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

Earth is a spinning ball.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,075 times Debate No: 89245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (256)
Votes (0)




I hold that the earth is not a spinning globe as modern science claims. I am looking for empirical evidence that we live in a ball spinning at 1,000mph, tilted at a 66.6° angle, travelling at 66,000 mph in a 600,000 mile race track around the sun in space. Pro must use round one to provide such evidence, and forfeit the last round. Any media publicly available may be used until said media or it's source is proven false or unreliable.


The earth is not a ball, first of all. It is not a perfect sphere. It is slightly squished because of gravitational factors. I am arguing that yes, the earth is spinning and spherical. We can find evidence by many mathematical ways, but the most trustable way is that we actually have video of the Earth spinning. On Nasa's website they have a 24 hour live feed from the space station that you can watch. Why would you think that is fake?
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting, I ask that you approach this information with unbiased eyes, actually try to forget everything you've learned at this point.
The first day of school we learned a few things, basic math, like one plus one equals two, our ABCs, and the supposed fact that the earth is a globe. Talk about indoctrination. The first two are fairly elementary, but have you ever seen the earth from the moon? The teachers never saw the Earth from the moon, their bosses never saw it. In this debate I will prove that NASA has, beyond a shadow of a doubt, lied to us at least one time, one time is all it takes because if they would lie to us once they would lie to us about a lot of other things.
I will prove that at least one or more of NASA's photos are faked, and it will be assumed, given the circumstances, that all are faked as well. There are no actual photos of Earth in existence. There are a few composites, (which can be done from high altitude flights from a plane on a flat earth) a painting or two, and some cgi. With the thousands of satellites out there, shouldn't there be hundreds or thousands of them by now. They supposedly had the technology to do it in the 60's!
In this comparison, America has over doubled in size. Proof one.(1) Blatant copying and pasting of cloud formations. Proof two.(2) The word "sex" in cloud formations, really? My 8 year old brought this home on the cover of her dictionary. What really got to me was the 3 sixes at the bottom of this inverted "photograph" Proof three.(3) I suppose it could happen after all there must be photographs somewhere on the internet of full words in clouds. Wait, I found one! (4) I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. NASA claims they do have a hand full of actual photos of earth, but not one of them show a trace of any of the thousands of satellites said to be in orbit at varying heights around the earth.(5) You would think, that with that many giant pieces of aluminum, baler wire, duct tape, and tinfoil flying around the world, some of them would reflect some light back to the camera with the sun at the cameras back. How many real pictures of these satellites do we have? Close to none, if any.Recent photos of pluto show that NASA at least has a sense of humor about lying to us.(6)In this photo, earth is relatively small, considering earth is 4 Times bigger than the moon. Common sense says if he were actually on the moon, the earth would appear 4 times bigger than the moon appears from earth. Compare that picture with the recent "video" of earth spinning with the moon and you'll notice The earth has multiplied several hundred times in size! (8)
2. The iss
The videos taken from the ISS are probably a high altitude plane with a fisheye lens video on a green screen, with parts of the craft posed in front of it. While this in itself is not impossible to prove, (again, where are the other thousands of satellites circling the earth?) the most damming evidence is the fake videos from inside and around the iss, when humans get in the picture. Multiple bubbles seem to come out from places. (9) (10) Are they actually in a giant pool?(11) don't worry about that toolbox, the scuba divers will pick it up off the green screen after the show. Note how it drops to a certain point and stops, also note someone forgot to spin the earth.(12). And little slip ups like saying you are filming in the US...(13) you can see how the other two give him a "hey, that wasn't in the script!" look.

Lack of curvature
This video (14)was shot using a fisheye lens, and a regular lens. Which doesn't show any curvature.. Even close to the red bull dive cameras same height, which shows abnormal amounts of curvature, with the earth even curving outward at some points in the video. Ok maybe that isn't lying only misinterpretation.
The whistle blowers
I'll just let them speak for themselves.(15)(16)I could go on, but if like to hear from con at this point. I think I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your only proof of a spherical earth (NASA) has been shown to be unreliable and rebutted.



