Flat Earth Debating (if it exists)

I'm wondering if there's actually any flat earthers who are actually willing to have a real debate, discussing points back and forth.

I've been in this forum around a month now, it seems like first you're met with FE's with silly one word answers, just trying to antagonise you so they can make out you're only here to argue if you retaliate..
then your points are misconstrued to mean something completely different so they can disprove their own made up points.. then before you know it, your thread has 10+ pages of FE's claiming that there's a million different theories, simply dependent on which question you're asking.. if you ask a question that one FE theory doesn't work on, then a different flat earther will take over with a new theory..
well if the FE theory has been going so long, and is supported by the bible, then why are there so many different theories? surely there should be only ONE standard theory? ya know, like the ONE 'globe earth in space' theory (that funnily enough, stands up to testing)

the standard, most widely accepted flat earth model has a flat circular disc, mapped the same as the UN logo, Antarctica is proposed to be the edge/rim, a solid (glass/ice) dome overhead starting from Antarctica, with the sun and moon similar sizes to each other and similar distances away from earth, space is reported to be simply projected onto the dome and the universe doesn't exist
(the other main theory states almost the same, the main difference being that space IS real and we're travelling upwards causing the gravity effects)
- there's a couple claiming an infinite plane
- there's a brand new theory of a non- spherical, non- flat, spherical, flat earth.. I think there's only 1 person who believes that though
- there's probably a few more too, again, it all depends on what questions you ask

I've said it before, the evidence for a globe earth stands up to testing, most of the FE 'proofs' have been disproven already with testable evidence that simply cannot be argued with, but obviously not all flat earthers have done enough research as some are still arguing points that most flat earthers have already accepted (don't get me wrong, I've seen globe earthers coming in asking un-researched questions too)

as my points have not been answered with any degree of respect or substance on my other 2 threads, I'll go over them again here, hopefully to find some flat earthers who are actually up for a reasonable discussion:

1. Angular sun rays do NOT prove a localised sun
- - FE's state that seeing crepuscular (angular) sun rays 'geometrically' proves that the sun is localised just above the clouds.. admittedly it definitely APPEARS that way, 100%.. BUT, upon testing, this theory fails (and as I'm not a flat earther, I'll actually explain why):
- if you're on a beach, looking out to sea, and you see crepuscular rays in front of you hitting the sea, if the FE explanation was correct, you'd be able to get on a boat and PASS the shine you see..
BUT.. upon testing, when ON the boat, travelling towards the shine, the shine keeps moving away due to it actually being a very basic case of perspective
- this means that the sun is absolutely NOT where the FE's claim it is.. It does NOT prove any shape, but it is a 'FE proof' that is no longer useable

2. Lunar Eclipse proves a globe
- - no flat earth model has successfully been able to explain the lunar eclipse, there's 1 main FE explanation of another celestial body that is slightly transparent, but that has also been proven to be impossible due to it never dimming any other stars.. which has led to other theories being passed about with no supporting evidence (like a self-illuminating moon for instance)
- if the earth was any other shape than a sphere, then the lunar eclipse wouldn't ALWAYS show a circular shadow, it would mostly show another shape, and very rarely show an actual circle.. but it's a perfect circle every time, no matter from what angle - this is only possible due to the spherical shape of the earth

3. Constellations appear further above the horizon in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere
- - there seems to be no FE explanation for this whatsoever, FE's usually just blank this issue
- the globe earth explanation works perfectly and makes logical sense
- for anyone wanting to debate this point, please bear in mind that the North Star cannot be seen from deep in the southern hemisphere (due to our shape)

4. Meteors disprove ANY dome theory
- - with any dome, meteors should not exist, the dome is reported to be glass or ice, UNTIL that is, you mention meteors, then the whole make up of the dome itself changes completely
- if a dome existed, no meteors would hit earth, but they do, and when they're big enough, they land as molten rock, not glass and not ice
- the 2 guesses I've heard were 'fireworks thrown from planes' and 'the dome itself breaking off'
fireworks - size proves this wrong instantly, size of meteors, size of craters etc
the dome breaking off - meteors land as molten rock, not glass or ice

5. Landmarks seen from too far away is NOT proof of a flat earth
- - simply because when looking at a landmark from too far away, usually your eyes or camera are not at ground level, making the test void.. there's a good reason lighthouses are usually built very high up (on a cliff etc), so they can be spotted from very far away



I'm hoping there's at least ONE flat earther that is willing to actually have a discussion without running away when points are cross examined, I never run away, I never refuse to answer, I never refuse to accept when I'm wrong
..because I want a discussion

"I've already proven the Smiths make terrible music! Don't eat chips -- they are bad for you!  Why are you all such idiots?!

