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

The Earth is more flat than it is spherical.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,932 times Debate No: 91264
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (46)
Votes (1)




The opponent's impassioned ideas on the nature of the Earth, specifically with regard to its shape, have inspired me to challenge him to a debate.

In an attempt to be as fair as possible, I've worded the resolution in such a way that neither side has to prove the Earth is precisely "flat" or "spherical", as such perfect solids don't exist in the real world. Rather, I'll be arguing that the Earth is mostly spherical and my opponent will be arguing that the Earth is mostly flat.

Rules are standard, including a shared Burden of Proof. The content of Round 1 is up to the opponent. Either a) He can present his first argument now or he can just accept and I'll begin with the first argument in Round 2.

I'll be approaching this debate with the utmost empirical and scientific rigor, which I know the opponent will appreciate. I hope that he accepts and I look forward to getting this ball rolling. No pun intended.


Thank you for yet another chance to argue for what is perhaps the biggest deception on the plane, ever. When I first heard of the flat earth conspiracy, I was quick to dismiss it, like we were trained to do. Then, after being bugged by a few like-minded friends, set out to debunk the theory. Thinking it would take all of a few hours of research, I came across about a dozen proofs of a spherical earth, and 3-4 times as many proofs of a flat earth on the first day. Fast forward almost a year later, and I've since debunked all 10-12 proofs of a spherical earth, which I'm sure you will bring up, and am 100% sure the earth is flat. Once I understood exactly how things work in the flat earth model, it was impossible to debunk it. Understand however that this research is currently very new considering the equipment, (although we can go off of Dr. Samuel Rowbotham from the late 1800's, and a few others who might come up in this debate) very underfunded, (you will never get a government grant to disprove the government) and filled with disinformation (paid, and unpaid government shills), so not everything is completely agreed upon, or known, but it is certain that the earth is not a ball spinning, wobbling, and flying through space at ridiculous speeds. I'm going to assume that since you are a globe-head, that you have done little to no research into the flat earth theory, because very few people who have heard this case, and fully understand it, (and can think critically) end up remaining opposed to it. Most of these people can't debate it properly (anyone on DDO anyway, from what I've seen), but I am not one of those people. In essence, this is your chance to be enlightened, should you or anyone else reading this remain open minded and unbiased until the end, and most importantly, entertain the idea that you were brainwashed from birth, and try to forget everything we know about the universe that has been shoveled to you from any mainstream accounts.
I have debated this subject a few dozen times, and I hope you can offer some new proof that I may have overlooked, some empirical data would be welcome, but it is highly doubtful. These proofs, which I have thoroughly refuted in my short time here in DDO, are simply misunderstood phenomenon, or can happen in either a globe or flat plane. Remember, I was not too long ago on your side of the platform, to a few more knowledgeable opponents than I. It is for this reason, and redundancy of course, that I ask my opponent to first either review one documentary on YouTube explaining the theory, or review some of my past debates. I'll get you some information together at the conclusion of my opening statement.
I ask that theoretical abstract theoretical equations be left out of this debate, because the math might in the end add up, it in no way reflects reality. Gravity is a lie concocted to make the globe work, just like the spinning, the distance to the sun and moon, and many other "facts" that nobody has went back to recheck since they were implemented into the public education system. Nothing peeves a flat earther more than the overuse of the excuses like big G. It is only a theory. We have no empirical data that Gravity even exists, but it is implemented as a catch-all excuse for things that the heliocentric model can't explain. Genius lie really, and if it is told enough times, the lie becomes a fact. I ask that round two be used only for evidence of your side, start debunking in the 3rd round. With that I would like to close with some relative quotes to ponder on, and a bit of basic research links on the subject.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
Isaac Newton

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Therefore I would not have it unknown to Your Holiness, the the only thing which induced me to look for another way of reckoning the movements of the heavenly bodies was that I knew that mathematicians by no means agree in their investigation thereof. Nicolaus Copernicus

"Today"s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
Nikola Tesla

"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself; Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton"s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince. In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."

"Someday someone will write a pathology of experimental physics and bring to light all those swindles which subvert our reason, beguile our judgement and, what is worse, stand in the way of any practical progress. The phenomena must be freed once and for all from their grim torture chamber of empiricism, mechanism, and dogmatism; they must be brought before the jury of man"s common sense. "

Johann W. v. Goethe

George Bernard Shaw in his opening of a play called "Saint Joan"

Our credulity, though enormous, is not boundless; and our stock of it is quite used up by our mediums, clairvoyants, hand readers, slate writers, Christian Scientists, psycho-analysts, electronic vibration diviners, therapeutists of all schools registered and unregistered, astrologers, astronomers who tell us that the sun is nearly a hundred million miles away and the Betelgeuse is ten times as big as the whole universe, physicists who balance Betelgeuse by describing the incredible smallness of the atom, and a host of other marvel mongers whose credulity would have dissolved the Middle Ages in a roar of sceptical merriment.

