Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
33 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago
    • a year ago

      thank you @crudmuffin and @purplebash for a great debate if you have any questions feel free to let me know!

    • a year ago

      @ajgibson0418 Awesome judging and feedback. I watched this to see if the debate was worth watching. I'm sold! You'd also make an ideal sportscaster.

    • a year ago

      @ajgibson0418 Really appreciate your analysis and feedback. Your suggestions for improvement are spot on and I plan on implementing them as soon as I possibly can. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

    • a year ago

      @sigfried very worth watching great debate theory here

    • a year ago

      @ajgibson0418 I really appreciate your feedback! You mention at 4:33ish that you wish we would have still brought up arguments against the others' side within their framework, even if we disagreed with their framework. (At least I believe that's what you were getting across.) I did something a little like this in my last couple of turns and I was wondering, did you think it worked well? I'm referring to when I start referring to a "consistent fantasy" as still the only thing close to "reality" that we can debate for the resolution, such as even if we are in a simulation, "Earth" as defined by the resolution must refer to our Earth in our simulation, not some other-worldly Earth we can never observe. Do you think it just should have been brought up earlier to allow for further detail, or is this not what you were referring to in your feedback? Honest question, it's an internal debate I've had with myself since doing this - whether I should have just accepted the framework and moved on to argue within it, or whether it was a good move to keep going after the framework. Genuinely interested in your thoughts if you have the time, thanks!

    • a year ago

      @purplebash I think it was good to provide both but I thia no you should establish that from the beginning like to me that was still a definition debate and since earth was never defined by anyone up front it was too late to define a term IMO

    • a year ago

      @ajgibson0418 Awesome judgement. I voted the same as you, for the same reasons.

  • a year ago

    @crudmuffin @purplebash Such an awesome debate and now we have a tie between community votes and our first judge. We'll bring a second one soon to make the final decision!

    • a year ago
      • a year ago

        The judges have spoken!
        @purplebash Congrats for advancing to the next round!
        @crudmuffin Loved the angle you took on this one, hope to see you in November:
        https://www.qallout.com/tournament

        • a year ago

          That "computer could crash in the next 5 minutes" being possible, but not probable, is a great analogy.

          • a year ago

            What if the evil deceiver demon is just making it appear as if there are no rules regarding tautologies and truisms, Joel?

            • a year ago

              Great debate! While it was tough, I always enjoy when these conversations go unexpected routes. @crudmuffin I appreciate your time! Let me know if you ever want to debate metaphysics again just for fun!

            • a year ago

              I only really used a couple of sources so I just want to quickly show what I mentioned in the debate.

              Definition of "possible" as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary: "Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances." https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=%20POSSIBLE

              Definition of "tautology" which I used as defense of my definition of "possible" by arguing that to do otherwise would be debating a tautology (this definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary, just to appease my opponent! hahaha) "A compound proposition which is unconditionally true for all the truth-possibilities of its elementary propositions and by virtue of its logical form." This definition is simplified as "An argument that is true by how the arguer defined it" by West Coast Publishing Speech and Debate: http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm

              Note that the above page also describes a "truism" which could really also be applied to the definition of "possible" as used by my opponent. I feel that my arguments would have been the same whether I accused the definition of being a "tautology" or a "truism" in this specific case.

              Here is what I would have brought up if my opponent were a flat-Earther: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image/
              (I'm jk... mostly) :)

              • a year ago

                Sources:

                Philosophy (No specific links because I was citing off the top of my head, but the free online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains some academic but accessible summaries of philosophers and their conceptions of ontology.)
                --Meditations on Pure Philosophy, René Descartes
                --Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant
                --Simulacra and Simulation, Jean Baudrillard

                Definitions of "Possible"
                --Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possibility)
                --MacMillan Dictionary (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/possibility)
                --Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/possibility)
                --Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possibility)
                --Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/possible)

                QallOut Debate Conventions and Rules
                https://www.qallout.com/about
                https://pro.ispringcloud.com/acc/rvO29a84NDE3/s/8417-MSVMb-w79Hh-K8zkn

                • a year ago

                  The its “ontological” argument... Con had a better explication by explaining how that goes knowwhere. Don’t do that.

                  Con tied that to facts of what is measurable and objective. Pro clever twist but I’m not buying it. I don’t think it’s wrong to expect more than that.

                  • a year ago

                    I'm only 7 minutes into the debate, but @crudmuffin just said the only advocate that the con (@purplebash) has is science.

                    Well in a debate about the possibility of earth being flat, I think science is a pretty strong advocate to have. While we could take advice from our "Uncle Earl" the crazy uncle who thinks he knows everything about everything. I think science is a pretty reputable advocate to have in a science debate.

                    • a year ago

                      @the_peoples_champ hey I'm just gonna say that if my crazy Uncle Earl was Descartes or Kant I think I'd take him seriously... ;)

                      Also, in regard to your point about scientific debate, see the framework point about it being an ontological discussion.