"The teachers never saw the Earth from the moon, their bosses never saw it."

Have you ever seen a platypus? No? Well then how do you believe that they're real?

(2) I'll be honest, all I saw in that photo was the sky and a bunch of squares and circles in the clouds some had put on the photo. You didn't even prove that the photo was from NASA.

(4)(5) Do you know how big the earth is compared to a small satellite? :/

(6) Why is this an argument. It was just a waste of time.

(7) It's called depth. The moon and the Earth are not right next to each other, so obviously a picture taken from the surface of the moon would make Earth look small.

(8) Why would NASA do that. Why. You said it yourself, there is no evidence at all for that. And FYI planes cannot fly that high.

(9)(10) One, where did these come from. Sources please. Two, what point are you even making???

(11) If they were why would they show us the pool. And again, what would they gain from this.

(12) The toolbox continues moving the entire time. And Earth is spinning, it just spins slower than you could see in a two minute video clip. If you could have seen it spinning our days would be an hour long.

(13) First of all that video was awful quality, second I don't even know what he meant by that. And the other astronauts don't look at him so...?

(14) That video obviously shows curvature. I suggest holding a ruler to the computer screen to measure.

(15) Smokes on stage, insults Stephen Hawking, is obviously an awful comedian. It's fair to say I stopped watching after that.

(16) "This video has been removed by the user"

The overall question: Why would NASA fake this? How would they gain anything?
Debate Round No. 2


You can go and see a platypusat most zoos, you may actually meet someone who has seen one, or search the internet and find a real photo or video of one, then you would either have empirical evidence that a platypus exists, or a trusted word from multiple sources that they do so. None of these will ever be true for the globe. They went to the moon with a computer that was the equivalent to a Nintendo Gameboy, and they haven't commercialized flights to the moon or even to the iss yet. When has America not over-commercialized anything? 800 people(1) are in line with millions tied up in Virgin for quite a few years, only recently starting to demand refunds after several failed attempts. Every picture of earth is proven fake, and most videos likewise. Finally, every astronot is sworn to secrecy with death threats. They're part of a club we aren't even suppose to know about.

You saw the places that the squares and circles were, see for yourself, directly from NASA. I assure you, the other side is just as bad... Believe it or not, it's there for anyone (including our voters) to see, so go ahead and embarrass yourself. Nasa admits that most of their photos are composites meaning they are several scan of the earth put together in photoshop, and this could easily be done with high altitude flights on a flat earth.

(4)(5) I know how well light reflects off of even the tiniest piece of glass, foil, etc all the major components of a satellite.

(6) Well, since your entire opening argument was basically "NASA told me", and if we're still following the rules of the debate, it rules out NASA as a credible source, and this, being well established, would rebut your entire argument so far.

(7) And the recent "photos", (2) if you were to fly closer to the earth, to land on the moon, it would magnify it, if we're still following the basic rules of physics with "depth". Take note the clouds do not change the entire time the earth is spinning... Also, isn't it curious how the side of the moon that is facing away from us, therefore not protected by the earth is not riddled with craters as the the other... Odd

(8) "Why would NASA do that"
refer to "possible reasons" below. Unclear what I admitted at all, some planes fly at 70,000 feet.

One, NASA and other government sources, you know of anyone else faking spacewalks??? It's not like someone can falsify this video, unless they had NASA's budget... (which is more than any major space movies) I have tons of bubbles footage. Here's one with sources.
Two, refer to NASA's credibility statement above.

It's supposed to be a training pool, but tons of bubbles footage says it's the main stage. Refer to possible reasons below.

Agree to disagree about the toolbox and allow the judges to decide if they are not as nearsighted as my opponent. The earth appears to be back up to speed in most other iss videos(3), which is orbiting earth at 7,500 mph, the earth itself is moving 1,000 mph, which is faster than the speed of sound.

Directly from NASA... here's a hint by what he meant by that, he is filming in Hollywood, probably.

