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

Is the earth round?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 78877
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




The Earth is round. This is the statement I will be defending in this debate. Feel free to join up if you believe the Earth is flat. The way this debate will work is:

R1: State what you will defend

R2 and R3: Give defenses

R4: Rebut your opponent's defenses

R5: Closing statements


I accept and I shall be arguing that the Earth is a large finite disk.
Debate Round No. 1


There is much proof that the earth is round. The stars are a huge solution to this issue. If the world was a flat, finite disk, then wherever you were on the world, you would see the same stars. However, there are southern hemisphere stars, northern hemisphere stars, and the Zodiac, which are seen by all of the world. Another proof the stars give is from one star in particular: the Sun. The Sun casts shadows on the Earth when in is rising and setting. When it is 12:00, however, there is no shadow. However, there are time zones on Earth, so where there is a shadow in one place, there is no shadow somewhere else, based on the time zone. If the world was flat, there would be no time zones and the shadows would all be the same. Another proof is seasons. The seasons change because of how much light hits a certain area on Earth. This occurs because the world is spherical, so some areas receive more light than others. The equator usually gets the most light, as it is closest to the Sun. The poles, however, receive very little sunlight because the light from the sun doesn't hit it directly. This is also why there is day and night. The Earth rotates the Sun, and, instead of all parts of the world becoming day and night simultaneously, they change from day and night periodically, as the Earth rotates on it's axis and sun light catches and misses parts of the Earth.
This is my primary argument proving that the Earth is flat.


Okay so let's get down to some crazy things for this wounderous debate.
So to clarify I will be debating that the Earth is flat by using the Neo-Classical Model with the following descripition.
  1. The earth is finite disk.
  2. The earth is being accelerate upwards at approximately 9.80665 m/s2.
  3. The earth is the only known "disk" in the universe.
  4. The laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame.
  5. The speed of light, measured in any inertial reference frame, always has the same value, c. (
Contention 1: Rotation of sun and the seasons.
Day/night cycle on a Flat Earth
One of the greatest questions you have right now is probably if the Earth is flat how does day and night work. Well the answer is actually that the Sun and the moon rotate around the Earth in a circular motion. As seen in the gif that I've provided above you can painly see that ti's a spotlight type roation as it rotates around the Earth illuminating only a certain portion of the Earth at a time simulating both night and day.

Here we can the if we were a photon that the Earth would shrink to ironically the same thickness that I have previously described. Here is a simulator that shows the exact same thing. (
Seasons in Flat Earth Theory
Seasons are explained above. As the Sun moves closer to the poles it becomes colder in the northern hemisphere while when the Sun is closer to the equatro it is actually summer time. (
If we use the above model we can see that the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. Though the other planets may orbit the sun we can see that the sun and the rest of the solar system orbits around the Earth.
Further proof that the Earth is flat is when we observe cosmic rays and that they travel the speed of light. Now if we look at the simulator that I have provided you we can see that as things approach the speed of light they are flattend. ( rays called Muans are better known to collide in our atmosphere and we shouldn't be recieving barely any, however we get a whole lot more then expected, but since they're going so fast the Earth is flatter and the distance they have to cover is a whole lot closer. If you were a proton moving 99.999999% the speed of light you can see that the Earth would only appear to be 17 meters thick.
Contention 2: Gravity

Now before you jump to several statements that Gravity should collapse the Earth into a sphere there is just one problem with that. Gravity doesn't exist. How in the world is this you may ask. Well you can see that the Earth is actually accelerating up at the acceration of 9.88 meters per second. This explains Newton's gravitationial theory, but Newton was incorrect here. ( the increased accerlation it becomes apparent that this also causes you to be shorter at the end of the day. Now to further this I would like to clarify that gravitation, not gravity exists. This explains the tides as stars and the moon/other celestial bodies all have slight gravitationial pull.
Here is a list on how they are different in order to clarify the debate up a tad bit.

- Gravity or the gravitational field is a vector field, while gravitational force is only a vector.

- Gravity lies in the radial direction from the mass, while gravitational force is in the direction of the line connecting the two masses.

- Gravitational field requires only one mass, while two masses are required for gravitational force.

