The Instigator
Cat47
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

The Earth is flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Edlvsjd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,538 times Debate No: 98034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (93)
Votes (2)

 

Cat47

Con

In this debate, I will be challenging debate.org's favorite flat Earther Edlvsjd to another debate on the shape of the Earth.

The rules are simple.
1. First round is for acceptance only.
2. Second round is for arguments only. No rebuttals, because that is for the third round.
3. No new arguments can be made in the third round.
4. Show some proof for your arguments...
Edlvsjd

Pro

I accept, good luck and thanks for the kind words, though I'm just here to encourage everyone to research and think for themselves. In the immortal words of George Carlin, "question everything".
Debate Round No. 1
Cat47

Con

Yeah yeah, I know. My argument is pretty long, so take your time to read it.

First off, gravity:
If the Earth was not round, gravity would be different depending on where you are. The fact that gravity is the same everywhere can prove the flat Earth theory wrong. A simulation showing this can be found here
0:45 to 1:50 https://www.youtube.com...

I have seen alot of flat-Earth believers try to say "Gravity doesn't exist", but I have not seen much evidence for this. Just throw something up in the air and see what happens.

Secondly, time zones. One of the most crippling challenges with the flat Earth theory is the existence of time zones. On a flat Earth, you could not have time zones or even a day/night cycle. Now I've seen this model used by many flat Earth believers.

http://d38zt8ehae1tnt.cloudfront.net...

However, the mere existence of a day/night cycle on the other planets of the Solar system disprove it easily. The sun is also too massive to orbit Earth. Also, if the spotlight sun theory were true, years would be alot shorter and Earth would be molten.

Third, speaking of the other planets in the Solar system, they are round.

Fourth, eclipses. During a lunar eclipse the shadow on the Moon"s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth"s, and it"s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

http://physics.weber.edu...

Fifth, constellations. In one place in which one constellation can be seen, another one cant, but in another place, it can. You could not have that on a flat Earth. Varying constellations also further debunk the spotlight sun myth.

http://www.smarterthanthat.com...
http://www.smarterthanthat.com...

Sixth, ride a plane. You can see the roundness. My opponent said the ISS is a plane, which is pretty weird. You do not need a rocket to fly a plane.

Seventh, their has been numerous images from space showing that the Earth is round. Keep in mind, the Blue Marble photograph has been confirmed to be authentically from 1972, before any sort of editing software was made. Before we even had the internet to download things.

Eighth, shadows. Get idk 2 sticks that are the exact same or something like a stick. If you place them far enough from each other, the shadows, sunlight will hit each stick differently if they are far enough apart.

Ninth, seasons. The flat Earth theory completely neglects seasons. Seasons are caused by a slight axis tilt. Winter is when your side of the Earth is facing away from the sun. This would be impossible with a flat Earth, whether you disregard the spotlight sun idea or not.

As a bonus argument, the flat Earth theory comes with alot of bizarre pseudo scientific ideas like the "giant wall of ice around the Earth" or "spotlight sun" myths.
Edlvsjd

Pro

Thanks to the instigator for another opportunity to discuss this very interesting, controversial and important topic. Most people think of flat earthers as delusional, uneducated people that must have been either living in a cave all their lives, or maybe transported here from the Fred Flintstone days. I assure you, this is not the case. Flat earthers for the most part, graduated public schools like most everyone else, but somewhere somehow, were subjected to some bit of evidence that convinced them that what they were being told was false. Most of it had nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Whether it was about 9/11, Mkultra, The Boston bombings, the holocaust, or some other false flag or hoax perpetrated by our earthly rulers, they realized that anything at all was possible, and they should question everything, no matter how silly, or against the grain the idea was.

Throughout my time here, i"ve refuted every known piece of evidence known for a spherical earth. Most of this evidence is subjective, and what isn't subjective is either inconclusive, insubstantial, or just misunderstood. I go on record with these refutations here not to be difficult or different, but to try to wake everyone up to the deception that is thrown upon us. Let's get into the evidence.

