The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
solo
Con (against)
Winning
117 Points

THE EARTH IS FLAT

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,564 times Debate No: 2617
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (32)

 

sadolite

Pro

The vast majority of scientists agree that the earth is flat and to think otherwise makes you a denier.
solo

Con

Thanks for creating this debate, sadolite. Best of luck to you!

<>

Actually, the vast majority of scientists agree that the Earth is round and to think otherwise makes you a mistaken.

As the burden of proof lies with you, I invite you to prove that the planet Earth is flat and not round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Welcome to the debate SOLO

A number of experiments were conducted to see if in fact the earth truly was flat. The first experiment that was conducted to see if the earth was flat was based on the theory that the earth was in motion as conventional thinking would have you believe.
There is a substance called "ether" not to be confused with the gas "either" that permeates everything and the void of space and is the medium through which all electromagnetic and light waves travel through, hence the word "wave" in order to create a wave it must travel through something that will impede its motion in order for it to generate a wave. That is why when scientists refer to the light spectrum they refer to the different colors of light as wave lengths. Different wave lengths generate different colors of light.
Conventional thinking would have you believe that the earth is in motion through space and not the fixed center of the universe.
An experiment was conducted to try and prove whether ether actually existed. In this experiment the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether in the void of space. They emitted a light pulse and calculated how far it trailed behind earth much like throwing something out of a car window in motion. It was assumed that the light pulse would fall back in one direction there by giving an absolute speed of the earth. The calculated speed was 0. Scientists were baffled by this and wondered how the earth could be sitting in one spot. With every aspect of conventional thinking being the earth is orbiting the sun and in motion. Moving quickly to not have to admit they were wrong they inferred that the substance did not exist and that light needed no medium at all to travel through. This is impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave. The inference was accepted by scientific community and the existence of ether was thrown out. A recent update: Scientists have recently suggested that the void of space is filled with a substance known as dark matter. (WAIT, DID I JUST PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS NOT MOVIVIG?) Light still needs a medium to travel through and even if the earth moved that medium would eventually slow it down until it came to a complete stop. I know you are saying what does this have to do with the earth being flat? It will become relevant as I go on.
It is assumed by some scientists that the earth is revolving around the sun at a radius of about 500 million kilometers. If this were so it would be an accelerated object in circular motion. There is an inherent problem with this because the earth would act no differently than say a car going around a corner at a high rate of speed. Loose objects would fly off of the earth just as loose objects in the car would fly around inside it. Conventional thinking would dictate there is centrifugal force acting on them. During the day things would be crushed on the inside of the orbit facing the sun, and things would be flung off into space at night.
Picture a round earth with one person standing on the South Pole, the top, and the other person on the North Pole, the bottom. Gravity is pulling the person on the top down, shouldn't the person on the bottom also be pulled down and then flung off into space?
Now you are probably saying to yourself, things aren't being crushed and things aren't being flung off the earth. In order for scientists who think the world is round they had to come up with a reason for none of this happening and were forced to assume that there was a gravitational pull radiating from the center of the earth. It explains objects not flying off the earth at night but not things being crushed during the day because a magnetic field would only intensify the centrifugal force if indeed the planet were moving. Scientists who believe that the earth is round were also forced to believe that all objects on earth had a "gravitational charge," thus drawing them to the center of the earth.
Any object that is exposed to a strong magnetic field for a long period of time will align itself to the magnetic fields charge. For example: If you take a small magnet like the ones they have in schools with a negative and positive charge. If you try to put opposite poles together they repel each other and vice versa Take that same magnet and turn the end that is opposite the magnetic field and it will realign itself to match the magnetic field over time.
Not all matter on earth is static, the atmosphere the oceans for example they are constantly moving. The earth has a north pole and a south pole. Conventional thinking would have you believe that all matter is held to the earth because the matter has magnetic charge that is aligned to the earth's magnetic field. The North Pole cannot have the same magnetic alignment as the South Pole under convention thinking. All objects on earth including the oceans and atmosphere would have to have a predetermined magnetic charge in relation to where they are on the earth in order for them to stay on the earth under conventional thinking.
It takes a very long time for any matter to realign its magnetic charge.
So any moving object that would travel to the opposite pole would be repelled off into space under conventional thinking.
The earth is flat.
solo

Con

You make some interesting points. I will address your points before I make my own.

<>

Wrong, as the Earth has an atmosphere and its own field of gravity drawing everything towards it, and the car does not.

<< Loose objects would fly off of the earth just as loose objects in the car would fly around inside it.>>

However nothing has ever gone flying off into space from Earth without the greatest efforts by humankind.

<>

Gravity and atmosphere blow your theory apart.

<>

Nonsense.

<>

No, you're making the mistake of associating north and south with up and down, respectively. North and South have no bearing on the constant pull of gravity.