...

Why won't anyone take the time to talk to me?!"

"Flat Earth Debate
This board is reserved for debates on Flat Earth Theory. Please note that it is strictly moderated!"
"Flat Earth Debate - Rules & Guidelines
..This forum is also subject to the Forum Rules, which are strictly enforced in this board.
..8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic."


(I've asked the mods to remove your reply due to it having nothing to do with the OP)

umm... ski is a mod.

umm... ski is a mod.

POST ABOVE EDITED

Really? Then why is he breaking rule number 8 of the forum rules? they're supposed to be 'strictly enforced'

once he's removed his post, I'll remove my following 2

Just know that there are only a handful of fe'ers. Most are just fakes. You won't get into a debate with an actual fe'er. They know they will get destroyed so they just don't.

Youtube is the same way. All fakes, they are just there to make money.

Just know that there are only a handful of fe'ers. Most are just fakes. You won't get into a debate with an actual fe'er. They know they will get destroyed so they just don't.

Youtube is the same way. All fakes, they are just there to make money.

at least the youtube dudes attempt to back up their bullshit, they don't run away as quick as the FE's in here

I simply see their refusal to challenge ANYTHING as their acceptance of the evidence I've presented, if they thought differently or saw any flaws, they're in the perfect place to DISCUSS said points

I'm still waiting for a substantial discussion about ANY, not had a single point discussed yet


the flat earth society must be embarrassed by this forum

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2016, 01:53:42 PM

Just know that there are only a handful of fe'ers. Most are just fakes. You won't get into a debate with an actual fe'er. They know they will get destroyed so they just don't.

Youtube is the same way. All fakes, they are just there to make money.

at least the youtube dudes attempt to back up their bullshit, they don't run away as quick as the FE's in here

I simply see their refusal to challenge ANYTHING as their acceptance of the evidence I've presented, if they thought differently or saw any flaws, they're in the perfect place to DISCUSS said points

I'm still waiting for a substantial discussion about ANY, not had a single point discussed yet


the flat earth society must be embarrassed by this forum

Chill out John,  don't take things so seriously,  no-one else does.   Well,  maybe except for some that are completely insane or one or two psychopathic trolls.  But they are easily avoided.

Chill out John,  don't take things so seriously,  no-one else does.   Well,  maybe except for some that are completely insane or one or two psychopathic trolls.  But they are easily avoided.

Or have been banned, now that we have someone skiing down the slopes after them!

Quote from: Rayzor on July 23, 2016, 08:16:00 PM

Chill out John,  don't take things so seriously,  no-one else does.   Well,  maybe except for some that are completely insane or one or two psychopathic trolls.  But they are easily avoided.

Or have been banned, now that we have someone skiing down the slopes after them!

I'm still wondering why the mods post is still there, I don't care who he is, it's purposeful derailment.. its HIM that needs banning, or at least be warned about his actions

Please calling crepuscular rays "angular rays", nobody calls them that and it causes confusion. Just saying, don't jump at me blaming me for derailing the thread.

Please calling crepuscular rays "angular rays", nobody calls them that and it causes confusion. Just saying, don't jump at me blaming me for derailing the thread.

well when someone called them crepuscular rays I had no idea what they meant.. They said angular, I understood

not everyone understands sciencey words, myself included, it's more of a pre-question explanation

I'll stick to crepuscular rays though, if someone asks, I'll explain at that point

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 24, 2016, 06:15:48 AM

Please calling crepuscular rays "angular rays", nobody calls them that and it causes confusion. Just saying, don't jump at me blaming me for derailing the thread.

well when someone called them crepuscular rays I had no idea what they meant.. They said angular, I understood

not everyone understands sciencey words, myself included, it's more of a pre-question explanation

I'll stick to crepuscular rays though, if someone asks, I'll explain at that point

Check out  anti-crepuscular rays.

ADMIN - why has the moderator's post not been removed?

Please remove it so my thread can continue

does anyone here actually have anything relative to contribute?

