The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 38,145 times Debate No: 56028
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (186)
Votes (3)




Pro will be providing evidence for Flat Earth Theory. Con will be provided evidence of a round Earth.

The debate should be determined by preponderance of evidence.

There are to be no semantics with the terms round Earth or flat Earth. Neither round Earth theory or Flat Earth theory doubt topographical differences.

First round is for acceptance.

P.s. Romanii wanted me to add this. Round earth theory doesn't necessarily mean a perfect sphere. Just like flat Earth theory wouldn't necessarily mean the Earth is perfectly flat.


I accept this debate.

As Wylted has made clear, topography and slight variations in shape (i.e. spherical vs. elliptical) will not be taken into consideration in regards to the semantics of the words "flat" and "round".

Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Romanii for accepting this debate. I ask that judges check their bias and preconceived notions at the door. I would also like to point out that most of my arguments will derived from the book Zetetic Astronomy by parallax. Others I gathered from various YouTube videos. A link to the full book can be found here and I will continually refer back to it as a source.

I can't work images properly, probably because I'm debating on my cellphone. I ask that my opponent, judges and readers bare with me and please actually click on the image links. My arguments will be understood a little better, with the help of a few visual aids.

I'd like to point out that my case will be made with a lot of experiments and observations that can be made first hand. I'm not asking anyone to trust supposed "established facts". You need nothing more than your own senses and judgement to figure these things out on your own.

C1- If the Earth were round people would fall off the bottom.

C2- The Bedford Level Experiment

"A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called "Welche's Dam" (a well-known ferry passage), to another called "Welney Bridge." These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance!"

If the Earth was curved the boat wouldn't have been visible the whole distance. Here is what would've happened if we had a round Earth.

That's not what happened in the experiment. This is what happened.

This experiment has been repeated several times, with different people and locations. All with the same results.

C3- Isle of Wight and Isle of Man

"A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. If a good theodolite is directed upon it, the cross-hair will show that the. land and water line is perfectly horizontal, as shown."

Below are 2 pictures. The first shows what the actual results of the experiment are. The 2nd shows what it should be if the Earth is round.



This experiment was repeated at the Isle of Man with similar results. Image 1 is actual results. Image 2 is what they would look like if the Earth was round. Same as previous source.



C4- The Earth looks flat from a plane

A plane is really far up and the curvature of the Earth should be very apparent if the Earth is flat.



C5- Surveyors assume a flat earth

When making bridges, rail roads, tunnels, canals etc. no curvature of the Earth is taken into account. This would not be possible if the Earth was round.

Proof 3 from following link.

C6- Plumb bobs

Plumb bobs are used to help construct buildings. If the Earth was in fact round as my opponent believes than buildings made using plum bobs would be wider at the top than bottom, but we don't find that to be the case.

From film (In search of an edge)

Flat Earth theory is more than just flat Earth

More things are involved in the theory besides the flatness of the Earth. If you look at the flat Earth model, you'll see that in the center of the Earth sits the North Pole. This would explain why compasses always point in that direction. If the Earth actually had a south and North Pole magnets would point in both directions not just the northern one.

At the outer edges of the Earth holding water in is a wall of Ice. This is actually a better explanation for the oceans sticking to the Earth than this silly magical force called gravity. Here is a picture of what the flat Earth looks like.

You might ask if gravity doesn't cause things to stick to the Earth, what does? The easy answer to that, which is a superior and easier to grasp theory. Is that the Earth is moving up really fast. When you go up really fast you stick to stuff. You can feel this affect in elevators.

A lot of these other factors tie into Flat Earth Theory just as the rotation of planets go hand in hand with spherical Earth theory.

C7- The seasons explain prove Flat Earth theory is a superior model

If the Earth was revolving around the Sun as round Earther's believe than the sun would be directly over the equator 4 times a year. We find that it is only over the equator 2 times a year. If we use the Flat Earth model instead the Equator sees the sun 2 times a year as appropriate.

Also a round Earth going around the sun would have Icecaps that actually completely shift over every year. This would force the Earth to wobble uncontrollably. However we find that the poles don't do this. So the Flat Earth model is a better explanation.

Source video 1-

C8-The Earth isn't spinning

According to spherical Earth theory the Earth is spinning at over 1,000 miles an hour. If this is true, this is faster than the speed of sound. Given this theory somebody standing East of you wouldn't be able to hear what you say. Here is an experiment you can try at home. Have somebody stand East of you and see if they can hear what you say. Well can they? Boom flat Earth proven to be true.

