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

The Earth exists as an oblate spheroid

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,878 times Debate No: 75690
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)




Pro has the burden of proof.
They will begin arguments this round and waive the last round.

1. Semantics/trolling not allowed
2. You must waive the last round. This means not saying anything more than "I waive the final round" and some thanks to me if I deserve them. You must also begin the debate in the first round.
3. No forfeits.
4. Be civil
Failure to comply with these rules will result in a loss.

exists: has objective reality
oblate spheroid: An oblate spheroid is a surface of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis [wolframalpha]
This is the shape of an oblate spheroid:

Thank you whoever accepts.


I don’t know why Con wants to debate this. The shape of the earth is a fact of generalized knowledge so universally well known that it cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. Con states that Pro has the burden of proof, but does not state the required degree of certainty which must be demonstrated. Clear and convincing evidence should be sufficient. I need not demonstrate the truth of the proposition beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Con says in the comments section that “I just want pro to prove an oblate spheroid earth, they don't have to meet the definition 100%, just a very close approximate.” So, I don’t have to demonstrate that the earth is a geometrically perfect oblate spheroid. I can ignore features like canyons, undersea trenches, mountains, or other negligible variations in local topography.

I suppose the most straight forward evidence would be that people and machines went high above the earth and took pictures and videos for everyone to see.

Evidence of the earth’s spherical shape:

NASA says so:

A video from the International Space Station:

A picture of the earth from near the moon:

Many pictures of the earth from the Galileo space probe:

NASA put these pictures from the Galileo space probe together to form a rotational earth video:

Evidence of the earth being oblate –

NASA indicates it –

Equatorial radius (km) 6378.1

Polar radius (km) 6356.8

A credible astronomer explains it –

“but because the earth is spinning, it is about 21.5 kilometers flatter at the poles, and bulged-out at the equator by about the same amount.” (The scientist)

Systemic errors in lightning ground strike tracking systems that assume that the earth is a perfect spheroid have been dramatically reduced by taking in to account the oblate spheroid shape of the earth –

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to Death23 for accepting this debate. To the reader: pro is correct in saying that I don't want them to meet the definition of an oblate spherical earth completely, just a very close approximation when you look at the Earth as a whole.

NASA says so:
Right off the bat, I run into a major problem with this source, and not just because there is a logical fallacy in the wording (appeal to authority is the logical fallacy at play. I can say "Obama thinks that cheese pizza is the best", but the validity of my claim is only based off of who made the claim, not the scientific evidence behind the claim). What pro's source has a problem of doing is acknowledging that an [oblate] spherical shape of the earth is not a requirement for climactic zones or for the differential heating of the earth, though I do concede that this is one possiblity. A possibility, not having an objective reality, as shown in the definitions that my opponent has accepted.
Pro's source has this picture, which shows most of the solar radiation coming to the equator:
s://; alt="" />
but a spherical earth is not a requirement for solar radiation to come to the equator the most. If the earth was flat and the sun orbitted above it, then you would see the Sun's radiation coming down continously at around the equator. Here is a diagram of a possiblity of how differential heating can occur on earth:

As you can see, the sun is moving above the earth at roughly the equator, which disproves the necessity of an oblate spherical earth for differential heating.

The source also says that climactic cells and wind cells require a flat earth, but let me give you a diagram that I made in less than 1 minute on MS Paint.

What this means is that the heat from the equator will go to the nearest cold area (hot -> cold is how heat works), and that a spherical earth has NO impact on whether this phenomenon exists or not.

I know that this is not a refutation to my opponent's source or argument, but I know that this will be brought up when he is defending himself against my attacks. The sun will move more "north" or more "south", depending on what season it is. Because it is known that during summer in the northern hemisphere, there is more light, please refer to my diagram (this will require moving the page because of the size of the image):

Video from ISS:
First, I thank my opponent for setting the link to be at an exact time, this helps me see what point he was trying to make.
However, no matter how good this looks, this does not mean that this video is true. I could provide you with a video of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and say that pegasi and unicorns exist in the real world. My claim is equally as valid as yours is, because you did not directly say how this video proves anything at all. I can edit a video to show my father being John Fitzgerald Kennedy, but that does not mean that he actually was.