1. No curvature
The strongest piece of evidence for a flat earth is the lack of curvature. What's astonishing is that most of us have no idea how much curvature there should be. It's not hard at all to figure out how much curvature a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference should allow. This curvature should be EASILY detectable not only by instruments but also by just everyday life. Based on the "official" dimension of the globe, at just 10 miles of distance, you should have a 66.6 (weird, right? The earth is also on a 66.6" tilt, and on a 66,600 mph racetrack around the sun!) foot drop in curvature, i.e., 66 feet should be hidden from view (taking into consideration the average eye height of a male at 5 feet 7 inches the observable drop from eye height is 33 feet). At 100 miles away, there should be an amazing 6,666-foot drop in curvature, i.e., 1.26 miles should be hidden from view. These calculations are 100% correct and have been affirmed through computer drafting software. (1)
The telescopic measurements reach the same conclusion, but there's absolutely no detectable spherical Earth curvature. Furthermore, no one ever taught you the Earth's curvature math at school or college, why? Every engineer, surveyor, mathematician, artillerymen, and astronomer should have a thorough understanding of the curvature and cite exactly how much curvature there is per mile and be able to demonstrate it through simple experimentation and measurement, but no one does, why?
(1) http://www.smokescreendesign.com...

If you were to rise up from a ball, no matter how high, you should see the horizon drop, and would soon be able to notice more and more curvature The higher you go, but you don't, unless you are looking through a wide angle lens. Even at 100,000 feet or more, as seen in most amateur rocket and balloon launches, the horizon stays flat, and at eye level. I've compiled a few videos of examples of this lack of curvature for your viewing pleasure.
Ships "going over curvature"
https://youtu.be...
https://youtu.be...
https://youtu.be...

Perspective explained.
https://youtu.be...
https://youtu.be...

Planes fly at 30,000 ft this balloon was at 120,000
https://youtu.be...
This "rocket" went to almost 500,000, one of the few times nasa wasn't completely deceptive.
https://youtu.be...
Read the summary for another truthful moment.
http://www.nasa.gov...

2) The days should reset every 6 months:
A mean solar day (the time required for a single rotation of the Earth on its axis with respect to the Sun) is 24 hours. How many degrees does the Earth rotate in one solar day? Common sense says that the Earth should rotate 360 degrees. However, if the Earth rotated 360 degrees per day, every 6 months, night and day would be opposite. Again, think of the Earth on the left side of the Sun. Daylight on the Earth would be on the right side, i.e., pointed towards the Sun on the right. Pick up the Earth in that same position and place it on the right side of the Sun (like the Earth just traveled across the solar system after 6 months). The daylight side, which was on the right side of the Earth 6 months earlier, would now be pointed away from the Sun and be night, i.e., day and night would have shifted entirely.
Of course, mainstream science recognized this obvious problem and came up with an answer and a new word for it. According to the official model, the synodic day is the period during which Earth rotates one time relative to the Sun. This rotation is supposedly slightly more than 360 degrees, because the Earth has to rotate a little extra (beyond a full 360 degrees) in order to reach the starting point relative to the Sun. This is the day we allegedly experience. Under this model, if the Earth rotates 361 degrees per day, day and night would not switch every 6 months. In other words, official "science" recognized the above problem and revised the model to make it fit but "science" did not answer why the Earth would maintain a perfect day/night balance and spin 361 degrees per day?
What are the astronomical odds that the Earth rotates perfectly just to keep day and night from switching as the Earth moves to the other side of the Sun; why would gravity care whether night and day shifted every six months? This is how science has worked over the last 500 years, the model becomes unworkable and so "science" contrives preposterous facts to fit the presumed model. In other words, the presumed but false model controls the facts and not the other way around and so we get "facts" that were only created to maintain a mistaken model. Official "science" has become nothing more than circular reasoning. As Joseph Jastrow said, "Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves."

