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

Earth is flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 12/28/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,288 times Debate No: 98502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




It's almost 2017 and my opponent still believes that the earth is a flying ball! I intend to show my opponent that the earth is indeed relatively flat, excluding those mountains etc. My opponent is new to DDO, so I'll not be strict on structure, he can just freestyle.


Here's a source:

I'll use some examples why the Earth is round and this is probably one of the easiest ones:

1) Plane View
Sit on a plane, look at the view, Earth has a slight curve, therefore Earth is round.
This is a screenshot showing a very tad light curve on a plane view. It's not very easy to notice, strain your eyes and look at it as focused as possible you should see a small curve, don't expect a massive one as the Earth is enormous.

This therefore means the Earth is round

2) Ships and Horizon
When the ship comes up after a long sail, this is how it would look like:

The same way an ant walks up an orange and comes to the top.
This means the Earth is spherical.

It's the 21st century, it's way too easy to determine we live on a sphere.
Debate Round No. 1


"Sit on a plane, look at the view, Earth has a slight curve, therefore Earth is round."

Look at a plane's windows, notice they are curved.

Curved glass artificially curves straight lines.

What's funny is that people say this all the time, ignorantly, even globalist say it's impossible to see any curvature from a plane, whenever you see a curve, follow it around in your head, the line will end up below your feet on the other side, now look out of the opposite window and we that the horizon is still eye level.

"When the ship comes up after a long sail..."

This is the reason Aristotle postulated the earth was a ball in Ancient Greece, but this was before the time of binoculars and other telescopic devices. Next time you go to the beach, bring some binoculars with you. Start watching the ship when you can still see it, and after some time, yes, the ship does appear to start dropping below the horizon, but, this is only an illusion. Pull out your binos and magically drag the ship backwards over the curvature of the earth! Bring a telescope to make it come back twice!

Contention one. The specular highlight

Anyone who celebrates Christmas can verify this. Have a look at the glass balls on your tree this year, most of us have them up right now, so have no excuse not to perform this simple, empirical experiment. Take a glass ball and make a right triangle with the observers eye at A, the ball at B, and a light source at C. (1) This is where we are in relation to the sun at the time of sunset.(6) Do you see the light reflected in the ball? Of course not! This is because spherical objects, or convex surfaces produce a specular reflection, whereas it points back to the source. (2,3) Not only that, but the reflection of the source appears smaller. This is why the give you that little warning on your side mirrors in the car. Sure you might can cheat a little with the relative distances and angles, and you might even get a hint of the reflection, but you'll never be able to reproduce this image. (4) Water is highly reflective, just like glass, or sheet metal. So let's try to reproduce this image with these reflective materials. Hold a flattened piece of sheet metal or like material up to the eye, and point the other end, as if you were aiming a rifle, up to a light source. The results are very much like the sunset. (5) We now have an empirically experimentally (objective) proof that the earth is flat.

Contention two: The Chicago Skyline

Joshua Nowicki has been photographing the Chicago skyline for a few years now. This would be impossible if he were doing so on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. (7) Modern science tells us that this is a mirage, but again, anyone who's actually seen a mirage, superior or otherwise, will agree that mirages are just "reflections" most of the time they are greatly distorted, and always upside down. Granted, visibility factors such as atmospheric blocking and waves and swells on lake Michigan sometimes do not grant this sight always, but the skyline is seen on a regular basis. (9) This isn't the only instance of people being able to see further than they should, in fact, people are recently testing the globe, and the flatness of water to see landmarks that should be well over the curvature of the earth, and every time this test is done, no curvature can be found. This can be done easily if there is a fairly large body of water near you. All you need is a decent camera and the earth curvature calculator(10). This is yet another (objective) empirical proof that the earth is flat.

