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

Earth is spherical/spheroid shaped

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,500 times Debate No: 101443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (1)




I will challenge Edlvsjd for this debate as he seems to be one of the actually serious flat earthers and not a troll.
He will argue Earth is flat while I shall argue it's round, good luck!

1) No trolling
2) No ad hominem
3) No profanity
4) Sources should be given
5) Burden of proof is shared, we both must prove what shape Earth is, is it a sphere/spheroid planet or disk/infinite plane?

1) Acceptance
2) Opinion with your evidence and sources
3) Rebuttals
4) Defence

Good luck with the debate and do your best!
Debate Round No. 1


Earth is a spherical planet as shown by pictures given by the ISS, the ISS is not based on NASA as it's an international space station, any country can work there. (UK/USA/China/Canada/India)

This telescopic view shows that the ISS is in space and orbiting Earth, you will also see an astronaut near it probably floating around in space.

They film regularly, the windows are fully flat so there's no excuse for curved windows virtually curving something

Occasionally filmed from the outside with these cameras

And in the end, we see a spherical planet being filmed, these aren't faked, maybe possible but the chances are low to death since there is definitely a space station up there with people in it.

Ways to see for yourself:
Shadows and Sticks

If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:
Stick Shadows On A Flat Earth

What you'd see on flat earth:
What you really see:

Moriel Schottlender

Stick Shadows On A Flat Earth

Imagine the Sun's rays (represented by yellow lines) hitting two sticks (white lines) some distance apart. If the Earth were flat, the resulting shadows would be the same length, no matter how far apart you place the sticks.
But they don't. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:

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.

Stargazing On A Round Earth:

Moriel Schottlender:
Stargazing On A Round Earth
"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.

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:
Stargazing On A Flat Earth
Moriel Schottlender
Stargazing On A Flat Earth

The Verrazano Narrow-Bridge was designed with Earth's "roundness" in mind, it's 2 towers seperated by 1300m and perfectly vertical are nonetheless 41 milimeters further apart at the top than at the bottom because of Earth's curvature.

What you see:
What you would see on a flat infinite plane:





It thought I'd give my opponent another chance to give a refutation of these, since this is a rematch, he should be familiar with them. That and I don't have the patience to type another opener due to our last match. I may add more to the list in a later round.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


It's a pleasure to rematch you.

Refutation of opponent's points, I'll start with the easiest.

Actually gyroscopes do not prove the Earth's shape whatsoever, but surprisingly, they did a gyroscope experiment and it appeared to prove Earth's rotation

I'll quote some of the paragraphs in that source above:

"The Sun, as it were, appears to move in half of a great circle throughout the sky. What"s more, is that if you look up at night, you"ll find that the night sky appears to move along a similar path, like the entire heavens rotates"

"The pendulum, swinging back and forth, will be affected by the Earth"s rotation! The effect won"t be visible in just a few swings; in fact, if you were at 30 degrees North latitude (as the diagram above shows), it would take two full days for the pendulum to spin around once, or five minutes for it to rotate a mere one degree.

So what happens if you do this?"

"Well, the first time this was demonstrated was in 1851, by the Frenchman Leon Foucault, and the device is now known as the Foucault Pendulum. In fact, there are many of these all over the world, including the world"s heaviest one right by me in Portland, OR. The results are almost immediately striking.

The simplest way to do it is to build a long pendulum with a heavy mass, and tie it off at a small but significant (5-10 degree) angle. Leave it overnight. In the morning, come in and mark its position, and then burn the string you used to tie it off.

Why burn it? Because this way, you won"t accidentally introduce any angular momentum; the pendulum will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line."

"And then come back to it. Or, if you"ve got some time, just watch it go. Know what you"ll see?" Picture below:

Chicago Skyline:

My opponent says that it'd be impossible to photograph on a 25,000 mile circumference ball.
"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."
Not sure about that because the Earth is big enough to feel and look flat.

About his Christmas balls, I don't celebrate Christmas just so you know, but small balls are much different from ginormous balls because any ball that is as big as Earth can work like a flat ground and can even have a flat ground placed on it, Kansas is flat as a pancake yet Earth is an oblate ball.

The YouTube Videos below are more convincing than they seem!


Ok, the rebuttal to my opponent's argument is simple. Pictures and video you see on the T.V. or your computer are not scientific evidence.

If I show a picture of a 150 foot tall lizard:

Here is a 150 foot tall gorilla:

You can see a video of them fighting on the television. This is proof of nothing but that you saw Godzilla verses King Kong. Seriously, I know this may not cut it with my opponent, claiming images are faked is not sufficient, so I'll show him some clearcut examples of NASA faking images.