Moon picture:
And here is a picture of the milky way, but that does not mean that we went outside of the milky way to capture an image of it [1]. Perhaps this picture you gave me was just a rough estimation based on outdated information of the earth?

What caught my eye is this image [2], from the source that you provided. There are not four earths, so this image must have been doctored or edited in a way to display for images of earth.
What this means is that your entire source displaying images of the earth is false, because if there is one false image that was edited intentionally, then who is to say that none of the others were edited intentionally to lie to the public?

Evidence of the earth being oblate & NASA indicates it:
Did you forget to fill these out before submitting? If so, that is okay, but if you did then you cannot bring these points back into the debate.

What this could potentially mean is shown in an image that I created myself, because it is hard to explain this idea in words.

The distance between pole one and pole two (pole one is called center) can be called the 'polar' radius.
The distance between opposite sides of the equator can be called 'equitorial'.
My opponent's fact of distance does not help his case to prove that the earth is an oblated sphere.

Credible Astronomer:
Where's the proof of his claim?
Again, President Obama is a credible source, but that does not mean that he can decide what kind of pizza is the best without any sorts of research.
And should an astronomer really be worrying about the shape of the earth? Astro- relating to stars; a studier of the stars.
Geo- relating to the earth. A geologist should be making this claim instead of someone who is meant to study something unrelated.
This is comparable to a very credible heart surgeon telling you about the economy... we have no reason to believe this claim of his, even if he is credible in another field.

Systematic Errors:
I am not sure what this means. If I cannot decipher the meaning of this claim, then I doubt it is any help to your case.


Thank you to Death, it was fun making these pictures and writing this out.
I have successfully refuted my opponent's entire case (or lack of a case, because he did not provide any logical conclusions from his sources, only gave me sources), and his sources (which was basically his case). He has not met the BoP because none of what he said can factually prove the earth is an oblate spheroid, so vote con.


One of Con's images may or may not be appearing appropriately for all users. Con requested that I posted a link to it in this round. Here is the link:

"NASA says so” is a persuasive argument, it isn’t fallacious, and I stand by it. An appeal to authority frequently isn’t a fallacious form of argument. This page explains what’s going on rather well:

You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority's words.

NASA is an authority on this particular subject. NASA can be trusted to tell the truth about this subject. There is no significant disagreement among the experts on this subject. I did not misquote NASA. NASA has no reason to lie about this. There is no reason to be suspicious of NASA’s claims.

Con compares my reasoning to drawing the conclusion that cheese pizza is the best because Obama says so. This comparison is inapt because Obama is not an authority on that particular subject, among other reasons.

Con then goes on to discuss the climatic heating, but I didn’t talk about this when I was making my case. All I said was that “NASA says so” to support my contention that the shape of the earth is spherical. I then linked to a NASA article. The title of the article is “The Spherical Shape of the Earth” and the first words from the article are “Because the Earth is a sphere”. The purpose of the linked article was to demonstrate that NASA says that the earth is spherical.

In any case, Con shows an animation depicting the sun, perhaps as some alternative explanation for day/night cycles or climactic heating. The explanation is ridiculous. The proposed movement of the sun and the moon violate Newton’s first law of motion.

They keep going in circles without any proferred explanation for their constant change in direction.

Second, Con’s proposed shapes of the continents are not consistent with observation, particularly Antarctica and Australia. In his images, Antarctica goes around the entire earth and Australia is flat as a pancake, but actual images taken of Antarctica and Australia by the Galileo space probe show Con’s proposed shape of these continents to be false –

Image source:

Third, there have been scores of expeditions to the South Pole and journeys across the Antarctic continent dating back to the 1500s, but nobody has ever found the edge of the earth as it’s depicted in Con’s images. They are listed in this Wikipedia article:

Con goes on to assert that my images and videos are fakes. Con has no reasonable basis for these assertions. Mere speculation that evidence might be doctored is argumentatively insufficient to impeach it.