It obviously shows curvature on the left side, but when the video switches to the right, it's not apparent, unless you are measuring the glow of the atmosphere.

So? Although this is a bit off topic, Steven Hawking has either died along time ago, or he's just a meat puppet, they've been cloning people for a lot longer than recently. Sorry to break the news to you, but patients with ALS rarely live beyond 2 years once diagnosed, the longest is 5 years. So that makes him the longest ALS sufferer of all time. They say he communicates with a "single cheek muscle" rofl.

Whistleblower 2

Possible reasons:
This is gonna take some background. I don't want to take it all the way back to Hitler, Though he played a good part, along with his buddies via operation paperclip, so we'll start with Admiral Byrd, and Operation: Highjump Admyral Byrd was the last "great explorer". He was the first to explore the north pole, then after that was over, he turned south, to the south "pole". A lot came out of the south pole expedition, and it seems like the US had a lot of interest in the south. They went back, in '46 with a task force included 4,700 men, 13 ships, and 33 aircraft, supposedly to set up a "research base", sounds like they were prepared for a fight. What they found is a mystery. Possibly the dome, possibly another civilization of beings (you really think aliens come from billions of light years away?) Maybe even both. They returned defeated the next year. In 1958 NASA was born and all further space exploration was monopolized and in 1959, the Antarctic treaty was signed, effectively blocking any chances anyone could find what they found, until a one world government could be established. A few years later, operation: Fishbowl, (isn't that an interesting name for a mission) where several warheads were fired at the dome. Tower of Babel all over... Finding an impenetrable dome was unfortunate, because the great JFK had prophesied going to the moon at the end of the decade. They were desperate to win the space race with Russia and keep JFK's promise to America, as well as show world dominance with supposed control over space. So they hired the director of 2001 A Space Odyssey to fake it. A direct confession is coded into The Shining(4). At this point, even though they couldn't get to the moon, there was no turning back. The lie had been told, and it was only a matter of keeping the secret, they don't even have to know the shape of the earth, or that they can't get into space for that matter. So, reasons would be treason, hiding more land, and hiding a divine creator, to name a few. In effect, they are stealing our money, in exchange for cgi pictures.



You can see the curvature of the earth from very high planes, you can meet an astronaut, or search the internet and find a real photo/video of it. Then you would have empirical evidence that the earth is spherical.

I think you are overestimating the global politics involved in going to space. In addition, currently the ISS is a research institute, not a hotel. You are also underestimating the amount of money and time needed to establish such a company.

"Every picture of earth is proven fake, and most videos likewise."

You have absolutely no proof to back up that ambitious statement. Or this one:

"Finally, every astronaut is sworn to secrecy with death threats."

No evidence. Again. In addition, that is illegal and the government is very involved with NASA so I don't get how that would work.

(2) You can "embarrass" yourself all you want by going off topic with an ad hominem, but that doesn't help your argument. The link you posted is just a random photo of the globe, which I don't really get why you posted. And you didn't explain the photos so I take that as you don't even know what they mean. Argument successfully refuted.


(6) "Any media publicly available may be used until said media or it's source is proven false or unreliable." You haven't proved it false or unreliable. So I disagree.

(7) Where are you getting this?

(8) "Space bubbles" Remember, in zero gravity water gets loose so I don't see what that proves at all. That some water or dust particle floated past the screen? Fascinating.

What is up with you and these ad hominems? This is a debate for goodness sake. Have some decency.

//Off topic but extremely important:// Skip if you don't want to hear what is wrong with what my opponent just said, since it is not directly about the debate.

NO YOU DIDN'T. Readers, take a big long look at what my opponent just said.

"Steven Hawking has either died along time ago, or he's just a meat puppet, they've been cloning people for a lot longer than recently. Sorry to break the news to you, but patients with ALS rarely live beyond 2 years once diagnosed, the longest is 5 years. So that makes him the longest ALS sufferer of all time. They say he communicates with a "single cheek muscle" rofl."

Steven Hawking is VERY much alive. In fact, he is working on a project currently on sending out probes beyond our solar system. The fact that you just called the most brilliant person on the face of the earth a "meat puppet" is disgusting.