Contention three: Gyroscopes

Definition from Wikipedia: "A gyroscope, not to be confused with gyrocompass, is a spinning wheel mounted on a gimbal so that the wheel's axis is free to orient itself in any way. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours." (11) Anyone who has ever owned a gyroscope can verify that they do verify that they do very curious things, even seemingly defying "gravity" sometimes. This experiment show both that the earth is NOT rotating, and can't be a ball. Gyroscopes have been spun up for hours at a time, and not even the slightest of rotations can be observed. (12) Attitude indicators operate by use of a basic gyroscope. (13) If the earth were a ball, spinning, wobbling, going around the sun, which is bolting around our galaxy, that is rocketing around the universe at a combined rate of about 1,000 miles per second, they would be virtually useless, especially on transcontinental flights. Some higher end smart phones are equipped with a built in gyroscope. If yours has one, download any decent pitch indicator, and leave it on your night stand when you go to bed. Wake up in the morning and see for yourself that the phone has not moved or changed it's angle the entire time. Since your average person can get a good gyro and produce these same results, this is another (objective) empirically experimental proof that the earth is flat.



You wouldn't need a curved glass to see a curvature on the surface, you can even see this on the Mt Everest view, it may be slightly less but it's there. There's no curved glass involved. Remember Earth is large enough to feel flat, try zooming in a lot on Google Earth on a spherical picture, it'll just look flat. The Russians landed a probe on the moon, it was spherical and yet it still felt flat on surface? Earth should be the same then.

Shadows differ from place to place

Flat earth vs Curved earth

Eratosthenes carried out this experiment to determine the circumference of the Earth, already assuming its spherical shape; incidentally, the proof of such being consequential of the procedure.

However, a demonstration can be achieved by a simple, local experiment (as opposed to having a party venture to a distant enough point):

Take a piece of card (A3, or so), attach two obelisks to the card by their bases and, with a light source, produce shadows - now, slowly bend the card so that it becomes convex (that is, the side with obelisks attached bulging out) and watch the effect.

You can see farther from higher

Flat earth vs Curved earth

There are numerous other ways of demonstrating that the Earth is round at least, from analysing the center of gravity to simply observing the other round objects that are visible in space; but I believe these illustrations to be the simplest to comprehend.

Another way is the triple-right triangle:

You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
Turn right 90" degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
Turn again to the right 90" degrees and walk again the same distance
After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" a half-finished square.

Responding to where you said if the Earth was rotating, objects would feel it or move slightly, no this would not happen because the Earth is moving at a speed that remains the same, it will only be felt when slowed down, similar to a plane, more smoother.

The Moon

Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.

Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon"s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth"s, and it"s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

Since the earth is rotating (see the "Foucault Pendulum" experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical " absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

Remember they may have or may not have sent men to Earth but Russia did definitely throw a probe at it's surface showing it appear flat but it's actually spherical, if the moon can do it and is a lot smaller than Earth but slightly spherical because of the small size. Why can't Earth do it? It's very easy to see how the Earth is round and spherical, it's much more possible than a flat Earth. Send me a picture on what Earth looks like. It's not a flat disk or a pancake, otherwise Earth would have an edge to fall off. Other planets are spherical, however do not compare this to a pool table with 8-balls on it. An 8-ball and a pool table are different types of objects. Earth and other planets are the same type of object. Is there a flat ball? No, then there shouldn't be a flat planet. So really, the Earth is round.
Debate Round No. 2


"you can even see this on the Mt Everest view"

This is another false statement.

"Earth"s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m)."

Shadows. ..

Erratosthenes also assumed that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away, and that the sun's rays all hit the earth at parallel lines. Of course, crepuscular rays show that they do not, this can be verified by anyone by looking up on a cloudy day.

With a small close sun, as proposed by the flat earth model, the same results can be achieved.

"You can see farther from higher"

This just a property of perspective. The earth, of course, isn't perfectly flat, there are obviously obstructions everywhere. Take for example, this football field, though we know that football fields aren't curved, when the camera is low to the ground, even a 2 inch high patch of grass will hide anything behind it, raise the camera, and the man will come back into view.

Most of the earth will not be mathematically flat, so this works with hills, waves, etc. Consider, if you will, the image of the railroad tracks or specifically, the poles that run alongside it. If you were make the first pole a wall, you wouldn't see any further poles behind it. Shrink all of the poles down, though it may take a little longer, at one point, the wall will rise to th eyes level, and will block anything behind it. An increase in elevation will of course allow a better view over this obstacle, until the next one approaches the eyes level, further away.