3) Plane Flights Over the Southern Hemisphere

Flight patterns between cities on different continents over the southern hemisphere are VERY strange on a globe model but make perfect sense on a flat Earth. Non-stop flights between major cities in the southern hemisphere appear to be relatively rare and somewhat difficult to book. Instead, the vast majority of the flights in the southern hemisphere take inexplicable and very long v-shaped detours to the northern hemisphere. Also, no GPS tracking is available for these southern hemisphere flights. Are the very few bookable non-stop flights between southern hemisphere cities even real or do they just end up with a "detour" after the flight is booked? For example, flights from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo make stops in Europe, which is hundreds of miles out of the way on the globe, but makes more sense on a flat earth. http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Sure there is a non-stop which claims to take a southern circle route, but notice the warning on the only airlines site that offers a non-stop, South Africa Airlines.

http://www.southafrica.to...

"The 1-stop flights from JHB to Sao Paulo are a substantial decision from the shortest flight path, adding a considerable amount of distance and time onto the trip. So, unless you've got plenty of time on your hands, keep as much of an eye on the clock as on the airfare. Airlines operating 1-stop flights from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo including British Airways, Emirates & Etihad. Keep an eye on travel times, as the 1-stop flights involve substantial deviations from the shortest flight path. To give you an idea of the detour, the most popular 1-stop option is with BA via London Heathrow."
Why would they give a warning that the flight would take longer, and warn you that you would possibly stop in Europe if you were flying in the opposite direction? Max Igan allegedly recently went on one of the Qantas flights and his compass and other readings were very peculiar " speed, direction, etc. all seemed to be off track. It"s difficult to find out for certain since the GPS is also turned off for these flights. However, it should be noted that there is no agreed model of the flat Earth and so making conclusive determinations from this Exhibit are still problematic.

StinkyCash addresses the fact that GPS is turned off for flights over the southern hemisphere.
https://youtu.be...

The Compass Problem

4) How a compass works on a sphere is problematic. For example, someone using a compass in South America should have a difficult time finding north. Why? Because the magnetic north pole would nearly be straight under foot, i.e., directly towards the ground. A compass needle aligns itself and points toward the top of Earth"s magnetic field, which is now supposedly over far northern Russia. However, there is no indication that compasses have any more difficulty finding north in Southern Chile, South Africa, or Australia, or ever align themselves towards the center of the Earth.

I look forward to my opponent's response, and responding to his claims.
Debate Round No. 2
Cat47

Con

Thank you Pro.

To start off, my opponent does not believe in curvature. Gravity may make Earth seem flat. However, from high enough height you can see the curvature. Otherwise, there is curvature, but it is very minor and cannot be seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

But we can see a curvature on a live video feed from the ISS. Speaking of satelites, a harmful aspect of the flat Earth theory seems to be their denial of climate change (which has been proven by satelite imaging). They believe anything that doesn't follow their ignorant belief is fabricated.

The Solar Day:

My opponent obviously believes in the spotlight sun garbage.

"A mean solar day (the time required for a single rotation of the Earth on its axis with respect to the Sun) is 24 hours. How many degrees does the Earth rotate in one solar day?"

Ok and how will this prove anything about the Earth being flat?

"Mainstream science" The fact that you are using this argument tells me you are making up stuff.

"What are the astronomical odds that the Earth rotates perfectly just to keep day and night from switching as the Earth moves to the other side of the Sun; why would gravity care whether night and day shifted every six months?" Except a day is 24 hours, not 8760.

By the way, http://howdoweknow.org...

And there aren't 2 seasons, there are 4.

What else?

"Flight patterns between cities on different continents over the southern hemisphere are VERY strange on a globe model but make perfect sense on a flat Earth." Your argument here completly neglects gravity. On a sphere Earth gravity may make everything look flat, and things can be treated as such. On a flat Earth, gravity would be like a steep hill and alot stronger.

