite. Energy is not infinite. It is expended. Which is why things die.Time is infinite to our understanding, but time isn't actually real, its just how our brains' correlate events to a certain moment. The correlation between matter and energy allows things to continually change. From living to dead, from full to hungry, from quenched to thirsty, so and so forth. We are not aware of this. If we knew time didn't exist, we could do so much more in no time at all quite literally. Also if we were aware of all the changes we make, we would not be in the world we are living in right now. Our conciousness past death is debateable, because one: no one has had the definite experience of going to an afterlife. Two: you would have to be dead to progress to an after life, which is why no one has had the definite experience of going on to an afterlife. So in all honesty, no one can say anything other. But one thing is sure, and that is we constantly change. Into what? Nobody can say.
Debate: Is there an "afterlife" after death?
Side: Absolutely

I believe that their was a creator, and I also believe that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but not exactly how others believe it. Genesis 2:1 - "THUS the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The creator (who I believe to be God) created the heavens the earth, and was finished. At that point, when He was finished, energy and matter could no longer be created or destroyed. The statement that time is infinite is true, but not in the way we define time. We only live on earth for a short period of time, so we measure amounts of time expecting an end to our time here, when in reality if time is infinite then there really is no actual "time" You can't measure something that has no beginning or end. Time is something made by us to keep track of our earthly lives, which have a beginning and end. Genesis 2:1 "THUS the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The matter than makes up our bodies very well may be in another body after us, but that is just the shell of which our souls live on this earth. Thats alot of words... I hope I was able to convey my thoughts clearly.