My opponent makes a vague comment about being able to demonstrate curvature from "the center of gravity to simply observing the other round objects that are visible in space". Though he didn't ellaborate much on this, I'll quickly cover it so as to not drop any points that my opponent can use later.

First, gravity is a theory, objects go down based on their density. Since the time of ancient Greece people thought the earth was a ball, but when people got smart enough to beg the question: why don't people fall off of the bottom? Globalists needed an answer. So it was theorized that the earth were acting as a big magnet of sorts, and was pulling thing towards the center of it. In short it's a theory that was based on an assumption. It's ok to scientifically make assumptions when forming a hypothesis, but eventually, you have to prove that initial assumption, Which is what you are trying to do with the theory. Bassackwards much?

As for other objects in the sky, critical thinkers know that we have no good reason to associate the terra firma we stand on with lights in the sky. It's similar to observing billiard balls on a table and assuming the table was a giant sphere, based entirely on that observation. It's a ridiculous argument when looked at with a critical , unbiased eye.

"Another way is the triple-right triangle:"

Another myth globalists propose is that if you travel an undetermined distance... you can form a triangle by taking two 90 degree turns. I had a few problems with this: first, what distance is this, if I go into the city and do this, it doesn't work. If you suggest a much bigger distance, are you using a compass? If you follow a compass and travel due west or east, you aren't actually going in a straight line, globe, or flat. Going west on a flat earth is just going around the north pole, and on a globe, you'd be dipping the nose down constantly on a plane, around a curve. In short, the argument, like the globe, doesn't hold water.

The moon

Most of the first paragraph is aneqdotal, most of humanity has never been to the moon, so we're essentially taking NASA, a government organization whose name coincidentally means "to deceive" in Hebrew, word on that.

My opponent finally makes his point, and claims that since lunar eclipses feature a round shadow, this necessarily proves the earth a ball. But he is assuming that " the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon".
Over the last 50 or so years, several recorded instances of eclipses happen when both the sun and moon were both above the horizon, this would be impossible if " the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon" Either you would see the moon being eclipsed, or the sun, never both. So the overstatement "every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical " absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat." Can be dismissed with the rest of these proofs. My opponent makes a brief statement that the rotation of earth can be proved with Foucault pendulum definitively proves the rotation of the earth, even after my evidence of non rotation with gyroscopes. Yes, some time back, some people convinced everyone that they swung a pendulum and the earth moved under it, instead of the obvious, that the pendulum moved around over it's surface. Perhaps my opponent has never heard of the Allias effect, where during eclipses, the pendulum does curious things, such as change directions and speeds, now according to the heliocentric model, the earth does not change directions or speeds, so the pendulum must either rotate due to some yet to be discovered, or forgotten reason, such as the aether, or is just a clever parlor trick, meant to deceive the gullible as they gape in amazement at these swinging balls in institutions and establishments worldwide. If the earth really moved under a swinging Pendulum, logically we should, intending to holiday to France from the US, be able to do so by ascending in a balloon or helicopter, flying a little north or south, and waiting for their destination to come to them at roughly 1,000 miles per hour.

The next paragraph is confusing. My opponent claims that someone may or may not have sent men to earth, but Russia "did definitely throw a probe at it's surface showing it appear flat but it's actually spherical" with no source or much of anything to back up this claim, I must ask my opponent to clarify most of the paragraph. I'll start with what I can understand of it. He would like a picture of what I propose the earth to look like. I don't believe that anyone has gotten far enough away to take such a picture, but I'll provide an illustration of such.

My opponent insists that my analogy of other planets being "spherical" is invalid. Claiming that these planets, which were known for thousands of years as wandering stars, are somehow just lIke earth, but the only evidence we have of this are images from nasa. My opponent has not visited these planets to verify that we are looking at physical terra firma, so yet again we have an aneqdotal assumption. He assumes the conclusion, ie. The heliocentric model, and pulls his evidence from such. I could further show how NASA is lying about these wandering stars, but I feel it is not needed and the point has been made. Anyone interested in such an argument can view this debate.