In the Middle Ages people believed that the earth was flat, for which they had at least the evidence of their senses: we believe it to be round, not because as many as one per cent of us could give the physical reasons for so quaint a belief, but because modern science has convinced us that nothing that is obvious is true, and that everything that is magical, improbable, extraordinary, gigantic, microscopic, heartless, or outrageous is scientific.

"Space may be the final frontier, but it"s made in a Hollywood basement" " Red Hot Chili Peppers

" Snap back to reality oh there goes gravity" Eminem

" We do not have time for a meeting with the Flat Earth Society" Obama
Debate Round No. 1


I'm actually very surprised that the opponent is so passionate about his position. It is a good sign that this debate is going to be a good, thorough one.

The opponent has opened with acceptance and clarification, meaning it is my responsibility to produce the first argument. Before I get started, I'd like to discuss a few things the opponent cautioned against.


The opponent's first warning was against using "theoretical" constructs such as gravity to explain the shape of the Earth. He further stated that we should not assume a heliocentric system, the existence of a moon, that the Earth is moving through space at great speed or that it is spinning.

Many of these concepts are important pieces of physics that help describe the shape of the Earth, but for the sake of the debate I will not simply assume that these things exist. Rather, if I use "gravity" as part of an argument, I will demonstrate the existence of gravity using emperical evidence and/or logic.

Let's get started.

1. Gravity exists and demands a spherical Earth.

The existence of gravity would directly imply the existence of a flat Earth. We should first demonstrate that gravity exists, as the assumption alone does not sate the opponent.

We all know that gravity exists to some degree based upon our own personal experience. Ie, we are fixed to the surface of the Earth and any attempt to leave the surface of the Earth ourselves generally results in us returning to the surface. For instance, if I were to stand up and jump, I would momentarily leave the ground, but quickly return. If I were to let go of a ball at the top of a cliff, the ball would fall until it hit the ground.

This is evidence that there is indeed some force that pulls thing toward the ground. The nature of this force, from the perspective of a single man however, might be unkown. Let's now look at whether this force is constant or whether it changes based upon other phenomena.

This is important to look at. If the Earth were flat and other celestial bodies did not exert gravity on the planet, one would expect the force earlier mentioned to remain constant despite the position or orientation of the celestial bodies above. This turns out not to be the case.

The opponent briefly mentioned that the Earth might be a "moonless" thing, so we will refer to the moon here simply as the observation of a constant, bright, moving light in the sky. (The observation of the moon.) We won't question the nature of the moon. Instead, we'll simply look at whether it interacts with the Earth. Under a "no gravity" assumption, the moon shouldn't have any affect upon the Earth.

However, we do notice that the tides change according to the position of the moon. Sea levelsalways rise when the moon is overhead and always lower whenever the moon is not visible. (Or as a globe-head would say, while the moon is on the opposite side of the planet.) The oceans are so large and utterly heavy that it would be unreasonable to assume that some man made force was causing this movement. The amount of energy necessary to move the oceans in such a manner does not currently exist. (Nothing anywhere near close to it exists, in a manmade construction.)

Since man isn't doing it, we are left with the assumption that the moon is in some way causing the rise and fall of the tides. Under the current model, we assume that two things with mass are attracted to each other and we call this thing 'gravity'. This fact has been varified in various experiments, which generally involve measuring the force that attempts to draw two objects of mass toward one another. [1]

This apparent attraction between any two masses can be experimentally verified and has been called gravity. Unless the opponent has some other scientifically verified or implied explanation for this force, we can comfortable assume that gravity exists.

Because of the existence of gravity, we know that planets must be spherical in nature. This is because, during a planets formation, particularly high elevation dusts and materials are drawn to lower elevations. One can visualize this by watching sand fall from an hour glass. The sand does not simply create an upright pillar, but instead forms a sort of "normal curve", with respect to the bottom of the hourglass. This is because gravity is largely acting in only one direction. When considering a single gravitational "point" in space, it is easy to see how the falling sand would form a sphere.

A flat Earth is not consistent with our understanding of gravity, as the center of gravity would force the external edges of the flat "plate" toward the empty areas (above and below the plate), forming a ball like object.