0:45 1:50 https://www.youtube.com...

If the Earth was flat, the only thing that would keep you from falling off would be gravity and centripical force. But that neglects that Earth would naturally collapse into a ball.

And the only thing still keeping you from falling is gravity and centripical force.

You would not any orbits if there was no gravity. http://www.debate.org... (Someone else used it. So I'll show it).

One of the most ridiculous arguments I see to deny gravity is "The Earth is accelerating up at 32 feet per second"

If this were true, objects would fall alot faster (seemingly teleport). Jumping would be impossible.

"Non-stop flights between major cities in the southern hemisphere appear to be relatively rare and somewhat difficult to book. Instead, the vast majority of the flights in the southern hemisphere take inexplicable and very long v-shaped detours to the northern hemisphere" Alot of flights take a curved path that would seem weird on a FLAT Earth, actually, regardless of hemisphere. There are other reasons than a flat Earth to take that detour anyway. Mountains, weather, you name it.

The Compass Argument:

I see my opponent is trying to refute the Earth being round by compasses. A compass would not disprove the existence of a round Earth, because a compass is based on the poles. You could likely not have poles on a flat Earth. On a flat Earth, how is there a magnetic field? Magnets can't be unipolar. Some flat Earthers believe that there aren't poles and there is a giant wall of ice around the Earth, which is ridiculous.

Furthermore, I'd like to get a little head start and refute 1 of my opponents possible rebuttals.

"The sun appears big from space, so it must be a spotlight in orbit around the Earth". This theory is challenged by the mere existence of a day/night cycle on other worlds in the Solar system. Furthermore, guess whatelse disproves this and the flat Earth theory. Varying constellations!

Also, if you consider the suns size, 93 million miles is not alot. Proxima Centauri is a small star, but it can be seen in the night sky as a dot.

Sun Distance from Proxima Centauri: About 25,500,000,000,000 Miles
One AU: About 93,000,000 Miles.

The sun is alot larger than Proxima Centauri and is, as you can imagine, alot closer. So obviously the sun won't appear as a dot.

Thank you. I hope to see your response to my Round 2 arguments soon.

- Cat47
Edlvsjd

Pro

"First off, gravity"
... Is a theory. For thousands of years, people just accepted the fact that up was up, and down was down, until it was postulated that the Earth was round. Then, the obvious questions came up ie. Why don't people fall off the bottom of the ball? Enter Newton and his apple, who said that since the earth was a ball, (an assumption) the earth must be acting as a big magnet. But he postulated this by looking at an apple falling down and assuming the Earth was a ball. Had a feather broke loose from a branch and floated away what would have happened then? In short, gravity is a theory based on an assumption. Which is ok, but sooner or later, you have to prove those assumptions, which is what my opponent is trying to do now, with that theory. If gravity is constant, and is the same everywhere, and the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph at the equator, but is barely moving at the pole, and gravity is countering the centrifugal force, why don't we weigh much less at the equator?

Time zones are caused by a small, close sun, compared to the ball Earth model. Day and night cycles of objects in the sky are irrelevant. The small close sun goes in a circuit around the north pole over the plane. This becomes obvious when looking at videos of 24 hour days in the northern hemisphere. I'm not completely sure what my opponent means by "years would be alot shorter and Earth would be molten".

Objects in the sky or firmament have nothing to do with the shape of the Terra Firma that we stand on. Planets have been known 4 years as wandering stars because they differ only from other stars and their apparent motion around the firmament. NASA produces CGI of the so-called planets to make us believe the heliocentric model. It would be like the pool stick looking at the billiard balls and deducing from their shape that the table is a massive ball too.