Forward all points since my contentions weren't even acknowledged. And for Jebus sake, Vote pro


"If the Earth was a ball, why don't we fall off?" That's a common question asked by flat brains not realising that gravity and a magnetic field was holding us onto the ground. The Pool Table and the 8-ball card is the logic that Earth shouldn't be classed as a planet if it's flat. The Earth isn't a perfect sphere, it's bulging at the equator hence why Chimborazo is the tallest and not Everest. The Concorde can see a curvature however as you said windows are curved so the ground must be curved.

Also if the Earth were flat, where is the edge? Flat Earthers have yet to answer this question, some have said it's blocked by the Artic. But even so, we have the power to walk up the wall with equipment and jump off the edge into outer space? But no,
we circle the Earth, showing it being spherical. It is impossible for the Earth to be flat.

The Moon proof again:
No flat earther has answered this, I asked why is the moon upside down in the Southern Hemisphere?
How is this possible on a flat earth?

Look at the moon in South Africa and then look at the moon in UK, different right? Because it's upside down over in South Africa and right side up in the UK. Know why? Because everyone in South Africa and Antarctica is upside down. This is a fact if you look at the moon. It's too easy to see this but flat earthers don't get it and still think their "planet" is flat, you're a man of the 21st century. Remember the Earth is a squashed up sphere bulging at the equator.
No curvature below 10,886 meters? False, there is a curvature on the summit of Mt Everest.

Remember, if you had 2 sticks and looked at their shadows they are different?

The evidence is way too high that the Earth is a round planet just like the other planets.
Debate Round No. 3


"If the Earth was a ball, why don't we fall off?" That's a common question asked by flat brains not realising that gravity and a magnetic field was holding us onto the ground."

My opponent is stereotypical, I've not posed this question personally, I've attended the public indoctrination system, and realize that modern science has invented the theory of gravity. His ad hominem is noted, and I suggest voters consider this when awarding conduct points. The rest of the first paragraph is just unrelated text book nonsense with a hilarious ending : "The Concorde can see a curvature however as you said windows are curved so the ground must be curved." It's sad to see future generations getting dumbed down so severely, no offense to my opponent.

He continues about the edge, as do most uninformed globalists. I'm almost sure that I've already responded to this argument, explaining that there may not even be an edge. He incorrectly asserts that "the artic" is blocking the edge, and we should be able to walk up and step off the edge. I don't know if it is because I've explained this a dozen times or so, or if he is just that oblivious, regardless, the Antarctic circle is as far as we can go as civilians, so it would be speculated what's beyond that. But I did find, since I have many requests for a photo of the edge, this, rare photograph of the edge.

OK, sorry about that, i had to do it. He makes another argument in the final round which of course is excused due to lack of rules, so ill try to explain this to him, though i fear it falls on deaf ears.

The moon.

Seeing the moon upside down in opposite hemispheres does not mean anyone is upside down. Get a friend and go to a room, each on opposite sides against a wall. Imagine an arrow on the ceiling, pointing at yourself. You see the arrow pointing up, your friend will see the arrow pointing down. This doesn't mean one of you are doing a head stand. The moon is at the equator between the hemispheres, so it is only logical that this happens.

My opponent offers a picture of the view from atop Mount Everest. He obviously has no clue about photography, and dismissed my source that explains that it is impossible. At this time I present this video.

This balloon went well over 100,000 feet. It features two cameras. A fisheye lens, which gives wide angle view, but distorts the image, and a regular lens. There is no known lens or camera that will straighten curved lines. Straight lines become curved at certain times with the fish eye lens. Lines closer to the edge are more and more curved while lines in the center become straighter. Lines in the upper part of the screen curve downward, while the bottom lines are curved upwards.

He brings up the erratosthenes experiment again... please refer to my rebuttal in the previous round(2).

and thus ends another round of the top ten "proofs" that the earth is a globe. Forward all my original points to the final round.


Varying Star Constellations
This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that "there are stars seen in Egypt and"Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the "known" constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:

You seen the view of the SR-71 Blackbird as well? They pretty much went into space, hence why they are wearing spacesuits pretty much.
If the curved window causes everything to look curved, why does it still look slightly straight? Because the window wasn't that much curved. It still isn't straight enough to say it's flat, and also it's facing upwards to the right. Even despite being slightly straight, it's still curved.