                    • a year ago

                      @crudmuffin your crazy Uncle Earl is better than mine. Mine is no where close to Descartes or Kant, he is a car mechanic, yet whenever you ask him to fix your car he brings it back with "extra" parts.

                  • a year ago

                    I feel like the PRO spends more time debating "Probable vs. Possible" more than the possibility of the Earth being Flat.

                    • a year ago

                      @the_peoples_champ I would argue that wasn't quite the case - in Pro's defense, the debate of "possible vs probable" really is necessary in order to debate the actual possibility of the Earth being flat. He tended to consistently use examples, drawing largely from philosophy, that answered the difference of possible vs probably with reference specifically to a potential flat Earth. While I disagreed with his arguments, I think he argued the proposition well.

                    • a year ago

                      ^ classiest. opponent. ever. @qallout @purplebash

                    • a year ago

                      @crudmuffin agreed!
                      Megan, you rock:sunglasses:

                  • a year ago

                    The key frameworks of the pro are flawed. An affirmed actuality undermines any claim of possibility or impossibility. The Earth has been confirmed to be a spheroid through direct observation. Ergo, any semantic debate regarding possibility vs probability doesn't apply.

                    • a year ago

                      I'd point out that he'd have been better off arguing the Earth is flat from a five dimensional or eleven dimensional point of view than the argument he presented.

                      • a year ago

                        @xtomjames I was SO hoping for that kind of discussion too, would have been super fun haha

                      • 7 months ago

                        @xtomjames This view made me think about another interesting argument.

                        Earth is flat from the perspective of light (or anything that travels nears to light's speed) according to length contraction of the special relativity theory

                        A cosmic ray proton travels at 99.9999999999991% of light's speed towards earth would see earth as just 17 meters thick flat plate

                        @purplebash how would you have responded to that

                      • 7 months ago

                        I took the numbers from
                        https://youtu.be/VNqNnUJVcVs?t=472

                        But I tried to calculate by myself and getting a different result.

                        Length contraction formula :
                        Earth dia cosmic protons see= (Earth dia we see) * sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))

                        Substituting v= 99.9999999999991 * c, Earth dia as we see = 12742 km

                        Earth dia protons see = 10 centimeters

                        Not sure if my calculation is right.

                      • 7 months ago

                        @mani_bharathy "Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light) and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light). The number of cosmic rays with energies beyond 1 GeV decreases by about a factor of 50 for every factor of 10 increase in energy." - From Macmillan Encyclopedia of Physics, by R. A. Mewaldt.

                        By the above fact, it is work noting that only the most energetic of cosmic rays reach anywhere near the speed you are talking about, and that statistically speaking even those are incredibly rare. To my knowledge we do not have evidence that any cosmic rays travel at the speed of 99.9999999999991% of c, but only 99.6% of c, which makes a very huge difference.

                        Even still, using your values in the calculation actually produces an Earth diameter of 1.7 meters, right in between your first assertion of 17m and your second of 10cm. In reality, using the most extreme of a cosmic ray traveling at 99.6% of c, a diameter of 1138 meters would still be seen.

                        Finally, whether the answer is 1,000 meters, 1.7 meters, or 10 centimeters, it wouldn't matter. The shrinking of something in one dimension does not change the fact that curvature is still present. A cosmic ray would see a skinny, more oblong Earth, but not a flat one.

                      • 7 months ago

                        @purplebash


                        "Even still, using your values in the calculation actually produces an Earth diameter of 1.7 meters, right in between your first assertion of 17m and your second of 10cm."

                        My bad. This is why I never score full marks in math.


                        "Finally, whether the answer is 1,000 meters, 1.7 meters, or 10 centimeters, it wouldn't matter. The shrinking of something in one dimension does not change the fact that curvature is still present."

                        You are saying topologically earth is still in same shape. That doesn't matter, the shape is what matters. It would not be round or sphere(you cannot use 4/3*pi*r^3 to find its volume). It would be a thin plate which you can call flat

                        " A cosmic ray would see a skinny, more oblong Earth, but not a flat one."

                        If you dont call it flat then you are saying only pure 2D things are flat? In that case nothing is flat, not even an atom, leave alone earth


                        "By the above fact, it is work noting that only the most energetic of cosmic rays reach anywhere near the speed you are talking about, and that statistically speaking even those are incredibly rare. To my knowledge we do not have evidence that any cosmic rays travel at the speed of 99.9999999999991% of c, but only 99.6% of c, which makes a very huge difference."

                        Its not about such a particle exist or not. In theory it could exist. And if you really want to see one such particle you are right now seeing a lot of them. Yes, our beloved photons which travels at speed c and observes earth as perfectly flat. Statistically these particles are incredibly abundant

                        A gazillion things in the universe see earth as flat while only 7 billion things see earth as non-flat

                      • 7 months ago

                        @mani_bharathy Photons don't actually "see" anything no matter what so in truth, it doesn't matter either way :)