Also the Earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour. This is ridiculous for round Earth proponents to say. If a merry go round gets you dizzy at a mere 10 miles per hour, how in the world aren't we walking around dizzy?

C9-Michelson Morley experiment

Let's imagine you're sitting in a boat and there is another boat circling around you, but maybe you're circling around it. How do you find out which is correct?

The simple answer is to stick your hand in the water to feel if you're moving. Well this is what the Michelson Morley experiment basically does.

We know that the substance known as Aether exists. Light couldn't move without some substance to move along. Sound moves along air, waves move along water and light moves along Aether.

Without Aether light just can't move, so we know Aether exists. Originally people concluded Aether didn't exist as a result to the Michelson Morley experiment, but an alternate conclusion actually confirms that the Earth is not moving, well it's moving up really fast, but It's not moving around the Sun.

We know that the Aether must exist, so the only alternate explanation would be that the Earth is the center of the universe.

A flat Earth model (which is Geocentric) is a better explanation for the Michelson Morley experiment than a spherical (also heliocentric) model would be.

C10- Airey's failure

""Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

C11- The Sagnac experiment

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through

So that experiment proves there is an Aether which reinforces the results of the other experiments.


It's more than obvious by now that the Earth is flat. As much as modern science wants to cling to the disproven theory of a round Earth, they can't deny the evidence. I look forward to my opponents opening arguments.


Thanks to my opponent for his arguments!
I will be using this round to provide opening contentions as well.


The first and foremost reason we have to believe that the Earth is round is that we have seen Earth from outer space and witnessed for ourselves that Earth is, indeed, spherical (source:

This alone is reason enough to completely dismiss Flat Earth "theory".

Nonetheless, I will provide even more evidence of a Round Earth; evidence that can be observed without even leaving the planet...



When watching the horizon from a coastal shore, we can see that departing ships do not simply fade into the distance as they should if the Earth were flat, but that they disappear/sink under the horizon as they approach it. This shows that there is curvature to the surface of the ocean, and, by extension, that there is a curvature to the surface of the Earth, thus proving the Earth is round.

This picture shows the disappearing/sinking effect in question:


This diagram demonstrates why the disappearing/sinking effect shows curvature:



3. L

Lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the Earth being cast onto the Moon, as demonstrated by the following diagram.


During lunar eclipses, we can see the shadow being cast upon the moon, and *clearly* identify it as one being cast by a round object, thus showing that the Earth is round.




There are records of people circumnavigating the entire Earth in a manner that would be impossible if the Earth were flat. Take the example of Ferdinand Magelland's voyage back in the 16th century. He went straight from Spain, to the southern tip of South America, to the Philippines, to the southern tip of Africa, and all the way back to Spain.


Taking this route would be logically impossible on a flat earth, and many such voyages have been taken since, proving almost beyond a doubt that the Earth is round (source:



All objects have a center of gravity; a central point that the force of gravity pulls other matter towards, with the strength of that force depending on how much mass the other objects have and how far away from the center those other objects are (

If the Earth were flat, its center of gravity would naturally be in the center of it. But on a flat surface, not all points are equidistant from the center, and thus, depending on your position, the effects of gravity would be radically different. This is obviously not consistent with reality, though... gravity has the same effects everywhere on Earth, consistently accelerating falling objects at 9.81 m/s2


A flat earth is not consistent with the laws of physics and their observed effects.

However, with a spherical earth, this problem is solved, because all points on a sphere's surface are equidistant from the center (i.e. center of gravity), meaning that the force of gravity's effects would be the same no matter what location, only varying with object mass. This is much more consistent with reality.




If the Earth were flat, then it would be the same time everywhere around the world since the entire world would be on a single plane. Yet this is blatantly false... it can easily be observed that different areas of the world are experiencing totally different times due to the rotation of the spherical Earth and the position of the Sun ( Once again, it has been shown that a Flat Earth is not consistent with reality.



All the evidence goes to show that the Earth is round, and that a flat Earth is nearly impossible.

I hand the debate back over to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2


Me and Romanii have decided not to participate in round 3. I'll kindly ask my opponent to wait almost the entire 72 hours to post, as I have done for him.