My uncle also believes young people are too entitled and frequently rude.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 24, 2016, 06:15:48 AM

Please calling crepuscular rays "angular rays", nobody calls them that and it causes confusion. Just saying, don't jump at me blaming me for derailing the thread.

well when someone called them crepuscular rays I had no idea what they meant.. They said angular, I understood

not everyone understands sciencey words, myself included, it's more of a pre-question explanation

I'll stick to crepuscular rays though, if someone asks, I'll explain at that point

crepuscular
adjective: crepuscular
    resembling or relating to twilight.

The term "crepuscular" is used because they occur near twilight (morning or evening).

Possibly ski and jroa are competing to see who derail inconvenient threads with the fewest words.

My uncle also believes young people are too entitled and frequently rude.

I'm guessing you're either wrongly assuming I'm young, or making excuses for your own immaturity

I say 'people with nothing to say are frequently ignorant and say things with no substance'
..through experience

you're the prime example

1 is typically just met with denial, 5 gets onto case-by-case basis issues: on rare occasions landmarks are visible from further away than they should be, but as it only happens rarely and isn't an everyday occurrence it's pretty clear something more than the unchanging shape of the Earth is at play. Still, FEers do tend to bring up a handful of examples like that, to which your objection doesn't stand alone.

2 and 3 have various answers. 2 goes from the self-illuminating moon, to shadow object, to a whole host of more esoteric things. 3 seems to generally be answered by either Davis' non-Euclidean model, or JRowe's dual Earth.

4 only applies to dome models, like you said: and bits falling off the dome wouldn't mean they couldn't end up molten as they fell, or that there couldn't be rock as well that's part of the dome. Hard to find any detailed explanation of the dome, so...

A lot of FEers don't debate, sure: a lot aren't really FEers. Honestly I blame REers as much for this, purely because the handful of genuine FEers that come by likely can't be bothered with the sheer idiocy of some of them. A discussion on one topic gets derailed by a copy-pasted argument about earthquakes or circumpolar stars that's of zero relevance, a few REers pop by to hurl abuse, a couple more demand the FEer respond to an hour-long video and complain when they don't, and then a new REer comes by and asks the exact same question that's been answered in the FAQ and hundreds of times before... in an environment like that, only the trolls would stick around, and who can really blame them?
Don't exclusively blame the FEers. There's not much debating that goes on from either side. There are a handful of REers who do discuss, but the rest would rather derail with steamroller tactics, or repeat the same idiotic argument even when it's actually been answered (believe it or not, that does sometimes happen), rather than actually engage.

1 is typically just met with denial, 5 gets onto case-by-case basis issues: on rare occasions landmarks are visible from further away than they should be, but as it only happens rarely and isn't an everyday occurrence it's pretty clear something more than the unchanging shape of the Earth is at play. Still, FEers do tend to bring up a handful of examples like that, to which your objection doesn't stand alone.

2 and 3 have various answers. 2 goes from the self-illuminating moon, to shadow object, to a whole host of more esoteric things. 3 seems to generally be answered by either Davis' non-Euclidean model, or JRowe's dual Earth.

4 only applies to dome models, like you said: and bits falling off the dome wouldn't mean they couldn't end up molten as they fell, or that there couldn't be rock as well that's part of the dome. Hard to find any detailed explanation of the dome, so...

A lot of FEers don't debate, sure: a lot aren't really FEers. Honestly I blame REers as much for this, purely because the handful of genuine FEers that come by likely can't be bothered with the sheer idiocy of some of them. A discussion on one topic gets derailed by a copy-pasted argument about earthquakes or circumpolar stars that's of zero relevance, a few REers pop by to hurl abuse, a couple more demand the FEer respond to an hour-long video and complain when they don't, and then a new REer comes by and asks the exact same question that's been answered in the FAQ and hundreds of times before... in an environment like that, only the trolls would stick around, and who can really blame them?
Don't exclusively blame the FEers. There's not much debating that goes on from either side. There are a handful of REers who do discuss, but the rest would rather derail with steamroller tactics, or repeat the same idiotic argument even when it's actually been answered (believe it or not, that does sometimes happen), rather than actually engage.

ok, first off, thanks for an actual reply, they're like rocking horse shit in this place..

secondly, I absolutely agree that RE's can be just as bad as FE's at times, coming in with statements like 'but I've seen a curvature with my own eyes' and other 'non-researched' questions/statements

so, we're in agreement up to now.. on with the show.. (in your order)

