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

# Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Commondebator
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 8/1/2016 Category: Science Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 4,224 times Debate No: 94323
Debate Rounds (4)

112 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 7 months ago
Evidence you need?
https://youtu.be...
18:56
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
Saying, without evidence, that stars move a certain way in the sky does not prove the earth is a ball. Sorry.
Posted by Youngastronomer 7 months ago
Then why do stars "move counter clockwise" in UK and clockwise in Australia? They also look different, this does not work in a flat plane.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
The earth hasn't moved an inch since it's creation, you're listening to shills stay away from tfes, you sound like an idiot.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Here's something, flat-earthers outright ignore gravity and say it does not exist, since if it did, the whole flat-earth would fall apart since matter under the influence of a large gravitational attraction will come together to form a sphere. They say what we experience as gravity is the earth accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.81m/s^2 and it can do this since special relativity says that objects can accelerate infinitely without reaching the speed of light.

But this is a lie, special relativity actually dictates that an object can accelerate infinitely without reaching the speed of light, if the object's magnitude of acceleration decreases the closer it is to the speed of light.

To evaluate on the bogus that is the flat-earth lie, you may reach 299,792,458 m/s (1 m/s less than the speed of light) at an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. However, you cannot continue accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, because in 1 second you would be going 8.81 m/s faster than the speed of light. So, your acceleration would have to decrease, so that it would have to be less than the speed of light minus your current speed. Since the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, and the person's speed in this example is 299,792,457 m/s, the difference between the two is 1 m/s. So, the new acceleration would have to be less than 1 m/s^2. It could be 0.9 m/s^2 (although it may not be this), so that 1 second later the person would be traveling at 299,792,457.9 m/s, and the next second's acceleration would have to be less than 0.1 m/s^2. Therefore, an object can theoretically accelerate forever, but it cannot accelerate at the same magnitude forever. This means that, if the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2, after a certain amount of time it should approach the speed of light and "gravity" should appear to get rapidly weaker. Do we experience this?

Good luck rebutting.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
This argument makes me cringe

Why don't we feel the speed of the earth moving? seriously!

Ugh, at least pro is winning, good to see scientific/intellectual inferiority losing
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KthulhuHimself// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented an abundance of different pieces of evidence that Con did not properly address or refute, such as the argument stemming from the sun's angular size (which Con did not properly address), and the argument regarding the ISS' visibility (which Con attempted to refute, yet provided no evidence for his claims (that holograms could occur at such a height, where the atmosphere is not thick) and did not address the counter-rebuttal); furthermore, every piece of evidence presented by Con was properly refuted by Pro (such as restoring the burden of proof regarding the "infinite plane" argument, or explaining why the Chicago skyline is most definitely not a mirage); hence points for the best argument go to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly assesses specific points made by both sides and explains why they were or were not successful based on the accompanying evidence.
************************************************************************
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
"sun's angular size (which Con did not properly address)"

besides the university source that says atmosphere will magnify the sun's size? dishonest vote

"regarding the ISS' visibility"

I've stated logically that the ISS should not be reflecting the light from the sun at night, since it is in the E arths shadow? more b.s. did you even read the last round?

"why the Chicago skyline is most definitely not a mirage"

Another university study that states mirages ALWAYS have inversions? Which my opponent changes his stance on in the last round? Obviously a biased vote will report again
Posted by KthulhuHimself 2 years ago
I recast the vote; smaller, this time.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KthulhuHimself// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G isn't sufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain why one side's arguments were difficult to read, and not just pick out a few errors as a reason to award points. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. There was clearly a variety of sources presented by both sides, yet the voter reduces Con's sources to YouTube videos and Pro's sources to peer-reviewed articles. While this characterizes some of the sources they used, it is cherry-picking sources to award points. The voter is required to compare all sources made by each side, and not just the few they liked or didn't like.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.