1
Flat Earth Theory / The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B
« on: February 07, 2018, 04:11:17 PM »
Hi,
I have been relatively active on the FES for around 2 months now and have noticed a common trend. In the Flat Earth Debate section, most debates follow a common pattern.
1. A RE'er proposes some type of statement and proof
2. A FE'er response to that statement with some type of proof
3. Repeat.
I know what your thinking:
"Well you idiot origamiboy, that's how all debates go"
And your right, but there is something different about debates here: RE'ers almost always propose the argument first. FE'ers usually never make arguments against the RE model and usually are just responding to threads debunking the FE.
Which brings me to my next point:
When the FE'ers responded to a statement they don't explain why the RE statement cant exist, they mostly just explain why the FE answer CAN exist. The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B. In order to really convince (smart) people that the earth if flat, you need to bring up reasons why it isn't round. I have some good places where you could start your debunking:
1. Why cant satellites exist
2. How are NASA's photos and live streams faked
3. Why does the RE model not work (Any reason is great)
4. Why does the government dump billions of dollars, fake hundreds of photos, and videos just to make us believe the earth is flat, and if the "RE prank" is so huge why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something.
I think in order for the FE'ers to prove to us that the earth is flat, this is a good place to start.
I have been relatively active on the FES for around 2 months now and have noticed a common trend. In the Flat Earth Debate section, most debates follow a common pattern.
1. A RE'er proposes some type of statement and proof
2. A FE'er response to that statement with some type of proof
3. Repeat.
I know what your thinking:
"Well you idiot origamiboy, that's how all debates go"
And your right, but there is something different about debates here: RE'ers almost always propose the argument first. FE'ers usually never make arguments against the RE model and usually are just responding to threads debunking the FE.
Which brings me to my next point:
When the FE'ers responded to a statement they don't explain why the RE statement cant exist, they mostly just explain why the FE answer CAN exist. The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B. In order to really convince (smart) people that the earth if flat, you need to bring up reasons why it isn't round. I have some good places where you could start your debunking:
1. Why cant satellites exist
2. How are NASA's photos and live streams faked
3. Why does the RE model not work (Any reason is great)
4. Why does the government dump billions of dollars, fake hundreds of photos, and videos just to make us believe the earth is flat, and if the "RE prank" is so huge why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something.
I think in order for the FE'ers to prove to us that the earth is flat, this is a good place to start.