For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, Con provides a link to an image that he asserts is of the Milky Way galaxy -

Con is mistaken. It isn’t a picture of the Milky Way galaxy. It’s a picture of the Andromeda galaxy that, for some reason, has been labeled as milkyway.jpg. You can tell that the galaxies are the same because of the shared locations of bright clusters of stars.

Second image source and association with Andromeda galaxy here:

Con then leads in to a discussion regarding the radii figures I grabbed from NASA. Con’s second drawing doesn’t depict a radius. Rather, Con’s second image depicts the diameter of the smaller circle. I’m not quite sure what Con is trying to show with these drawings.

Con again attacks the appeal to authority argument, but without good cause. Con argues that I have appealed to an improper authority (“This is comparable to a very credible heart surgeon telling you about the economy”). This isn’t the case. An astronomer is an appropriate authority for the subject at hand – The shape of the earth. The earth is a celestial body, and the shape of it is within the scope of the science.

Con doesn’t appreciate the significance of the study regarding lightning strike data. The study showed that if the computer programs assumed the earth was an oblate spheroid as opposed to a perfect sphere, then the accuracy of the lightning strike data would be increased. If the earth was perfectly spherical, but not oblate, then this wouldn’t be the case. That was the purpose of the evidence.

Debate Round No. 2


First, a major thank you to Death23 for providing a link to the image. I don"t know how it failed to upload if all of my other images loaded correctly, but regardless, thank you.

NASA says so:
I stick by with my idea that just giving me a source and saying "NASA says so" is a logical fallacy, which is at its core an error in judgement or a flaw in reasoning. Just because someone may say something is true does not immediately prove that something is true, especially if the content which the source says is false. I go back to my refutations to your case, where a flat earth can also have climactic cells, which directly refutes you using your source to prove that it has to have a spheroid earth.
I"m sorry for saying that you used an appeal to authority logical fallacy, I understand now that this is false. But this does bring up an interesting thought: who is to say that NASA is not lying to us all? A lot of people do believe that the moon landing was faked (and there is some validity to those claims, let"s be honest)... who is to say that they are not going out to "space" as a lie to keep us believing in their claims [1].
In any case, most of the defense that you had for this was just the fallacious argument that I thought that you had made, as opposed to actually defending my attacks on the article itself. True, NASA may have said it, and they might be an authority, but their proof for a spheroid earth is not really enough to prove. The article said that climactic cells prove that the earth is spherical, but I proved that this is not the case.
Regardless if what you are citing is an authority on a subject or not, the source has to actually prove the claim that you are making and must be free from attack. I attacked the entire source, so it does not back up your point of "NASA says so".

Animation of Sun:
We cannot know how the Sun started to spin about the earth in this particular fashion, but my hypothesis based upon Newton"s First Law of Motion. I think that the sun was pushed by some sort of force (again, we do not know what caused it, just a hypothesis) that made it have a major spin going to the left, which would make it go around the earth. There is enough debris that would push it along, because in a vacuum this motion is impossible, of course.

Australia and Antarctica:
What I gave you is just an estimated map. If you are in favor of an oblong spherical earth, then you are probably in favor of a lot of 2D maps that do not show everything to scale. The Mercator Projection, one of the most popular 2D maps, shows Greenland being almost the same size as Africa, which is a wild claim to make [2]. Does that mean that they are equal, just because it appears on a map to be so? No, it does not mean this at all. So what is my opponent refuting? My use of a map when he likely supports a map that is just as bad, or dare I say, even worse?

Antarctic Expeditions:
We have not been on Jupiter yet I believe it is safe to assume that it exists.
Just because we have not seen it does not mean it does not exist.

Faked Images:
I do have a reasonable basis for saying that the images and videos that you cited are faked, because other photographs that you cited were, in fact, edited. Look at the four earths picture that I pointed out, this is obviously doctored, yet NASA still holds this photo. It is not reasonable to assume that all photos are real when one is obviously not.