- Gravitational force is equal to the product of the mass of the test object and the gravitational field intensity. (

Now I want you to imagin living on this Earth, which as I showed earlier is just a flat disk. The gravitational force is actually angled to the point to where as you get further and further away from the center (the north pole) you can see that the increasing gravitationial force would cause you to want to fall back towards the center and not want to go towards the edge of the Earth. The people living away from the north pole would have their living conditions inclined in order to meet such a force. It would feel like you are trying to clime up a steeper and steeper hill. Contary to belief you wouldn't fall off the edge due to the gravitationial vector pointing back towards the north pole, the actual fear would be falling off the edge and rolling back towards the center as shown in the picture above.

Debate Round No. 2


This is my source for this portion of the debate. I will now give some proof not already stated in my previous proof. As the document states, ships or other objects "emerge" from the horizon. Although it may not be obvious to look at the horizon, it is slightly rounded, so when things become closer and go over the slight curve, things become visible. If the world were flat, then you would be able to see objects as long as they were large enough to see.
Also, being on a flat earth means that anyone can see the same distance high up as someone can see on the ground. However, a curved Earth causes people higher up to be able to see over the slight curve, and those lower see until the curve is too curved.
Also, from high up, such as on a plane, you can actually see the curve of the earth.
Another proof is images from space, that clearly show that the earth is round.
Image result for earth from space
In this picture, you can see the Earth is obviously a circle. You could still say this is a flat picture, but then only North and South America would exist.

Another proof is the fact that a flat earth would mean those who were "on the edge" would fall off in to nothingness.

This is the second half of my proof. Rubuttal time.



First, I would like to make a massive ground breaking argument here that my opponent cannot possibly defeat. It is that of a circle.

Round- moving in or forming a circle (

Sphere- a three-dimensional shape that looks like a ball (

A great premise of this debate is that we are arguing that the Earth is round. However, if we observe the actual definitions we can see that it is clearly obvious that the resolution is refusing to a circle. Meaning that the Earth would have to be a flat 2d circle. I have argued that the earth is flat, but since it has depth it is a cylinder. Thus still a 3D object. So really my opponent is supposed to be arguing that the Earth is just a flat circle.

With that I pass things back off to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 3


Okay, so you say you have won with that statement. Then why are you voting con if you have voted against my reasoning? Spheres are still round. So we are both pro in the statement that the Earth is round. So that this turns back into a debate, why don't we change things back to this: is the earth a sphere. You say it is a finite disk, I say it is like a ball. So lets keep debating what we believe, shall we?
Galileo has proved that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. He used the Sun, Jupiter's moons, phases of Venus, and other heavenly proof to show that Earth is not the center of the universe, but instead just a random point in the universe.


My opponent is confused here. I am arguing that the Earth is a finite disk while he is arguing that the Earth is a Sphere, a 3D figure. The resolution states that he must defend a 2D figure. However, I will accept his changes.

My opponent has only made two valid arguments against my case and they are

1. The Earth is not the center of the universe

2. Star positions

I'll address them in order.

Contention 1: Earth IS the center of the universe.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the Earth IS the center of the universe. Craig argues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is expanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [1] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinite the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exist in an infinite chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somewhere. Expanding upon that argument we can see that if the universe began at one point we can still see that it expanded so fast that the universe is infintesmenally expanded so far that we cannot fathom it. Stephen Hawkins even argued that this is an ironic proof that the Earth is the center of the universe since we do not know where the boundaries are we can only assume under that method that ever point of the universe is the center until we find an edge, but until then the Earth has to be the center of the universe. [2]

Contention 2: Curvature of Earth

Here, again, I'm going to default to Stephen Hawkins in his book, A Brief History of Time." Here he argues for the theory of space-time. The star's have a large enough graitational force that it causes light to become bent. Due to the Sun being so close to the Earth we can see that there is an extreme bending of these star's light that causes them to appear in places they're not. My opponent then tries to go around that and argue for time zones, but this was already addressed in my second round.

Since I have nothing else left to refute I extend all other points and I'll pass things back off to Pro again.


  1. (Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.)