1. I'll happily admit, a huge portion of FE's don't use crepuscular rays as any kind of evidence of a localised sun any more, due to the tests you can do to disprove it
- those that do, like you said, just deny the evidence (cognitive dissonance)

5. I'm yet to see an instance where this test has been done correctly (from ground level) so until that's done, and a landmark is seen from too far away, I'll stick with the current evidence that proves otherwise

2. In all fairness, it seems like John Davis's non-spherical, non-flat, spherical, flat earth theory was created simply as the lunar eclipse has no possible way of working on a flat earth model
- I see no reason to turn my attentions away from the flat earth theory for some other random one man theory, I'm not here to discuss an array of theories, I'm here to discuss the standard flat earth model

3. Again, impossible on a flat model, again, I'm not here to discuss other theories

4. The dome is said to be glass or ice, NEITHER of which would fall as molten rock.. the majority explanation is that meteors are man made fireworks thrown from planes
- again, neither are even possible


I'm happy to elaborate if you'd like a discussion

no matter what, massive thanks and respect to you for your reply

secondly, I absolutely agree that RE's can be just as bad as FE's at times, coming in with statements like 'but I've seen a curvature with my own eyes' and other 'non-researched' questions/statements

It's more than just that kind of thing. Even with the good arguments a lot seem to think they don't need to put any effort into outlining or explaining or defending an argument, or would rather make ridiculous demands (the map thing's a good cliche: FEers don't have a good map, but it's pretty clearly ludicrous to ask one to singlehandedly map out the world, no matter what shape the world is).

Anyway, back to the normal order. Initially I just grouped them in terms of related responses. 1 and 5 are evidence for FET, 2 and 3 arguments against, 4 model-specific.

1. Not much else to say. No debate to be had: some insist the laws of perspective work differently, but I can't remember how those discussions go offhand.
2. Davis' model seems more meant to target issues with the southern hemisphere. Honestly I'm not a huge fan of eclipse-based arguments because it's a very technical thing to point out, comparatively, and doesn't really act as a clear disproof. There's no inherent reason an effect like it couldn't happen on a flat Earth, once you acknowledge the RE cause would not necessarily be the FE cause: the Earth's shadow wouldn't necessarily enter into it (hence the good old shadow object, in some models). The best conclusion that can be drawn from this argument is that FET isn't complete, which most FEers seem to implicitly agree on.
3. The non-Euclidean and dual Earth models are both subsets of FET, they just depart from the cliche. As Davis seems to have taken over the society, the non-Euclidean model in fact seems to be the main one advocated by this site now (and they're both related anyway by the notion of space being warped from what we'd expect, somehow). The problem with supposing a standard FE model is that there is no standard model, pretty much every FEer has their own view: they may agree with others on a handful of aspects, but beyond that... You pointed out the dome model, for example; personally I wouldn't class that as standard for this site, not many hold to it.
4. Majority explanation I've seen for meteorites is that we're just not on a dome. Even so, given how hard it is to find detailed FE models anywhere, I'd like to see where your information comes from. Would be good to actually be able to read a detailed model. On here, I haven't seen anyone suppose a dome made strictly out of one particular substance.
5. Some are more reliable than others. but typically the odd cases are just dependent on not taking something else into account.

ok, so what I took from that, was that this site is no longer the flat earth society, but instead its John Davis's alternative theory society..

I'm guessing you've not heard what other flat earthers think of John Davis?

I posted a screenshot the other day, for some reason now I've got no 'attach photo' option :/

the standard flat earth model has a circular flat earth, Antarctica surrounding us as a ring, the map just like the UN model, this is used to explain flight paths (I'm sure you've seen the map), the dome above, pertruding from the Antarctic edge, the sun and the moon localised above us, the same size as each other and both under the dome, space is projected onto the actual dome

after 3yrs of research, this model doesn't really change much, the main disagreement was UA, the vast majority agree on the above, not many agree on UA

this forum has proved that the original theory has far too many holes, so people here have been guessing answers on the spot that has now created about a million different theories, depend on which question a globe earther asks

its become nothing short of a farce on here

I'm after a flat earth debate, I'm clearly in the wrong place, even flat earthers ridicule this forum

ok, so what I took from that, was that this site is no longer the flat earth society, but instead its John Davis's alternative theory society..

I'm guessing you've not heard what other flat earthers think of John Davis?