On with the debate! :D
Debate Round No. 3


1. As seen from space

A.There is a few problems with accepting these photos as evidence. The fits problem is that photos are less reliable than experiments like the ones I mentioned you can do first hand. Photo's can be faked, manipulated, not come out right etc. I can go show photos of UFO's, Bigfoot etc. and I know the voters would find them less reliable than experimental data. I ask that the voters weigh these as much as they'd weigh a photo of bigfoot. Even if an expert in cryptozoology took the photo himself. People usually just blindly accept photos as evidence, and this is a shame. Numerous studies show that photographic evidence is no more reliable than eyewitness evidence.

B. NASA was caught using a fish eye lens on their cameras. The fish eye lens can make normally flat objects look rounded. Not to mention that the flat Earth is a disc shape, so it may appear round from space anyway. (source video 1).

C. NASA is inherently biased and motivated to perpetuate the round Earth myth. If it's discovered the Earth is flat they will lose their jobs and funding. NASA has been known to resort to photo manipulation and lying. It's an unsavory organization and I wouldn't put anything past them. Click the links. NASA is full of crap.

D. According to flat Earth theory. The sun is a spotlight. So if you were in space the spotlight/sun would have a circular light pattern and you'd expect only to see a round shaped Earth anyway.

2. Horizon Observations

A.What you're seeing here is obvious. As ships get further away they appear smaller, until eventually they disappear. As the ship gets smaller waves that are a little closer cover up the bottom of the ship. The ship appears to disappear bottom first, not because the Earth is flat, but because the small waves that are much closer, though slightly/ or not at all perceptible hinder the view. This is what causes the optical illusion.

B. Another reason this occurs is because of what's known as light diffraction. This is the bending of lights around objects. On a quantum level everything is just waves.

These bends of light actually cause the bottom of a ship to be obscured at a distance. The further the ship gets, the more light diffraction comes into play.

C. Other factors to consider with this effect are haze, clouds etc.

3. Lunar Eclipse

The shadow on the moon could prove a disc shaped Earth as well as a ball shaped Earth. I've shown pictures in round 2 showing what type of Flat Earth theory, I've been advocating for.

4. Circling the Earth

I don't have time to refute every example of circumnavigation and it would be unfair of my opponent to bring up new arguments in the last round that I don't have time to respond to. If you notice the flat Earth model has the North Pole in the center of the disc shapes Earth. That means all compasses will be pointing to the center of the Earth. The vast majority of circumnavigation is East to West. If my opponent brought up a case of North to South circumnavigation I could easily debunk it, but now all I need to debunk is Magellan and his west/east passage.

Since the compasses point to the North Pole and the Pole is the center of the Flat Earth model, these navigators may think they are traveling around the Earth, but in reality. They are only traveling in a circle around the North Pole. Interestingly enough, Magellan's travels verify a flat Earth as well as a Ball Earth.

5. Center of Gravity

Look gravity doesn't exist. Gravity assumes a round Earth model and is used to explain why people stick to the bottom of it. I'll get to what some modern scientists say on the matter. For now let me personally address it. Gravity is used to rationalize the round Earth model. It's a theoretical concept that hasn't been proven and modern scientists pretty much know doesn't exist.

Erik Verlinde argued in a recent paper, titled "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton," that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.

According to Aaron Guerami, if gravity were real than helium balloons shouldn't be able to float upwards.

Besides these people, Einstein disproves gravity a long time ago. Newtonian physics has been replaced by Einsteins model. Gravity is just an illusion as Einstein points out.

6. Time Zones

The Flat Earth Model explains how the Sun operates a little differently than the Round Earth Model does. The sun and moon circle over the Earth instead of rotate around it, and they are much smaller than popular opinion believes. The sun acts as a kind of spotlight.

Here is an extremely short video of how the sun and moon circle above the Earth. The video is 20 seconds long. Please watch it.

The Flat Earth model is vastly different than the Round Earth Model and assumptions made to support the round Earth hypothesis, can't be used to disprove flat Earth theory.


My opponents points are refuted and in many instances support the Flat Earth Model. I've conclusively proven the Earth is flat. I anxiously await con's arguments.


Thanks to Wylted for his argument.
Like him, I will be using this round solely for rebuttals.
I am also debating on my phone, right now, and will not be able to insert pictures into my argument...