  2. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkins

Debate Round No. 4


In my closing statement of this debate I want you, the voters, to know that the Earth is a sphere, as proved by all points I have given. Whether my opponent likes it or not, his defenses are merely theories. It has been universally accepted and proved that the Earth is definitely a spherical figure, as scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, and Hipparchus, inventor of trigonometry and the one who found that the earth is spherical using shadows. The Earth is round, hands down.

Thank you lannan13 for joining me in this debate. Good luck, and voters, vote for the Pro in this debate.


To come full circle here in this debate, we can offically see that the Earth is flatt. My opponent's arguments were not only negated, but he has dropped many of my own arguments just shrugging them off as merely just theories. Then again isn't gravity just a "theory?" We can see that the view of size is subjective as I have shown that from a certain veiw that the Earth is a finite disk. Modern scientists indirectly support my own arguments like Stephen Hawkins and Criag.

I urge our voters to vote Con. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gocubsgo25 1 year ago
@elatia.g Exactly!
Posted by elatia.g 1 year ago
Of course the Earth is round! If it were flat, ships would fall off when they reached the edge.
Posted by gocubsgo25 1 year ago
Yes lovetheworld4real, this is what I believe. But this is my debate, and I don't need you giving further evidence.
Posted by Lovetheworld4real 1 year ago
All of you say the earth is flat because you're looking at the smaller picture, if you look at a circles lines very close up they appear flat, but if you zoom out you see a perfect circle. Oh, and have any of you heard of gravity? Plus how would we be able to travel around the world without falling off the edge? Do you ever notice that the open ocean seems round? That's because it is. Does anyone know any science?😂
Posted by Lovetheworld4real 1 year ago
Round doesn't imply a perfect circle but a round figure like a rock. We have proof that the earth is round in satellite pictures. A disk makes no logical sense.
Posted by Debater930 1 year ago
One must simply ask, what is round? The Earth does resemble a spherical body, but remove all the water (from the centripetal force + gravitational pull at the center), and you find a very deformed rock. Mathematically the Earth is no where near round, as round implies an abstract curving perfection. But for an easy way to describe this planet, it is indeed round-ish. From space, the 2D presentation we find from our own perspective does make the planet seem circular in shape.

Thus I conclude, and I believe, that the Earth is round-ish
Posted by gocubsgo25 1 year ago
People! Stop just commenting your ideas! Join the debate!
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
THE EARTH IS CLEARLY FLAT!!! If the earth was round then the ground would be a slope, but it's not. Round-earthers clearly do not see this. The evidence is right in front of them but they still refuse because they have been brainwashed into believing the liberal agenda of a round earth doctrine. It's shameful.
Posted by gocubsgo25 1 year ago
If you think the earth is flat, then join the debate!
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
No, the Earth is clearly flat. Just look down the street. Do you see it curve? No, I didn't think so.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No offense to Pro, but they did a poor job. The Con's position is so absurd, it should have been a slam-dunk free points debate, even after a 6-pack and a bottle of Tequila. The arguments for a round earth were reasonable, but not well established, and relevance poorly established. Con's model, though obviously completely ridiculous and with numerous holes, accounted for most of the points. The few it didn't well account for were not expanded on by Pro. However, I'd like to note that Con's model does not ACTUALLY address shadows, gravity or changing positions of the stars, just Pro didn't explain why. For that, you'd have to get into math, not just as "imagine this picture", but angles and deltas. Also, the model does not address not "fall[ing] off in to nothingness," which was an argument Con didn't actually address. But there's SO MANY different ways to demonstrate the earth is roughly spherical that Pro failed to raise, I have to give Con the win.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year 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: This is really a clear win for Con throughout this debate. He has already refuted Pro?s case. But, anyway, Con has already stated his position in the first round of the debate that is to prove that the earth is a large finite disc. He uses the Neo?s classical model to begin his case that the earth is a large finite disc. His contention of rotation of sun & seasons and gravity are well articulated in his second round of the debate. The rebuttal of Con that the earth is the center of the universe is good by claiming that the universe is expanding. As what I have already mentioned here, there are one more point left in the debate. With all the above reasons, my vote goes to Con.