Anyone who has an iphone has seen this image:

Robert Simmons did a really nice job on this one. That's right, he created it. Like with photoshop. Here is the interview.
(1) Quotes from the article.
  • "My role is to make imagery from Earth sciences data."
  • "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17." That's funny, they used the same "photo" of earth for over 30 years? I can show that that image was faked too, If my opponent likes. Continuing.
  • "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble."

Then there was this (2) NASA faking images of earth. This alone should raise a red flag. Granted, a photo may be presentable as scientific evidence, but a photoshop image? If one were to say, present evidence against the source of my opponent's photographic evidence, it should be recognized that the source is an unreliable source of information. My opponent presents pictures of earth's curved horizon in even more pictures. Though this technically isn't a picture of the earth as a ball, I'll show him how these are done.

This is a wide angle lens, a.k.a. a fisheye lens, which, like airlane windows are just curved glass. I'm sure my opponent remember airplane windows from our last debate. Evidence is shown by looking at the solar panel that just so happens to be curved nearly identically to the horizon. We all know solar panels aren't round, don't we?

My opponent abandons proving the shape of the earth and goes on about how the ISS must be really because we can see it with a telescope. In actuality, you don't even need a telescope to see it. I have a few issues with this.

  • The ISS is suppposed to be 250 miles away. A 757 flies about 7 miles altitude. We can't see the details of a 747 at this altitude. They are not very different in size. Multiply the distance airplanes fly by 35. The iss would be impossible to see. There's definitely something up there, but to say there are prople up there, obiting the earth is a bit farfetched, especially when you consider
  • The ISS is alledgedly orbiting in a region above the earth called the thermosphere. The tempuratures in this region range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C(3,632° F) or higher. Unless the ISS is made from lead, it should be an orbiting glob of molten metal.

Rebuttal: Ways to see for yourself: Shadows and Sticks

My opponent actually links a video to the rebuttal of this claim in his argument. Errortosthenes assumed that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away. This is a false assumption. V-sauce says that if the sun were much closer than the alledged 93,000,000 miles, the same results can be achieved. Crespicular rays proves to anyone that it is close.

He then restates the same argument.

Rebuttal Stargazing On A Round Earth:

My opponent claims that we should be able to see all the star constellation if we were on a flat earth. He seems to have no understanding of perspective. Objects overhead are high. as they move away frm us they appear to drop. Just as the railroad tracks appear to move into one another, the tops of the telephone poles appear to get lower. eventually the pole blends in with the horizon. The same thing happens with the stars.

In the next round, I'll handle my opponents rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 3


As much as I can agree ISS is not really 250-400 miles up, it's still high enough to see earth's curvature but NASA has sent probes to space taking pictures of earth but they all must be faked, right?

And trust me, we have been to the moon and seen a ball shaped earth

And back to topic

My opponent says that fisheye lens are the leading cause for seeing the curvature, this image proves otherwise.
Despite not using fisheye lens, we still see a nicely curved planet.

Although a lot of images are fake, not all are. Comparing NASA to movies is not the best idea.

Since the sun is apparently 3000 miles away instead of 93,000,000 why haven't we burned? The flat earthers never said the sun's true temperature which is 5,505 Celsius according to "globalists".

Here"s a simple experiment that should prove to any reasonable person that the Sun is more than 2500 miles away. Let"s say you live in New York (substitute other cities as appropriate). Measure the angular diameter of the Sun. It should be about 32R42;. Now call your friends in Los Angeles (2500 miles away) and London (3500 miles away in almost the opposite direction) and ask how large the Sun appears to them. If it appears to be roughly the same size in all three places, it is geometrically impossible for it to be only 2500 miles away.





Since this is the last round I'll just give the rebuttals and a short conclusion. Starting with one I left out of round 2. I missed it the first time. Probably because my opponent's source was a refutation for one of his own claims.

" The Verrazano Narrow-Bridge was designed with Earth's "roundness" in mind, it's 2 towers seperated by 1300m and perfectly vertical are nonetheless 41 milimeters further apart at the top than at the bottom because of Earth's curvature."

My issue is how exactly my opponent's hidden Easter egg source concludes that the two towers are vertical? Was a water level used to measure this? They may very well have built the bridge to allow for the earth's curvature,

This does not mean that the water it was built on was curved.

Round 3 rebuttals
My opponent offers a rebuttal of the gyroscope argument by showing a diagram and explanation of Foucault's pendulum. While they were invented by the same guy, they are entirely different. Which means he has no rebuttal for gyroscopes. There is no rule to prohibit new evidence in any round, I'll give a short rebuttal.