R1) Falling Off

My opponent claims that if the Earth were spherical, people would fall off of it. This is obviously false... the force known as gravity keeps us from falling off by creating a strong attraction between us and the Earth.
In order to avoid to possibility of my opponent rejecting the existence of Gravity in order to rebut this contention, I will go ahead and provide some evidence for it:

- the Universal Law of Gravitation, as set out by Newton, accurately predicts planetary movements as well as the motions of objects on Earth without error, showing that there really is an attractive force between all objects (

- we have observed light bending around the sun during solar eclipses, in accordance with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (the idea that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime around massive objects) (

- we have recently discovered the existence of gravitational waves, which, in addition to proving that a Big Bang happened, almost 100% confirms that gravity exists and has to do with the curvature of spacetime, as predicted by General Relativity (

R2) Bedford Level Experiment

The results of this experiment directly contradict my C2 (regarding the general observation that boats appear to "sink" as the "go over" the horizon on a spherical earth), claiming that departing ships fade off into the distance in accordance with flat earth theory.
Thus, it is necessary to look at sources, here, in order to decide which set of results to accept...

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.
In addition, the same experiment has been carried out afterwards by different people with exactly opposite results, with the experimenters noticing the sinking effect instead
(source: Level Experiment)

Given this potential for inaccurate results and the dissonance between experimental repetitions, it is highly probable that the few instances a Flat Earth was indicated by the experiment, it was a result of the natural problems with human perception (e.g. the propensity for seeing what you want to see) or external interferences.
Meanwhile, the sinking ship effect was first witnessed by Aristotle, and has been observed so many times since then, that it has almost become "common knowledge" to humanity, no longer questioned even by those who have not noticed it personally.

It is clearly evident that the common observation of the sinking ship effect is a more reliable determinant of the Earth's shape than an experiment carried out by a couple of flat earthers.

R3) From a Plane

My opponent cites a single picture of the Earth's surface from a plane, observes that it looks flat, and thus concludes that the Earth is flat.
First of all, upon closer inspection, it can be observed that there IS actually a slight curvature noticeable in the photograph he has cited...
And anyways, what my opponent is doing is akin to claiming a soccer ball is flat by looking at it from a few millimeters away; the human field of vision at lower altitudes is miniscule compared to the size of Earth, so any present curvature is virtually negligible to us. However, from a higher altitude, our field of vision is significantly extended and we become capable of observing a noticeable curvature of the Earth's surface.

Pictures can be found here:

First hand accounts can be found here:

R4) Isle of Wight

My opponent claims that because the horizon appears to be completely straight and horizontal from a cliff top, the Earth is flat. However, this contention suffers the same problems as the previous contention... our field of vision even from moderately high places is too small to see our gigantic planet's curvature. One would have to go much, much higher in order to expand their field of vision to the point that they can see it (see R3 links).

R5) Surveyors

This contention proves nothing. As I showed in R3/R4, the Earth's curvature is virtually negligible to us due to our incredibly tiny relative size, and that applies to our infrastructure as well, simply due to the sheer size of our planet. Obviously, since the curvature has no effect on us, surveyors do not take it into consideration...

R6) Plumb Bobs

My opponent does not provide the necessary elaboration for this contention to be valid.. there is no logical connection shown between the use of plumb bobs and the effect he is referencing.
He cannot simply link a 26-minute documentary and expect me or the readers to watch the whole thing just to understand his point...

R6.5) Miscellaneous Points...

My opponent's points here are completely based on appeals to the the simplicity of a Flat Earth model. However, I must point out that simplicity should NOT determine what we accept as true. If simplicity was a valid indicator of truth, then atoms would be tiny spheres like Democritus theorized millennia ago, rather than the crazy mess of quantum weirdness and sub-atomic nuclear particles that modern physics speaks of.
The Flat Earth model offering a simpler explanation for certain phenomena is not a good reason to believe in a flat Earth. All I have to do is show that the Spherical Earth has equally plausible explanations for the phenomena Pro cites in order to render this contention invalid.

Compasses- a compass needle DOES point to both the North and South poles at the same time... compass makers merely make it so that only the side of the needle attracted to the north has mobility, meaning that we only see that north side moving around to align itself, when in reality, the south side is also simultaneously aligning itself with south pole (but we don"t see it because it is attached to the compass's center).

Oceans- gravity is not a "magical force"; it is the effect of spacetime curving around the Earth, holding the ocean to the Earth's surface. Just because Pro feels that the Flat Earth provides a "better" explanation does not render this explanation invalid.

This contention does not prove a Flat Earth over a Spherical Earth any more than the presence of animals proves Evolution over Creationism.

R7) Seasons

My opponent claims that on a Spherical Earth, the Sun is directly above the equator four times a year, when it is really only above the equator twice a year (i.e. equinoxes).
He also claims that on a Spherical Earth, the ice caps would completely shift every year.