Milky Way:
I am sorry for assuming that the picture I gave you was believed to be the Milky Way when it is in fact Andromeda galaxy, this was an honest mistake.
I remember being a kid and seeing many posters that had pictures of the Milky Way galaxy that had NASA as the source for the photos at the bottom. I cannot find any at this time, but they do exist. What this means is that NASA took a picture from a distant galaxy, even though they claim to never have been past Pluto. Obviously the photos that I remember seeing on posters in astronomy and science fairs made by NASA were faked, and we cannot really believe any other photos that they claim to have if they often fake photos.

Mathematically it is equal to a radius.
X54; will be the symbol that I will use to denote a circle. X54;A is inside of X54;B, where the radius of X54;A is " of that of X54;B (because the radius of X54;A ends at the equator, the exact center). If we allow the radius of X54;B to equal 2, the radius of X54;A is exactly 1.
The circumference of a X54;n is 2*pi*r, so X54;B = 2*pi*2, or 4pi, and X54;A = 2*pi*1, or 2pi.
X54;A+X54;A = 2pi+2pi = 4pi.
X54;B = 4pi.
X54;A+X54;A = X54;B, so X54;A = 1/2X54;B.
The radius of X54;A s " of X54;B, so this is logical.
Of course, one can not say that a flat earth is perfectly circular, since it is probably elliptical, but this is the simplified proof.

Yes, you are appealing to authority by saying someone well respected in an unrelated field has the authority to say something in this field. Geology is the study of the earth, astronomy is the study of the heavens (or space). These are not mutually inclusive fields, so we cannot say he has the authority to make these claims.




1. It has come to my attention that Con is most likely female and I have been using masculine pronouns to refer to Con. I will continue to do so for the sake of consistency and brevity.

2. Con has not specified the degree of certainty to which I must demonstrate that the earth is approximately an oblate spheroid. I suggested in Round 1 that clear and convincing evidence should be sufficient. Con has not made any objection to this. Clear and convincing evidence generally means that you, as a voter, must be persuaded that it is highly probable that the fact is true based upon the evidence shown. (See, e.g. CACI 201 - page 118)

Rebuttals –

Con again asserts that my argument from authority is fallacious –

“I stick by with my idea that just giving me a source and saying ‘NASA says so’ is a logical fallacy”

Con then appears to backpedal on this position –

“I’m sorry for saying that you used an appeal to authority logical fallacy, I understand now that this is false.”

Disregarding Con’s lack of clarity on this for the moment, I will respond to Con’s reasoning:

Just because someone may say something is true does not immediately prove that something is true, especially if the content which the source says is false.”

An argument from authority is not a deductive argument that asserts the truth of the matter with absolute certainty. It’s an inductive argument which concludes that the proposition is most likely true provided that the authority actually is an authority on the subject and can be trusted to tell the truth about the subject.

In any event, the allegedly false content of the article that Con is referring to is imaginary. Con asserts that the NASA article - - states “that climactic cells prove that the earth is spherical.” Con is mistaken. The claim that climactic cells prove the earth is spherical is not made by the article. I don’t understand why Con seems to believe that the article makes that claim.

Con then speculates, without any reasonable basis, that NASA may be lying to us:

who is to say that NASA is not lying to us all? A lot of people do believe that the moon landing was faked (and there is some validity to those claims, let"s be honest)... who is to say that they are not going out to "space" as a lie to keep us believing in their claims

Setting aside the debate over the moon landing, there is a difference between that subject and the subject of this debate. NASA is an arm of the United States government and the United States was involved in a competitive “space race” with the Soviet Union during the time of the (alleged) moon landings. The United States would win the space race by landing on the moon. NASA had an obvious reason to lie about that subject, and couldn’t necessarily be trusted to tell the truth. In contrast, NASA has no reason to lie about the shape of the earth. Con merely speculates that NASA could be lying, but this is insufficient to impeach NASA.

Con then asserts that NASA “has to actually prove the claim that you are making and must be free from attack.” This isn’t true at all. An argument from authority is a reasonable method of discerning what is most likely true based on trust and credibility as opposed to an independent inquiry in to the supporting evidence. Furthermore, simply because an argument is attacked doesn’t mean that it’s a bad argument.