A lot think he's a shill, but that's not uncommon. When Dubay's forum was around he seemed to accuse most FEers of being shills one way or another.

the standard flat earth model has a circular flat earth, Antarctica surrounding us as a ring, the map just like the UN model, this is used to explain flight paths (I'm sure you've seen the map), the dome above, pertruding from the Antarctic edge, the sun and the moon localised above us, the same size as each other and both under the dome, space is projected onto the actual dome

after 3yrs of research, this model doesn't really change much, the main disagreement was UA, the vast majority agree on the above, not many agree on UA

This forum's left UA behind too. And that was only the typical model in certain settings, more often that not it was taken as a starting point: people began with that general framework and adapted it in whatever way they found reasonable. The dome model typically comes from Christian and religious FEers, the dome being the firmament. There have been plenty of FEers who proposed a two-pole or South-centric disc.
The only reason that seems such a common model is because of the likes of Dubay, who started a forum and allowed no disagreement.

I'm after a flat earth debate, I'm clearly in the wrong place, even flat earthers ridicule this forum

The sister site has more FEers, but the same detail you're complaining about: varying models. i'd class that as a good thing though, it means they've acknowledged flaws in the typical outline and are working to fix them. Surely that's what you're after, when it comes to a debate?

no, usually during a debate, when one party has been irrefutably proven wrong, they usually accept the evidence

on here though, they make up a new theory.. no evidence is even accepted.. try showing someone who still uses crepuscular rays as evidence of a localised sun the evidence of perspective, they'll simply clam up and say 'you're wrong, you're rude, we're not talking to you anymore, why are you here'

so yeah, as I only came here because I believed this to be a more sophisticated place than Facebook and YouTube, I think I'm clearly in the wrong place

logic and reason is clearly not welcome here.. only ridiculous theories that stem from disproof

not what I call an intellectual debate, I might not be very scientific in my answers, but I definitely need a higher level of intelligence than I've found on here

I don't use words like trolls or shills, I'd rather stick with more explanatory words like ignorant and cognitive dissonant

Jane, you are pretty much the only FE (I'm guessing) I'll give my respect to on this site, I suggest you leave too before they drag you down to their level

John

that's most definitely NOT how a debate goes

no, usually during a debate, when one party has been irrefutably proven wrong, they usually accept the evidence

on here though, they make up a new theory.. no evidence is even accepted.. try showing someone who still uses crepuscular rays as evidence of a localised sun the evidence of perspective, they'll simply clam up and say 'you're wrong, you're rude, we're not talking to you anymore, why are you here'

so yeah, as I only came here because I believed this to be a more sophisticated place than Facebook and YouTube, I think I'm clearly in the wrong place

logic and reason is clearly not welcome here.. only ridiculous theories that stem from disproof

not what I call an intellectual debate, I might not be very scientific in my answers, but I definitely need a higher level of intelligence than I've found on here

I don't use words like trolls or shills, I'd rather stick with more explanatory words like ignorant and cognitive dissonant

Jane, you are pretty much the only FE (I'm guessing) I'll give my respect to on this site, I suggest you leave too before they drag you down to their level

John

that's most definitely NOT how a debate goes

I'm a REer, I just give an FE-sympathetic view sometimes given how few of them there are, and how many threads they're spread between. Hopefully gives them the time to answer the lesser-asked questions.
Just saying, personally I'm happy with FEers developing their models. Sticking to the original helps no one: dull for us because it's trivially easy to disprove, and just as much for them because no debate can happen. Like you say, most that defend the terrible models just clam up. Doesn't help a debate either. Whereas here they might acknowledge one model is flawed, so they make up another to address that flaw: then another problem might be pointed out, and they develop further to cover it up... It's interesting, if nothing else, and eventually (hopefully) one might reach the point where it does indeed seem to answer most obvious questions, and we can start tackling the more meaningful questions like mathematics and evidence. Not happened yet, but hey.
To my mind, no one's really debunked FET because there is no FET. There are a handful of models thrown around, and guesses, and bits and pieces like that, but nothing that answers the obvious questions. When not even that hurdle is reached, then there's a problem: a lack of explanation isn't a contradiction, it's not at the stage contradiction can be arrived at. When few FE models can offer explanations for immediate issues (like 24 hour daylight at both poles, the coriolis force...) then they couldn't even be hypothetically right. What I think should be part of a debate, is a side that can even start to stand. At least here some FEers admit it's a work in progress, as it is.

the earth is a globe and the universe is beautiful