2. View from airplanes.

We can furthermore understand that the Earth is curved by the view one sees when looking from an airplane. The opponent claims (in the comments) that photos from an altitude are taken with a fish-eye lens, in order to distort the actual flat shape of the Earth. However, anyone who has been on an airplane can clearly note the subtle, but existent curvature of the Earth. Many photos have been taken from airplane windows as well, usually with devices like the iPhone which do not have a fish-eye lens.

To claim that these photographs are faked approaches delusion, as it would be nearly impossible for a governmental agency to apply a curvature to these photos and simultaneously brainwash anyone who has ever been on a plane into believing that they saw curvature where none existed.

3. Other spherical bodies (can be seen from telescope)

If we know what other celestial bodies look like, we can predict what our own looks like. In other words, if all other observed planets form spheres, it is highly likely that our planet is also spherical. Again, the opponent may claim that photos of other planets released by the government have been tampered with, so I'll only talk about what could easily be seen with a telescope in your own back yard.

With a mid-range (<$1000) telescope, one can easily see Jupiter in great detail. In the viewer, this planet would look perfectly round. Given this, it is still possible that Jupiter is also flat and that it's simply facing us. This notion is shortly defeated, however, when one looks at Jupiter again at a different time of the year and notes that the surface has dramatically changed. Again, one could simply say that the storms have shifted around the flat surface.

This is disproven when noticing the existence of a mostly stationary storm called the "Great Red Spot". The Great Red Spot noticeably shifts to the left, then out of view, the back again on the other side of the planet. This implies that Jupiter is not a flat disc facing toward us, but is instead a spherical object. Observations of all other planets in the system can be made in a similar fashion, with only the moon's surface not changing. (Which we call tidal locking.)

4. The unlikelihood of an international conspiracy

It is conceivable that a single government may desire to and have the means to fool its citizenry into believing something that is not true. However, this issue is both large and international in scope and is a view held by scientists in all countries.

There is no reason to believe that an international conspiracy a) exists or b) could exist. Consider other powers that be like Russia and China. Nothing would illegitimize the scientific efforts of the United States more than if one of those two countries managed to prove that the Earth was flat. It cannot be said that all three of these countries are just living under a "delusion", unaware of the shape of the Earth, as all three countries have had their citizens in space using their own technology.

This means each country has the "means" to expose the Earth as flat, if it truly were. And given the political advantages of proving that another country's government has been lying to its people, there is no reason this information would have remained a secret all these years. There is no conceivable advantage to keeping this a secret, as no one is benefitted by this.

5. No "end of the Earth" ever documented

If the Earth were flat, it would have an "edge". In other words, you could not go in one direction and continue in that direction without reaching the end of the Earth. On a spherical globe, however, this is completely possible.

There are a great number of people with cameras and internet. If there were an "end of the Earth", it is highly likely that someone would have taken a photo of it by now. No governmental agency has the power to monitor the internet to the degree that they could prevent any attempt at posting such a photograph.

Furthermore, there have been multiple instances in which people have circumnavigated the globe by plane. If the world were flat, this would be impossible. The opponent would be forced to contend that these circumnavigations were all faked to further this conspiracy, something that is again extremely unlikely.

6. Sheer evidence overload.

Finally, we'll look at the sheer amount of photographic and video evidence that exists. While it is possible that a government agency could fake their photos, it doesn't account for the other government agencies and private companies that also take photographs.

Private companies in particular put a damper on the entire flat earth idea, as many of them have their own satellites in orbit that take videos and pictures on a regular basis. Even if we assume the governments somehow managed to attach fisheye lenses to these satellites, it still wouldn't explain the pictures. Fisheye lens distort the image, but they do not destroy information, whereas two satellites on opposites ends of the earth can take two completely unique photos. (Different land masses/oceans.)


This is the basic "globe head" intro. I've tried to use arguments that don't rely heavily on one government's testimony. I look forward to the next round.


1 -



If you knew something that could prove the existence of Divine Creation, and knew that certain "powers that be" were hiding this information from a gullible public, you would be enthusiastic about it too. If you look at civilizations in the past, the ones who built megalithic structures still standing thousands of years later, whose methods are still relatively a mystery, you will see that these civilizations weren't just dumbed down versions of us, they knew it was flat, evolution seems to be going backwards. It is now believed that these civilizations had unlimited power, either with acoustics, or electromagnetism.