Get educated before you insult the smartest person on earth. I suggest that you stop "rofl" and try actually knowing something about someone before you insult them in horrifying, insensitive, and demeaning ways.


Whistleblower 2: You just gave me the link to some random youtube video. Who even is this guy and what makes him credible? He sounds like a tabloid junkie. "Nasa insider" is not a position that gives you credibility.

(4) This is funny. But first, unreliable, second, it's theoretical conspiracies behind a horror movie. You are overanalyzing.

There are tons of new people getting hired to NASA each year. To include them all on this outlandish conspiracy would simply not work. Someone would have made a mistake by now and told someone. It is ridiculous.

You seem to have a whole lot of accusations without a whole lot of reason, credible sources, or proof.
Debate Round No. 3


"You can see the curvature of the earth from very high planes"

You can only see the supposed curvature of the earth if you are looking out of the top of a curved window, that are standard on all commercial passenger planes, and we all (hopefully) know what happens to straight lines when viewed through curved glass...

"you can meet an astronaut"

Who will lie about even going to the moon.(1)

"or search the internet and find a real photo/video of it."

I have proved that none of the photos are real, this has not been refuted. So, no, you can't. You haven't shown any evidence of a real photo. Check the descriptions of every photo of earth, they TELL you they are only composites.

It seems my opponent is not clear of what constitutes as empirical evidence. I suggest obtaining a dictionary and looking up the definition.

"I think you are overestimating the global politics involved in going to space."

Global politics? Really? Please tell us about these global politics.

"the ISS is a research institute"
All I ever see the"scientists" doing on the iss is playing. What types of actual research are they doing? Were paying out of our arses to see them play with musical instruments and water, which in space, should be very dangerous, even life threatening, if you happen to know what happens when you mix water with sensitive electronics. Not to mention the supply of water is limited, unless they are actually in a giant swimming pool.

"You are also underestimating the amount of money and time needed to establish such a company."

I provided a link to the Virgin story, there are millions funded toward getting civilians into space.

"You have absolutely no proof to back up that ambitious statement. "

I have, and it seems that you have ignored it.

"Or this one"

If I were one of the first to walk on the moon, and made it back to earth safely, You would not be able to wipe the beaming smile from my face for years. I personally would work something about it into every conversation for the first few weeks upon return. Every time I talked about the moon, I would be so proud and happy about this never before accomplished feat that I would smile at the very thought of it, I'm sure anyone will agree. So let's see, why are these astronots so nervous and scared looking?(2)

"government is very involved with NASA so"

NASA is a government organization. You think that governments are trustworthy? Boy have you got a lot to learn.

"...The link you posted is just a random photo of the globe..."

Clearly in denial. Clearly embarrassed. The "random photo" is directly from your source. How was it refuted? How did my opponent not see the obvious photo manipulation? Voters please note this is obviously a dropped argument with a childish "nuh-uh".

"You haven't proved it false or unreliable. So I disagree."

Voters, I don't think I have been refuted here either, and NASA has been ruled out as a reliable source, but, since my opponent is in a hopeless state of denial, it is up to you to make that decision.

" Where are you getting this?"

Voters, need I say more?

"Remember, in zero gravity water gets loose so..."

With all the sensitive computers onboard the iss, I'm almost positive water does not just "get loose" all the time, and as I stated above, water is hard to come by in space, and it usually doesn't behave the way these air bubbles do, they usually just float...

"What is up with you and these ad hominems? "

Is there a way to stop 15 year olds from accepting a debate? I in no way insulted my opponent. This is getting old, another point dropped.

"NO YOU DIDN'T. Readers, take a big long look at what my opponent just said."

I'm not sure what you are talking about specifically, but voters please do, and the next time you're outside, forget what science has told you, and envision the earth as flat and motionless, the sun and moon the same size and close passing overhead and you will see what I see, or remain asleep, up to you.

A few more nuh-uhs...

"He sounds like a tabloid junkie."