< So any moving object that would travel to the opposite pole would be repelled off into space under conventional thinking.>>

Untrue, because if I were to go south of the equator, the Earth would not repel me into space. I know because I've been south of the equator many times and I was born and raised north of the equator.

<>

The Earth is round for the following reasons:

Three arguments come to mind. All of these date back to Greek times or
earlier.

1. During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is
always round. If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always
be circular (it could degenerate to a line), but this is never observed,
regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote
about this. The third point, below, is also credited to Aristotle.

2. Eratosthanes (276-195 BCE) did a famous experiment on measuring the
angle of the sun at noon in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Syrene. Finding the
difference in the angles and knowing the distance between the two points,
the circumference can be calculated.

3. If you travel north or south a signigicant distance, you will see a
different set of stars at night. This will not happen on a flat surface.

4. When ships sail out to sea, they sink below the horizon gradually.
First the hull goes down, then the masts. This suggests that the Earth's surface curves away and downward from wherever you stand. It's hard to observe this effect on land, because mountains and trees and so forth get in the way when something moves away from you before it dips below the horizon.

5. If you climb higher, you can see further. On top of a mountain or
lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground. For example, if
you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just
below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see
the Sun again. It is hard to explain why you can see further when you
climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you
wherever you stand.

6. When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly
overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away:

If you were to put a stick in the ground sticking straight up at noon
in New York City, then telephone a friend in Chicago to ask him to
also put a stick in the ground sticking straight up, he would see a
shadow, and you would not. This is hard to explain unless ``straight
up' (away from the Earth's surface) points in different directions
when you are at different places on the Earth's surface. That is, the
Earth is not flat, but round.

7. If you travel North, you can see stars at night which you never
saw before. Since there are so many stars, you only need to travel a
hundred miles or so. The new stars are stars that were hidden below
the horizon before you walked North. How could this be true if the
Earth were flat?

8. There are tides in the oceans, which you can see at the shore,
that repeat every 24 hours or so. If the Earth were flat, then there
would be no tides, because the tides depend on their being a
substantial distance between the near and far sides of the Earth, from
the point of view of the Moon.

The Earth is not flat. The Earth is round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

I need you to clarify how "Gravity and Atmosphere" would blow my theory apart before I can continue the debate.
solo

Con

You claimed that <>

Gravity and atmosphere blow your theory apart because if centrifugal forces were acting on us, without gravity and atmosphere, we'd be flying off into space.

Unfortunately, this is the last round. I think I did a sufficient job and proving that the Earth is not flat, but round. Also, you didn't take the opportunity to address any of my points in your argument, which you could've done without my explanation of how your argument fell apart.

Thank you very much for this debate, sadolite. Have a great weekend!
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Used to play FFXI, don't really anymore. Wasted a lot of my life on that one.
Posted by solo 6 years ago
solo
I play FoA. Do you play any online games?
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Lmao, what game dude?

I hate the character min!
Posted by solo 6 years ago
solo
I'm busy with my game at the moment. I check out debate.org to see if there are any good debates, but nothing looks worth arguing, so... I'll be back once "the war" (in my game) is over. Laterz~
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Solo! Where have you gone!?

grammatically correct.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Go to the earth is flat debates
Posted by Novan_Leon 6 years ago
Novan_Leon
I'm assuming there's some kind of reason behind debating something like this; can someone fill me in on why they would debate this?
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I'm sorry, I will admit when I'm wrong. I read through all of the comments in this debate and no personal attacks were made against me. But If I have to have a PhD. physics and a PHD in electrical engineering in order for my argument to be even listened to, yes, I am not qualified All I am asking is that the debate be judged on the quality. Again I don't believe the earth is flat. I want to approach this debate with a bit of levity. I guess I'm hyper- sensitive from my last debate with Tatorize. I will make my rebuttal tomorrow, as I have lots of questions to answer.
Posted by JasonMc 6 years ago
JasonMc
sadolite, it's funny to hear your stance regarding personal attacks, when several of the comments you've made on other debates are condescending and contain ridicule.
Posted by Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
Sadolite, I have made no personal attacks. I have made attacks against your false arguments. Your arguments in the comments section have veered from the topic, not me. I have only addressed what you have stated. In the debate I posed specific questions that I challenge you to answer, other than your supposed evidence that the Earth is flat. Your explanation that it must be because you can't explain the science of a spherical Earth is not relevant because you are neither an astronomer, a geologist, nor any other type of scientis as evidenced in your arguments. If you wish to duck my debate based on my comments here, then you are free to do so. The challenge is clear, and any worry about how I will debate should be of no concern if you have solid arguments against my premise.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Vote Placed by solo 5 years ago
solo
sadolitesoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
sadolitesoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 6 years ago
Sweatingjojo
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 6 years ago
Bnesiba
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by radical258 6 years ago
radical258
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 6 years ago
polka-dots323
sadolitesoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 6 years ago
liberalconservative
sadolitesoloTied
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