Foucault's pendulum

Woe is the gullible one who gets tricked by such idiocy. Whereas the crowds gather and gape in amazement as the pendulum is swung about on top of the earth, and the swinger explains that the earth moves under the pendulum instead of the obvious, the pendulum goes about over top of the earth! What of eclipses, and the effect they have on these swinging pendulums? During eclipses, the pendulum is known to change directions and speeds. Does my opponent claim this is proof of the earth changing directions and speeding up? If the earth moves about under a swinging pendulum, there should be no reason one shouldn't be able to, when bound on vacation, rent a hot air balloon, and make a trip intercontinental! Why if the earth moved as they say it does, over 1,000 miles per hour, I should make to from the east coast of the US to the west coast in a bit over 3 hours time.

Chicago Skyline

My opponent seems to have not even examined the evidence, has no idea how much the earth should curve in his model, and types a one liner rebuttal:
"Not sure about that because the Earth is big enough to feel and look flat."

Using the curvature calculator, We can deduce that most of Chicago should be hidden. There should be a 2100.7340 foot drop at 60 miles.

Since the tallest building in Chicago, Willis Tower, at 1,451 feet, is clearly visible, where it should be over 600 feet over the curvature of the earth, it stands to reason that the water on Lake Michigan is flat, aside from swells and waves. Since water is always found to be flat, and it is claimed to cover roughly 75% of the face of the earth, logically, the earth is flat.

"About his Christmas balls, I don't celebrate Christmas just so you know,"

That's very sad.

"but small balls are much different from ginormous balls because any ball that is as big as Earth can work like a flat ground and can even have a flat ground placed on it, Kansas is flat as a pancake yet Earth is an oblate ball."

My opponent claims that Kansas is flat, yet the earth is a ball. In order for a ball to... be a ball, every point on the earth must have some convexity to it. From any one point, the earth must, out of spherical geometry, curve away from you. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can calculate the amount of curvature by squaring the mile, and multiplying by 8 inches. I'm not sure my opponent will understand but let's see how much curvature is missing in Kansas if it is indeed flat.

If one were travelling from Kansas city, which is one the eastern border of Kansas, to Karonado, over on the west side, we would have to travel 451miles of road. 451 X 451 = 203,401
That's in inches. Divide that by 12 to get the missing feet: 16,950 feet. That's a 3.2 Mile high hump of road. Doesn't seem like a 3 mile high hump of road would look very flat.

I'll just go over my opponent's last round rebuttals.

"As much as I can agree ISS is not really 250-400 miles up"

My opponent concedes the ISS, and starts on a gish gallop with probes and the moon landings, which were proved fakes, even some ball earth proponents admit it.

He continues on his gallop by admitting that NASA fakes "a lot of images" but points to yet another picture from these tricksters, claiming there was no possible way to fake his last image, where the straight lines appear straight, as if a green screen doesn't exist.
He goes on with a straw man saying that I've claimed any distance to the sun, and assumes his model's temperature for the sun is absolute. It's obvious there is no amateur reading for the temperature of the sun, and it's even more obvious he has no idea how "globalists" attained this temperature of many thousands of degrees. He concludes with a last ditch effort involving the sun, swaying again, way off topic. While laughably claiming that three friends in three opposites of the world, all the way from New York to London are seeing the sun at the same time at all, let alone the same size sun. The sun doesn't change size because of atmospheric lensing. There is a lot of water in the atmosphere, in the form of gas. Trillions of tiny convex balls of water that is know to refract the light from objects. The more distance, the more water, the more magnification. Rob Skiba should be credited with this significant discovery.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
Which way were you leaning out of curiosity?
Posted by Evidence 9 months ago
I couldn't vote since I don't have 3 debates under my belt yet.
Posted by Youngastronomer 9 months ago
Neither is yours, it's not like you haven't gone full retard.
Posted by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
I think you have gone full retard. Nothing you say is in any way coherent.
Posted by Youngastronomer 9 months ago
Comparing a small sphere to a large sphere is like comparing a big box to a small box. A console can't fit in a small box but fits in a big box, same way a flat ground can't fit on a small ball but on a large ball (earth). And by your logic, a console can't fit in a big box.
Posted by Youngastronomer 9 months ago
I may only be 14, but I'm not a stupid fat teenager who hates school and facts.
Posted by Youngastronomer 9 months ago
Well, THEY have certainly went to the moon. The horizon is flat but insignificant to a large sphere. I don't trust something impossible (flat earth)
Posted by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
Sorry I don't trust you, I know a 14 year old hasn't been to the moon, trust me. So WE haven't been to the moon. They told you someone did.
Posted by Youngastronomer 9 months ago
And pictures showed a spherical ball shaped Earth
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cat47 9 months 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: Con argued with very well reasoned arguments including the specular highlight and gyroscopes, which Pro didn't try to refute., simply discussing how he doesn't celebrate Christmas and pendulums. The majority of Pro's arguments were inconsistent and he frequently brought up unrelated topics. Pro also brought up a straw man argument in R4.