Eclipses are one of the strongest arguments for ball earth, but since the early 1900's there have been over 50 recorded eclipses where both the sun AND moon were seen above the horizon. Here is one instance on video.
https://youtu.be...
Scientism will say refraction causes this, butt am I to believe that refraction causes both the light from the Sun and the Moon to be bent in opposite directions either way and the shadow to move in the opposite direction? What exactly causes eclipses is debatable, but I like the ancient idea of Rahu, a third celestial body, unseen by human eyes. What's hilarious is the picture my opponent provides is not of an eclipse, it is just a lunar phase.

Varying constellations are seen throughout the plane because of perspective. From the north, these Southern Constellations have dropped below the horizon because they have reached the vanishing point. As does the Sun. I am sure you seen the railroad tracks disappear on the horizon, well it works on the vertical plane to as the telephone poles appear to get shorter with distance they are not they are just nearing the vanishing point where they disappear altogether or blend in with the horizon.

Yes anyone can ride a plane and see a curved Horizon, but anyone who is observant enough know that all aircraft have curved windows, which have been shown to artificially curve straight lines. "You do not need a rocket to fly a plane." My opponent has not provided evidence that they flew the ISS into space on a rocket.

My opponent recognizes that most images of earth as a ball are possibly photoshopped, but insists that the 1972 blue marble is authentic, but there's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.
https://youtu.be...

I believe my opponent is referencing Errortosthenese experiment, where he assumed the sun's rays all hit the earth at the same angle, and two sticks at two different locations cast different shadows. The same exact thing would happen on a flat earth if the sun were close and small, anyone can look up on a cloudy day and see that the sun's rays do not run parallel.
http://www.eratosthenes.eu...
http://all-that-is-interesting.com...

"seasons. The flat Earth theory completely neglects seasons"
False. In the winter, the sun's circuit is larger, and goes beyond the equator over the southern hemisphere, where it experiences summer, and closer to the pole in the northern hemisphere's summer. This makes more sense than the heliocentric model because when the northern hemisphere is experiencing summer, the sun is much further away than in our winter, where it is the closest in it's orbit.

"Bonus argument"

The Antarctic CIRCLE is the outer limit to our plane. My opponent calls the ideas blizzard because he, like most of us has never been to Antarctica, due to the Antarctic treaty. Pictures of the ice wall litter the internet, a simple Google search provides such. As far as spotlight suns, I'm not entirely sure where my opponent is getting his information from, likely a shill site like the flat earth society.

Rerebuttals

My opponent claims I don't "believe" in curvature, and goes on to say it is very minor, and cannot be seen. He then curiously provides a Wikipedia link to a bridge to support his claim... He then claims that video from the ISS provides views of such curvature. While this can technicallybe called new evidence which goes against his own rules, my refutation is simple. Why aren't common citizens going to the ISS yet to verify this? It's an argument from authority. This footage could be fisheye lens from a high altitude U2 plane. My objective argument of lateral curvature has been all but ignored, and substituted with his own argument backed up by subjective information.

"Ok and how will this prove anything about the Earth being flat?"

My opponent does not understand that I am refuting the entire heliocentric model, and with it, a spherical earth.

"Except a day is 24 hours, not 8760."

This statement makes no sense, and is irrelevant to my argument. The claims stands unrefuted. The rest of my opponent's argument is also an irrelevant appeal to authority. Quickly going over, it mentions Focaults pendulum, which is just a swinging ball on a cable that somehow convinced a bunch of people that the earth moves under it instead of the the obvious that the ball moves over the earth. What of the Allias effect, where the pendulum sometimes goes the opposite way or speeds up, is the earth changing directions or speed during an eclipse?

"And there aren't 2 seasons, there are 4."

There are two extremes, on the spring and fall equinoxes, the sun is in the middle, over the equator.

"Your argument here completly neglects gravity. On a sphere Earth gravity may make everything look flat, and things can be treated as such. On a flat Earth, gravity would be like a steep hill and alot stronger"

Gravity has nothing to do with flights going in the wrong direction in the southern hemisphere, maybe the voters will understand this elementary argument. The next few arguments are about gravity, which has been discussed, and satisfactorily refuted as inconclusive and irrelevant.