He accurately pointed out several points dealing with symbolism and NASA. Seems credible to me. Again, voters discretion.

"This is funny. But first, unreliable"

I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Righto!

"Someone would have made a mistake"

Three examples listed so far that haven't gotten silenced. NASA employees are on a need to know basis, not everyone has to know about it.

"You seem to have a whole lot of accusations without a whole lot of reason, credible sources, or proof."

That will be up to the voters to decide... What have you so far, 2 sources that I ruled out as reasons of credibility according to the rules of This debate that you agreed to? This is too easy. One more round for you! Better make it good! I'd suggest more of "NASA told me." This was really a waste of time, but whatever gives me a W!


You just showed me a video of a guy shoving a bible in astronauts faces. I would have punched him in the face too. He is such a d***. Stop wasting my time with irrelevant youtube links.

You DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING. You simply stated something. Give me PROOF. You have not 'proved these photos to be fake'.

Passive aggressive much? Chill.

**underestimating whoops

For goodness sakes visit the NASA site if you're so curious.

If you've ever seen a video about NASA on youtube, which you claim to have done, they explain that the water that goes into the air is filtered out and turned back into drinkable water. Just watch the video about hygiene for more info.

"I have, and it seems that you have ignored it."

Because I obviously didn't read what you said...? C'mon. You just refuse to admit that you are making wild claims without evidence.

Umm, maybe they're nervous because they're at a huge press conference and have to speak in front of a lot of people. You have never been to space, so it's not really your place to judge their behavior.

Oh, so now you're a libertarian? I said NASA is affiliated with the government. Saying that the government is untrustworthy is a whole different debate.

Seriously? You haven't provided an explanation for the photograph, so you can keep ranting, but it isn't doing you any good.

Why. Is. NASA. Unreliable. You haven't answered that simple question. I'm 100% sure the voters agree.

"Is there a way to stop 15 year olds from accepting a debate?"

What is wrong with you.

"I'm not sure what you are talking about specifically"

Sure.... Well I'll tell you. You were saying how Stephen Hawking was a meat puppet, and I was refuting that idiotic statement.

I swear on the spherical moon that I will win this debate.

Because my opponent refuses to provide any evidence to back up their wild claims.
Debate Round No. 4


It's obvious my opponent has never had a serious formal debate, she should probably just stick to rap battles. She has completely disregarded any evidence with a sneering nuh-uh, while providing no actual rebuttals to any of my claims. I don't know how anyone could ignore the obvious copy-paste methods, sex in clouds, etc that I provided, besides the fact that NASA admits that it is Photoshop, this isn't just a rare occurrence either, I believe that 100% of the media we pay for by the way, is falsified. Space walks are in a giant pool,(1) all photos of earth are photoshopped, all videos of earth are fisheye lenses, every photograph of space is cgi artwork, and the moon landing was a studio film, the lunar module looks like a homeless tweeker's shelter. Buzz can leave a 1-2" deep footprint, but that thing didn't even leave a blast crater, or kick up any dirt at all for that matter, as apparent with the glowing tinfoil lined landing gear. Seriously how did that thing get back off the ground?
This is clearly a case of confirmation bias.
As the format of this debate has been mutilated by my opponent, and no arguments have fully rebbuted, I don't see the point in furthering my argument, and just am tempted to forward all points, but I want my opponent to remember this argument until she wakes up, she has a few years to grow up, so I will try. I would also like her to watch one documentary on the flat earth theory because I believe she may be smart enough, one day, to be able to spread the word.

"filtered out and turned back into drinkable water."

The water is slung into computers in several of the iss clips, water is sucked into air vents and filtered? Right, no source, I'm pulling a you on that one, no source, no rebuttal. Here's some more funny business.
ISS Hoax:

I'm sure the voters can agree, substantial evidence has been provided, with much of it not even examined by my opponent.

" Because I obviously didn't read what you said"
The claims may be wild to you, but they are certainly back with evidence.

Highly doubtful... Their mournful faces and eyes tell a different story, it's not like they are on trial. There's nervous happy, and there's nervous being told to lie, or die.

