The Instigator
Amorae
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Sukati
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Is the earth round or 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 5 votes the winner is...
Sukati
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,099 times Debate No: 58200
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Amorae

Pro

This debate will take place in 1500, so any arguments about pictures being taken of Earth are moot. I will be trying to prove that the earth is flat.
Sukati

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Amorae

Pro

thanks for accepting :)
There is no valid proof that the earth is actually round. Humans see and hear to find out about the world around them. Our eyes tell us that earth is flat and bumpy: pancake like.
Sukati

Con

Thanks for the interesting topic!

R1: "There is no valid proof that the earth is actually round."

Because Pro has BoP (burden of proof), pro must provide evidence that shows that the earth is flat, which he hasn't thus far. Also, there is plenty of evidence the earth is round, which I will provide after my rebuttals.

R2: "Humans see and hear to find out about the world around them. Our eyes tell us that earth is flat and bumpy: pancake like."

This is a logical fallacy. It is just like saying: "because I don't see you, you therefore don't exist."

C1: Evidence of a round earth is seen from the curvature of the horizon.

I do recognize that all picture being taken of the earth are not allowed in this debate, but Pro has not defined what he means by "earth." I am assuming pro means pictures of the earth like this: http://www.hdwallsource.com...

However, I do not think pictures to demonstrate the curvature of the earth are not fair game.


Source: http://theflatearthsociety.org...

Here we have a shot of what appears to be a city in the sea. However, if you were to move forward, you would see the land underneath.

Just so get the picture, I will expand on why it appears the city is "sinking."

When Christopher Columbus wanted to prove the earth was spherical, he did a little experiment. Columbus had a ship sail away into the distance. When the ship was far enough away, he noticed that the last thing he saw before it was out of view, was the mast. Here is a visual representation:


Source: http://resources.yesican-science.ca...

Just in case I have not already provided enough evidence, I will provide more evidence.


Source: http://theflatearthsociety.org...

As you can see, it appears there is a city on the horizon in the top picture. However, once you get over the curve, you can see that is actually a boat. This is due to the same principle that I explained through my example of Christopher Columbus and the mast experiment.

Because there is a curvature, this proves the earth is not flat, but rather spherical.

C2: You can sail around the world.
Clipper Route
Source: http://www.svmakara.com...

If the earth was flat, you would fall off the edge of the world. However, Joshua Slocum proved that you can sail around the entire world without falling off. Slocum sailed around the entire world. (http://www.joshuaslocum.com...) His route is shown above. This shows the earth is spherical, because you can go around and around again without falling off as shown below.


If the world was flat, this would happen:


By the way, does the earth just regenerate all the water that falls off?

In conclusion, because there is a curvature of the horizon and you can sail around the world (around being the key word) the earth is spherical. If the earth were flat, there would be no curvature, and you could not sail around the earth.
Debate Round No. 2
Amorae

Pro

I agree, your most positively, definitely, invariably right. Thanks for a good debate and points :)
Sukati

Con

I would also like to thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Amorae 2 years ago
Amorae
Sorry, I meant that it takes place in 500 BC
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Best arguments would relate to solar rays effect on the mantle, which wouldn't exist. Overloading and killing everyone. Then make a carbon containment argument. Probably end with a contention on the suns rotation, as it would not make since in a flat system.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Haha yeah, I was gonna copy-paste my lunar eclipse and horizon observation arguments :P
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
@Romanii, now that you've warned up, huh?
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I wanna accept this so bad....

Unfortunately I'm going out of town -_-
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by texans14 2 years ago
texans14
AmoraeSukatiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both parties were very respectful and had very good grammar in this debate. Pro failed to provide sources, and even arguments that would support why he thought the world is flat.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
AmoraeSukatiTied
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: concession
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 2 years ago
judeifeanyi
AmoraeSukatiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave in. Con did the rebuttals, gave a convincing argument and gave facts. Pro conceded after con's presentation.
Vote Placed by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
AmoraeSukatiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good conduct both sides. Grammar mistakes both sides. Pro did not fulfill burden of proof. Con used a semi-reliable source.
Vote Placed by IceClimbers 2 years ago
IceClimbers
AmoraeSukatiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: con was rude but more convincing argument and and some reliable sources which i found a few not