"One of the most ridiculous arguments I see to deny gravity is "The Earth is accelerating up at 32 feet per second""

The earth has not moved an inch outside of tectonic PLATES movement since it's creation.

" Alot of flights take a curved path that would seem weird on a FLAT Earth, actually, regardless of hemisphere. There are other reasons than a flat Earth to take that detour anyway. Mountains, weather, you name it."

My opponent makes a baseless claim with no source or examples, and acts as though weather and mountains will cause every flight to go hundreds, if not thousands of miles out of the way to avoid a mountain (cue audience laughter) and weather, and "you name it"?!

Compasses
My opponent does not even address the argument presented, and instead ignorantly and arrogantly claims there could be no magnetic field on a flat earth. There are circular magnets, commonly found on speakers, where the inside is southern polarity, and the outside is northern. Of course we know the pole are technically reversed, so my opponent's rebuttal is refuted.

http://practicalphysics.org...
http://practicalphysics.org...
Debate Round No. 3
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 5 months ago
Youngastronomer
If the sun were a spotlight and moved around, it would shrink away from view because it's supposedly moving, but it doesn't, this means the sun is stationary and it's the Earth that is actually moving.

And there are plenty of real photographs of the Earth, your only "proof" is an excuse which is "but....but...CGI, NASA IS LYING TO YOU! DISTORTED LENS!"

Bearing in mind, it's just as easy to distort lens to make Earth look flat as well as round, to clear everything up.
EARTH IS ROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hylian_3000// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I tried to remain as un-biased as possible when voting. With that in mind, here is my RFD. Conduct: Con came off a tad bit too aggressive in Round 3. S&G: No distracting errors Arguments: This came down to the BoP. The name of the debate is "The Earth is Flat", and no one contested that in the 1st Round. So, how I voted was that Pro had to prove that the Earth was flat. Con didn't have to prove that the Earth was spherical, just that it wasn't flat. Unfortunately for Pro, this works against him. He had very good rebuttals in Round 3 (Especially that gravity argument, that was really good), and it refuted most of Con's arguments effectively. But Pro only proved that the world isn't round, not that it was flat. With the information provided within the debate, the Earth could be a cube for all I know. Pro didn't prove that the world was flat, only that it wasn't round. If the BoP rested on Con, Pro would've definitely won this point. Sources: Sources were equally credible, nothing bad

[*Reason for removal*] Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show that one side was either insulting, violated the rules, or forfeited a round in order to award this point. Being aggressive is not sufficient reason to award this point.

Note: While the reporter might have an issue with how the voter decided to award argument points, that issue is not grounds for removal of the vote. So long as it meets the standards (and this one does on argument points), it is not the place of moderation to decide whether or not their logic is sound. That being said, the reasoning the reporter gives for removal is confusing, and the voter does more than enough to justify arguments logically.
************************************************************************
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
because you know the earth is a ball, huh...
Posted by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
Either way, I don't really care.
Posted by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
It actually shows as a win on both of our sides
Posted by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
I assumed so. It still counts as a win for some reason tho.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Shows a win on my side, i reported the vote btw
Posted by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
Actually it still counts as a victory, but a vote was recently removed. Website coding glitch
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Interesting that the Flat Earth argument won via votes thus far.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
Did pro really say gravity doesn't exist? How does he explain how galaxies are spinning or how massive objects act in relation to each other?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
Cat47EdlvsjdTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD can be found here: http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/96389/ http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/96389/
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
Cat47EdlvsjdTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con's strongest argument was that a round earth would cause an eclipse, pro even admitted it was a good argument, but tried to counter it with an invisible planet rahu which is not near plausible enough to create reasonable doubt. Pro argued that if earth was round we would see curvature, but as Con pointed out, the curvature is very small and can only be seen from high up. so con refuted pro's arguments better than pro refuted con's arguments