However, neither of these assertions are widely accepted, and the only evidence he attempt to provides for them is a Youtube video.... which no longer exists... (click the link for proof...)
So... this entire contention can be rejected since it is based completely on bare assertions.

R8) Earth's Rotation

My opponent claims that since the rotation of the Earth is faster than the speed of sound, people in the east wouldn't be able to hear sound.
This is factually inaccurate. Thanks to gravity, when the Earth rotates, EVERYTHING on it moves along with it, *including* us and the air that sound travels through, meaning that the movements of the Earth, Solar System, and Milky Way have no effect at all on the movements of sound waves.

R9-11) Geocentric Model

In all three of these contentions, my opponent puts forth evidence for the Geocentric Model. However, this is completely non-topical... the debate at hand is about the shape of the Earth; not the orientation of the cosmos. The original geocentric model as proposed by Ptolemy actually included a Spherical Earth! ( - pg. 8)
Proving that the universe is geocentric does nothing to refute the rotundity of the Earth.


All my opponent's contentions have been refuted; none of them prove that the Earth is flat. Some of them even point towards a Round Earth...
Back to you, Wylted! :D
Debate Round No. 4


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.

Gravity doesn't exist according to relativity. In relativity it's referred to as a fictional force due to the curve in space time.

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. Level Experiment

Here is the photo, for proof that the Earth is flat.

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.

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.

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.

Round Earthers now believe it to be 24,900 at it's widest point.

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.

However, no such drop exists.


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.

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.

Check out this image and it's pretty easy to reimagine the lines on a Flat Earth map.

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?


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.


Thank you Romanii for participating in this interesting debate. I look forward to more like it in the future.

Vote Pro


Thanks to Pro for his argument!
Unfortunately, I am a bit scrapped for time and will have to drop a few less important contentions...
I will be utilizing this round to counter Pro's rebuttals and over-view some of the major themes covered in this debate.

C1) As Seen from Space

Pro objects that the satellite imagery I have provided is no more reliable than a photo of Bigfoot. However, this completely ignores the source... these pictures do not come from some random "expert"; they come from NASA, a highly reputable organization of professional astronomers, funded by the government itself with tax-payer money. Information that comes from their research carries much, much more weight than a Bigfoot photo.

Pro then goes on to criticize NASA as a source, claiming that the astronomers there would lie to make people believe that the Earth is round. But this accusation is totally unwarranted.... Where is the motivation to do such a thing? Pro provides absolutely no reason for why the astronomers would want to propagate the idea of a round Earth other than that "they will lose their jobs and funding", which makes no sense. Why would the Earth being discovered to be flat have any negative effect on them? We cannot accept Pro's baseless criticisms of NASA; there is no motivation for fabrication.

As for his objection regarding fish-eye lenses, EVEN if they were actually used, they can only cause a sort of curved distortion... they can't make a flat object appear to be a perfect sphere. (
And Pro's argument concerning a spotlight sun is absurd; just because the Sun wouldn't be directly shining upon parts of Earth doesn't mean those parts would appear to be completely invisible... we can still see outlines of and city lights in the parts of Earth that are experiencing night time....

NASA's satellite imagery of Earth serve as near-definitive proof of a spherical Earth.

C2) Horizon Observations

Pro claims that the main cause of the sinking ship effect is small, imperceptible waves covering up the bottom of the ship... however, this makes no sense; if the waves were really *that* imperceptible to the point that no one even noticed them, then the sinking effect would not be visible from such a long distance away.... this is a self-refuting and paradoxical explanation.

Pro also blames optical illusions and external factors such as light diffraction, haze, and clouds. However, he provides no elaboration as to HOW these would make the ship appear to sink.... I could just as easily list off some other illusory effects and hold them responsible for the results of the Bedford Level Experiment, and it would hold the same weight as Pro's rebuttal, here.

If the common observation of the sinking ship effect is so easily rendered an unreliable indicator of the Earth's shape, then such also applies to the Bedford Level Experiment. Pro's rebuttal here applies to his own C2 just as much as it does to mine.

C3) Lunar Eclipses

Pro states that the circular shadow on the moon shows a circular flat Earth just as much as it does a spherical Earth. This is blatantly false. For a circular shadow to be projected on the moon by a flat Earth, the moon would have to be directly above the Earth, and the Sun would have to be directly below the Earth... Given the positions of the moon and the sun around the Earth, even in a geocentric universe, the shadow cast on the moon would RARELY, if ever, be circular.