Con’s explanation for the movement of the sun in his model is not satisfactory. Con speculates baselessly “that the sun was pushed by some sort of force that made it have a major spin going to the left, which would make it go around the earth.” This explanation is not consistent with Newton’s first law of motion. A constant change in direction would require the application of a constant force as opposed to an initial push.

Con’s argues that the errors found within his map are to be expected because his map is “just an estimated map.” Con then uses an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy “you are probably in favor of a lot of 2D maps that do not show everything to scale.” ( )

Obviously, the use of flat maps is expedient because paper is flat. I am “in favor of a lot of 2D maps” but that doesn’t mean that I believe that they accurately depict the shapes of the continents. The fact that there are substantial distortions of the shapes of the continents on 2D maps, particularly at extreme latitudes, is supportive of the notion that the earth is spherical. If the earth were flat, as Con suggests, then there wouldn’t be so many distortions on 2D maps.

Con then asserts that simply because we haven’t discovered the edge of the earth doesn’t mean that the edge doesn’t exist. Con compares this to our acceptance of the existence of Jupiter.

First, Jupiter is visible with the naked eye. Second, if a reasonably thorough search is undertaken for a particular thing and the thing in question is not discovered, then it is reasonable to conclude that the particular thing does not exist. The earth has been thoroughly explored and no “edge” has ever been discovered.

Con attempts to explain the photos and videos I cited by asserting that he has a "reasonable basis for saying that the images and videos that [Pro] cited are faked." Con's allegedly reasonable basis is that some of the photos were edited. This isn't a reasonable basis. Simply because an image is edited doesn't mean that the image is faked or doctored. Deceit is required for that, and there isn't any. NASA doesn't try to trick us by claiming that the "four earths picture" is a single image. Rather, NASA states unequivocally that picture is a composite of four separate images:

"Each of these images is a color composite, made up using images taken through red, green, and violet filters. The four images are part of the Galileo Earth spin movie, a 256-frame time-lapse motion picture that shows a 25-hour period of Earth's rotation and atmospheric dynamics."

RE: Milky Way

I believe Con when he says that he made an honest mistake. However, I have trouble believing the following:

“I remember being a kid and seeing many posters that had pictures of the Milky Way galaxy that had NASA as the source for the photos at the bottom. I cannot find any at this time, but they do exist.”

I do not accept Con’s claim that NASA was the source for the remembered poster. Obviously, Con has a reason to lie – The evidence would be in his favor. Perhaps Con is again mistaken and remembers things incorrectly. Perhaps Con saw an artist’s rendition of the milky way and not an actual photo. NASA does publish these, e.g.:

Of this image, NASA states the following - “Artist's concept of the Milky Way Galaxy”

In any event, I am under no obligation to explain Con’s memories. There’s an obvious conflict of interest whenever a debater uses personal memories as evidence. Note: Con also claims that NASA claims “to never have been past Pluto.” NASA doesn’t claim that. Voyager 1, Voyager 2, and other probes (e.g. Pioneer 10) are all further away from the sun than Pluto.;

RE: Radius

I'm not going to attempt to decipher what Con is saying with all of the equations. They mean nothing to me.

RE: Astronomer as a relevant authority on the shape of the earth

For some reason, Con asserts that astronomers do not study the earth. Astronomers do study the earth as a celestial body. I don't have much more to say about this beyond what I said in the prior round.

Debate Round No. 3


I start off this round by conceding my "Galaxy" point. The purpose of this was to say that NASA had faked images, but I cannot find them, so I concede that this is likely false. This does not, however, dscount my entire case. Just a lack of evidence for one claim, which I am conceding to be false with current knowledge.
I do object to pro saying that the voter must be persuaded for an argument to be clear and convincing. An example is an abortion debate, where the voter may be pro-life, but the pro-choice debater made several more better points and honestly won the debate. The voter would not be persuaded to vote for pro-choice after this debate if their view did not change, even if they were the better debater. I am allowed to defend an obscure viewpoint but not necessarily persuade all others to believe in this obscure viewpoint (take for example my 0 = 3 debate). In law this may be the case, but this is far from law.