My opponent possibly won't comprehend why the Earth is round. Oh yeah, why don't we fly into space if we live on a globe? It's not possible to do that as we live on gravity which keeps us in. Gravity is not supernatural, we need something that'll keep us to the floor without making us float about, this is gravity.

Honestly, if the Earth was flat, then the Earth must have an edge. A sphere or oblate spheroid has no edge, because going around it will only return you to the start point.

Seriously, Earth cannot be flat, it's scientifically impossible.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
P.S: Here's what you see from the ISS which is actually in space above you.

Earth is more likely to be a disk than an infinite plane since the round shadow on the moon cast by Earth can be done by a disk but picture proof proves it's round.
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
I guess you could get a job at the ISS at space, trust me, it's there, you just need a telescope to clearly see it and see it implicitly without one.
No telescope:

It is ridiculous, even an astronaut there so it's not a probe or an aircraft. So...
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
It doesn't phase me bro of her death threats because I proved the Earth wasnt a ball, you'll have to do a lot better than you did if you want to get under my skin
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
This is a logical fallacy of ad hominem. Your statement only shows your level of ignorance and brainwashing
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
It is true my conduct wasn't the best but it's extremely difficult not to have perfect conduct to someone who thinks he lives on a flat planet.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: For conduct, I vote pro, as con called him a "flat brain". For arguments, I vote con, for his constellation argument at the end.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Merely pointing to a final round argument and saying that that"s why you voted this way is insufficient.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago

It proves the earth isn't ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

As does this

And this.

Just kidding, seriously this
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
"Too entrenched? Wow. I know a dodge when I see one, you my friend, have extreme bias from cognitive dissonance."

I'm a natural skeptic. I am very difficult to convince on just about any subject. Do you have any idea how much I frustrated my teachers in school? Always insisting that 1+1 is not equal to 2. That Lamarckism is a better theory of evolution that Darwin's. That microorganisms didn't exist.

You know more about the subject than me, that is apparent. That is not a dodge and that is not cognitive dissonance. I can only devote about 1-3 hours a day to the subject. I can't process all the information at a rapid rate.

" Do you not agree that objective evidence is more pertinent to the conclusion than subjective evidence?"

Maybe a tiny bit more value on an experiment you can perform yourself. The problem is that you may not have performed the experiment correctly. So, I can grab a telescope and watch a tiny boat disappear and then reappear when I zoom in somewhat. Then, watch it disappear again, and zoom in more and watch it reappear. What does that prove?

All this proves is vanishing points, then when an object is too far away we can no longer view the object. This is not the same as the Earth's curvature. If the boat disappearing from view was a vanishing point, the entire boat would disappear at once rather than the hull first and the sails last.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Too entrenched? Wow. I know a dodge when I see one, you my friend, have extreme bias from cognitive dissonance. You will not even entertain the idea, you'd rather attack the person rather than the argument(s), it's a typical reaction.
No one said the earth is a disc... don't try to put the two models together. You assume there is a vast vacuum simply because that's what they show you on tv. You are severely brainwashed. Do you not agree that objective evidence is more pertinent to the conclusion than subjective evidence? If not, please explain why. Yes this is the Zetetic method. No, not exactly, but it's not a ball. Please do not group me with flat earthers, the views expressed by the whole community do not represent my own. The edge is probably non existent, and we live on an infinite plane, or it is very very large, and the edge is not reachable. Space is a hoax.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
"If it's misinformation tell me how I'm wrong I'm telling you how you are wrong you can't tell me how I am wrong" Edlvsjd

You are too entrenched for me to prove you wrong today. In a couple weeks when I have had time to process your bizarre arguments I can probably defeat you in a debate.

"What if it is you that are a victim of the misinformation campaign as you say" Edlvsjd

Although that is a possibility I assure that the chances of the Earth being a disc is remote.

"My model isn't being drilled into young students when they first started learning about anything the truth doesn't need indoctrination" Edlvsjd

What is this supposed indoctrination? That we don't use the "Zetetic Method," method or whatever it is called?

Do you really think that the Earth looks like the picture in the link?

"NASA employees, they say, guard this ice wall to prevent people from climbing over and falling off the disc."
No votes have been placed for this debate.