In a flat Earth, the shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses would more often be a misshapen ellipse of sorts. Seeing that this is not the case, the consistently circular shadow of the Earth during lunar eclipses serves as evidence for a Spherical Earth, ONLY.

C5) Center of Gravity

My opponent's only rebuttal to my argument here is an assertion that gravity doesn't exist...
However I provided numerous pieces of evidence for the existence of gravity last round, and Pro's only response has been that Newtonian physics and Relativity contradict each other, invalidating gravity as a whole. Since several of his refutations rest on this contention, it is a matter worth clearing up.

Relativity EXPLAINS Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics still accurately describes the vast majority of gravity's effects, including planetary motions and falling objects on Earth. It can still be used for all practical purposes within this debate, since we are discussing very ordinary gravitational effects here. Using relativity as evidence for the existence of gravity and then using Newtonian physics to describe the behavior of gravity is perfectly sound. Pro's pointing out of the supposed "contradiction" between the two does not do anything to refute this contention.

And regarding the helium balloon phenomenon, gravity is *still* acting on the balloon; it is just that the lesser density of helium compared to the higher density of the surrounding air forces it to travel upwards. In the same way, when oil floats on the top of water, the oil is not defying gravity... it's just floating to the top by the action of the more dense water.

Gravity exists, and its predictions combined with our observations of reality indicate that the Earth MUST be spherical.


None of Pro's "evidence" for a Flat Earth holds up...

-- Gravity almost certainly exists and completely explains the quirks of a Spherical Earth

-- Observing that the Earth looks flat from anywhere near the surface is like calling a soccer ball flat by staring at it from a couple millimeters away. It is simply not not logical, and is an attempt at abusing the limits of human perception. (Also, I'd like to note that Pro has brought in quite a few new facts and figures this last round concerning the Earth's size and proportions as they relate to its curvature, which is unfair because I do not have a chance to address them)

-- Pro has refuted his own horizon observation effects by pointing out the confirmation bias involved in human perception and potential external interference.

-- Simplicity is not a valid indicator of truth value. Occam's Razor deals with which one makes fewer *assumptions* made; not which one is simpler

-- Whether or not the universe is Geocentric has NOTHING to do with the shape of the Earth... Ptolemy actually believed in a round Earth...

Meanwhile, the pictures of Earth from space, the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses, and the theory of Gravity's predictions all serve as near-definitive proof of a spherical Earth.
Vote CON!

Thanks to Wylted for a fun debate!

Debate Round No. 5
186 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 4 months ago
The earth is definitely flat to a snail.......with many peaks and valleys of course.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Where did all of my images go...?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I like defending weird resolutions, but I like defending them seriously.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
strange debate. Looks half-troll to me but seems to have no humor value whatsoever.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
This might be my most views debate. I have to go over my list.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
Lol, he told me he was going to view bomb this
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Making coffee is half of what I do at work. The other half is drinking it.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
I'd hire ya Wylted :P
Ya know how to make coffee? :P
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I'd like to know if somebody would hire me also. My job sucks.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct/S&G - Tie. Both debaters did well in both regards. Neither deserve points taken away or points awarded to their opponent. Sources - Tie. Both shared sources that were used to further validate their claims. One might argue that Pro's sources tended to originate from more biased sources than one would expect, but for the nature of the debate it will stand. They tie because of this. Arguments - Con. Pro just had too many contentions rebutted successfully by Con. On the most basic level, Con takes the victory due to NASA being a more credible source than any that Pro provided. In terms of preponderance of evidence, it would fall on whose sources were from more respected and seemingly objective institutions. Hence Con's victory. Taken a step further though, Con overcame the obstacle of Pro's contention on conflicting views of physics, Con also overcame several minor contentions including the sinking ship example. It needed to be the other way around with Pro overcoming Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As entertaining as this debate was, Pro nonetheless found his arguments rebutted by Con, who demonstrated (with photographic evidence, no less) that the earth was a spheroid shape. Pro put up a good fight, though! As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm judging this as if it were a troll debate, because of the subject matter. If the standard is only that pro must provide evidence for flat earth theory and that con must provide evidence for round earth theory, then both may easily meet their BOPs -and both did. While it is obviously the case that the earth is round, I have to tie this because as a troll debate, reality need not get in the way of entertainment.