NASA says so:
I meant that you did employ a different type of fallacious reasoning when making your claim. Just saying "NASA says so" is not an argument, it is just giving a source with a title.
I did not mean an appeal to authority fallacy, rather, a different one.
I will not be debating this any more, it is just beating a dead horse, and I am sure the voters appreciate me stopping this fallacious argument.
Remember that this debate is about the shape of the earth, not if my opponent did X fallacy or Y fallacy.

Under an article titled "The Spherical Shape of the Earth", released by NASA, they speak of climactic cells and show a diagram of a spherical earth. This is an attempt to show the reader that climactic cells prove that the world is spherical, because there is no other proof in this article that the world is spherical. We must assume that pro meant for the climactic cells to prove the spherical-ness of the earth, because no other proof in this source was provided.
I employ the example of President Obama speaking of the current crisis in the Middle East. Is he an authority on this subject? Of course, he is in charge of nearly all foreign "wars". But what if he says that 99% of all people in Syria are atheists that are fighting because they like dogs? Well... he is an authority, so he must be correct. But he isn't, when you actually look at the proof. This is an absurd claim, and I hope you, the reader, take note of this.

I only brought up the moon landings as a sort of off-hand thinking. If NASA lied about that, then how do we know they are not lying about this? I concede, this is not the core of this debate, it was just an off-topic thought that I did not delve into much detail about. In an attempt to find more thoughts of mine to attack, pro attacks this, even if it is unrelated to the debate. Please do not vote based off of this argument, because it is not related to the debate in any fashion.

I do not have to prove that the motion of the sun is completely the way that it is shown in this diagram. Perhaps the Earth is moving underneath the Sun? This would disprove my thoughts that the Sun is moving around the Earth, and give you the win, even if you are not meant to prove that. You are meant to prove that the world is an oblate spheroid, and with your sources and ideas attacked, this is not met.

I was comparing my map to a map of the Earth. The 2D map of a spherical earth shows misrepresentative data for places, just as my map does, so I was saying that attacking the data of my map is not valid. It is not fallacious to assume this and to say this.

Ice Wall:
We have not died so we cannot rule out an afterlife.
Please successfully disprove something that is not observable. It is not possible, since all physical things have a possibility of existing. You, me, Obama... we all have a possibility of existing. Regardless if we study it or not, there is a possibility.

Four Earths:
An edit of a photo without an actual justification is fishy. Four different photos would be a better course of action rather to deceive the onlooker. One falsified image for the onlooker is just as bad as all of them being falsified, because we cannot prove their validity.

Milky Way:
As aforementioned, I concede this point.

Sorry, I have my thoughts mixed up. I thought that the original course of action was to go to Pluto, and this had not been acheived (, so I thought that they had not gone beyond it. Concede this point due to misinformation.
Though this concession does not prove the existence of a round earth.

Just a mathematical proof that what I drew is a radius of a circle, though it is probably an ellipse, so I simplified the data.

The role of an astronomer is to "find new things in the universe" [1], not to prove or disprove if the earth is a sphere.
My own source directly proves my point, while your claim that astronomers study the earth is sourceless.


Please remember to waive R5.
Thank you for a fun debate and for letting me wake up all of the SHEEPLE of this earth that the world is flat. 'Till next time.


Round waived per rule #2.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
I was trying to justify the thinking of the Flat Earth Society since I joined their forums. They claim the BoP is on round-earthers, so I tried to justify flat earth.
I should have conceded but I felt that was unfair to you, good job <3
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
Posted by Death23 3 years ago
You really think it's flat?
Posted by Death23 3 years ago
Voyager link's supposed to be instead of
Posted by angrymen 3 years ago
Con if you want real proof look at earths shadow in a lunar eclipse.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
Okay, so I can't submit that in the comments either. It is a circle with a line through the center, the closest thing to a circle besides an O or a 0.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
X54; is meant to be X54;. It worked in my argument box, I don't know why not when I submitted.
Posted by Death23 3 years ago
It's ok i think i figured it out
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
you can just link to imgur, that's fine.
Posted by Death23 3 years ago
Yeah I am but I keep using copy to put the images in then it comes out a bologna code on the preview page.
No votes have been placed for this debate.