All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

# Earth is round

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Edlvsjd
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 9/5/2017 Category: Science Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 821 times Debate No: 103810
Debate Rounds (3)

 Pro The Earth is an oblate spheroid.Report this Argument Con I accept the debate. I understand you think the earth is an oblate spheroid. The burden of proof is on you to affirm the resolution. There should be no room left for doubts. If I can cast serious doubt on the resolution, it is negated. Please state your arguments for examination.Report this Argument Pro Looking at pictures of the Earth from satelites, you see a circle. A circle is a 2D projection of a sphere. Changing the position of the satelite changes the shape of the circle only slightly. This is consistent with Earth being a sphere.Report this Argument Con Pictures aren't proof of anything. Pro's argument is the equivalent of proving the existence of unicorns with pictures of unicorns. https://i.ytimg.com... You or I have never seen a unicorn, and our common sense tells us that they don't exist, so a picture would not serve as adequate evidence of a unicorn. Our senses tell us that the place we live is relatively flat (water is flat, in all measurable circumstances) and motionless, so should we take a picture as infallible evidence? I'd like to think that most of us aren't that gullible. I have created images of earth using computer software and most anyone could with a quick tutorial on YouTube. There are very few pictures of earth as a ball, and even less videos. Hopefully my opponent can offer us something more conclusive of the spinning ball he defends. https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net... https://youtu.be... http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...Report this Argument Pro Well pictures are sometimes proof of something. You can show a picture of a horse with a horn and claim it’s a unicorn. But the picture only shows a horse with a horn, it’s a proof of that. It doesn’t prove the horn has grown from the horse, it doesn’t prove it didn’t grow from the horse. Claiming that the horn is the horse’s (making it a unicorn) is an additional claim outside of the picture. So this to me shows only that you don’t know how demonstrations work.Report this Argument Con I really thought my opponent was going to give us some verifiable evidence that we live on a spinning ball. As I explained, a picture shouldn't be considered infallible scientific evidence for anything that can not be empirically validated. I've seen pictures of cats with a mouth full of shark teeth. With todays technology, it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake, based solely on a picture. My opponent even admits this in a silent concession: "Well pictures are sometimes proof of something." Yes, when the pictures are of verifiable information, the information may be trusted. For instance, a picture of the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan, a distance of some 60 miles, which is mathematically impossible on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, is verifiable. Thousands of people have witnessed this. Earth from space however is only verifiable by a few hundred people, all of them under oaths of secrecy with governments, who aren't very well known for honesty. The only evidence my opponent has for his claim is essentially second hand knowledge that we're NEVER going to be able to verify. Even without Photoshop, there are realist artists that can produce wonders. How would anyone here know if an image of earth is a painting or a photo? We don't, since none of us has seen it from that point of view, so it's not a fact if it is based on an image alone. This is pseudoscience at it's finest. Nevermind the fact that my opponent hasn't even produced ONE image here with his claim, his only evidence is that there ARE images. In order for it to be taken seriously that we live on a spinning ball there must be no doubt. I've SHOWN and EXPLAINED that images are not infallible because there exists Photoshop and other image editors/creators in the real world. This casts doubt. Not only that, I produced some images of earth as a ball, and proved them to be total fabrications. That, being my opponent's only argument sufficiently cast doubt upon, the resolution is negated, and pro's burden has not been met. A vote for con would be the most sensible thing to do.Report this Argument
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 10 months ago
My argument is that pictures are not infallible. This is an obvious fact. I've also shown a very good reason for this fact.

https://i.ytimg.com...

You've yet to present any evidence for examination! Show me the money!
Posted by Edlvsjd 10 months ago
There is no good reason to believe we live on a spinning ball. Pro showed it here.
Posted by justadudeman 10 months ago
messed up. Earth is a sphere, but pro totally bombed when trying to prove it.
Posted by justadudeman 10 months ago
messed up. Earth is a sphere, but pro totally bombed when trying to prove it.
Posted by gurghet 10 months ago
Just a note on fabricated images. Taking a picture and saying that is fake is yet another additional claim, so I really don't know how you can make a more convincing argument by adding more claims (without apparent evidence).
That is simply not how demonstrations work.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.