I'm anarchist, and governments have been lying to their people for centuries.

The explanation is that there is obvious Photoshop manipulation, this was clarified in the first argument.

Already answered the question, and it wasn't that simple. Another case of "Because I obviously didn't read what you said"?

The younger generations are getting dumbed down, that is what is wrong with me. Im sure you'll continue to remain glued to the tell lie vision programming, Justin beiber concerts, and rap battles.

Whether you believe it or not, is irrelevant, so why continue with this argument, it is not relavant to the debate.

I want to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and ask her to, in further debates, not be so black and white about everything. If you refuse to even entertain the idea that the other side of the story may be true, no amount of evidence will convince you, it is not until you forget what science has told you so far that you will begin to see.

Since my opponent has to forfeit the last round, I will let her give a closing statement. I wish her luck in the voting period.


"It's obvious my opponent has never had a serious formal debate, she should probably just stick to rap battles."

This statement is hypocritical, because nobody who understands how to debate properly would use an Ad Hominem in such a rude way.

Vote for me, because Con has refused to provide explanation for random photographs and continues to give random conspiracies with no apparent evidence or reason behind them. (As in, why NASA would lie, and how people would be able to keep a secret so big.)

In future debates, attack the argument, not the person. That is debate 101. Smh

"It is not until you forget what science has told you so far that you will begin to see."

This is clearly a ridiculous statement. Science is the basis to life as we know it, and to renounce it is a profound example of willing ignorance.

I ask the voters to consider who presented valid points, backed up by experts, who had proper conduct, (ex. NOT using vicious Ad Hominems) and who did not intentionally insult the one and only Stephen Hawking. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
256 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
you tied a flat earth debate, that's gotta hurt a bit.
Posted by dude100 2 years ago
Things don't attach sideways because the vast majority of mass is beneath your feet not on the mountain.
Posted by mangolife23 2 years ago
What is wrong with you.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
So why isn't anything attached sideways to mountains? Roll a boulder off the top of the mountain, it will not stick to the side. I provided the links to prove that a weightlessness environment can be achieved without going to "space"
Posted by dude100 2 years ago
Flat earthers believe that everything is magnetic. Simple logic is evidence to the contrary. There is a whole list of nonmetals which are completely nonmagnetic because they don't have the necessary properties to be so.
Posted by dude100 2 years ago
Are your friends as large as mountains? I keep looking at your links they either support my claim that the earth is round, or they are created by flat earthers who have no actual measurements to back their claims, or present experiments which have already been disproven by modern science years ago. Do you even know what anti gravity is? it's not some mythological force , I'll give you some examples, a ladder, a balloon, a helicopter ect. What you're referring to in your link is the use of superconductors which as in the field of quantum physics alters the state of a magnetic substance by super cooling it to sub zero temperatures which as a result, cause said magnetic substance to have a completely linear magnetic field. This allows it to float over other magnetic fields and stay in whatever position you put it in. THIS DOES NOT DEFY GRAVITY. You do realize that the GPS link you posted is a reflection of the FACT that satellites are in orbit right? Do you know what an electromagnetic transmission is? I'll tell you, it's a light based transmission because sound doesn't travel well in a vacuum. So the only way to send a signal to a satellite is through electromagnetic transmitters. Yes light is electromagnetic. If the magnetic field around our planet didn't exist to block solar radiation also known as solar wind, we'd be fried by the intense radiation. Also another reason why the sun couldn't be so close to us because the fusion reaction generates intense radiation. So intense that if the sun were as close as you mentioned life couldn't exist even if the sun were tiny. We can prove this by measuring the spectrum of light and comparing it with other lights here on earth such as hydrogen lamps and helium lamps which is how we know what the sun is composed of.
Posted by mangolife23 2 years ago
I know how this debate site is set up. It is set up for debates. Not pointless arguments full of Ad Hominems. (i.e. attacking someone's use of the word ain't) This is a debate website. Debate, or stop.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
How am I not attracted to my fat friends?
No votes have been placed for this debate.