It seems my opponent is confused about what constitutes as empirical evidence. His fascination with objects in the sky has taken front seat before the ground beneath his feet. How do we know planets are physical terra firma? NASA? Planets were know for thousands of years as wandering stars because of their movement relative to the other stars. But what if they are simply reflections under water? I know it sounds crazy, believing what the bible says about space, but It sounds far more plausible to me. Full rebuttal continues in round 3, but I must ask my opponent, what reason have you for comparing things in the sky, that appear to be lights by the way, to the physical realm in which you reside? Does the pool stick look at the balls on the table and consider the table is a big ball simply because the balls are? Does the baby think it is sleeping on a colorful toy while laying there watching it's bed mobile? The idea is ridiculous, and stems from first assuming the plane(t) we live on is a globe. Please say this is not your "empirical evidence"
To know the shape of the earth we can't depend on lights in the sky, we must look at the earth itself. Particularly distances seen from any point, but this will not matter until you realize one thing that we, interestingly enough, weren't indoctrinated on: the actual curvature expected from a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. For some reason, we are not taught this in school. Why not? All they can say is it's so ridiculously massive, that's why there's no curve. Every high school student should be able to cite the allowed curvature over any given distance, and be able to demonstrate it in simple experimentation, but we don't, and we can't. The formula for calculating the curvature of the earth is simple. I'm sure you're going to fact check this, because everyone has to, and no one can believe it. For the first mile should allow 8". Every mile thereafter, you will need to square the mile. So 2 miles should yield 32" of curvature. At three miles, the average human shouldn't be able to see the ground past this point. I'll let Dr Samuel Rowbotham explain it.
"If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram below.

"Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles."The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
Statute Miles Away
Maths= Drop
1mile 1 x 1 x 8 =8 Inches
2 miles 2 x 2 x 8 =32 Inches
3 miles 3 x 3 x 8 / 12 =6 Feet
4 miles 4 x 4 x 8 / 12 =10 Feet
5 miles 5 x 5 x 8 / 12 =16 Feet
6 miles 6 x 6 x 8 / 12 =24 Feet
7 miles 7 x 7 x 8 / 12 =32 Feet
8 miles 8 x 8 x 8 / 12 =42 Feet
9 miles 9 x 9 x 8 / 12 =54 Feet
10 miles 10 x 10 x 8 / 12 =66 Feet
"To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required."

As you can see, the curvature of the earth should be very noticeable, for instance, when flying from California to Hawaii, about 2,500 miles, you are flying over a 760 mile high hump of water. This math has been confirmed in cad software. Curvature can be proved wrong with simple magnification techniques like telescopes, binoculars, and the flat earther's favorite tool, the Nikon p900.

1. Distances sighted
In an instance where telephoto lenses are not even necessary, a "mirage" was photographed from Michigan overlooking the Chicago skyline, a span of 60 miles, which should be 2,400 ft below the supposed curvature of the earth. When we look at the heights of the buildings in Chicago, we find that The tallest building at 1,450 ft is the Sears tower. We should not be able to see ANY of Chicago from Michigan. Now before you go agreeing with the whole bs mirage thing, think to yourself what an actual mirage looks like, usually inverted, mirrored, partially opaque, and generally distorted, Google some images of actual mirages. Conditions are perfect indeed. This is not a mirage.
There are many instances of long distances being seen, and this is something that anyone can confirm, and is empirical evidence of a flat earth.

2. Reflection of light on flat water
Stating the obvious, the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface, and has never been shown to be able to curl around a spinning ball (this "fact" is introduced young so it doesn't sound as ridiculous as it does now). Take a look at sunsets on water as the sun kisses the water, the reflection extends in a straight line, extending all the way to the viewer, or edge of the water. Warp a piece of sheet metal and hold it up to a bulb, you will never reproduce what is seen in water until you flatten the metal. This is empirical evidence of a flat earth.

3. Flight paths
Some flight paths go in very unusual directions on the globe model, but make perfect sense on what is majorly accepted as the flat earth map (of course, the map can be wrong) I use Delta airlines, as this is the most reputable, and longer lasting airline. When traveling from Argentina to Sydney, every flight makes stops in North America, which is very much out of the way. This distance, on a globe, is about the same distance as Argentina to Alaska, but the Sydney flight takes twice as long, and matches up perfectly with the flat earth map. There are many instances where flight paths exactly follow the flat earth map, and look retarded on a globe, I have found at least a half a dozen so far. This is empirical evidence of a flat earth.

Debate Round No. 2


I'd ask that from this point on, that the opponent both defend his own arguments while rebutting my arguments. Five rounds is not ample space to debate if we are to alternate between defense and rebuttals each round.

Beyond that, I'd like to thank my opponent for his thorough response. I'll begin with a short rehashing of one point of my case that was briefly mentioned, then address the opponent's arguments, finally closing with some "questions" I'd like the opponent to answer in is next speech.

A Note on My Case

The opponent briefly mentioned that we are not to trust that other planets exist just because NASA says so. I would again like to say that I was very careful with my arguments such that I could avoid this. When I refer to other planets, it is based upon the information that any private citizen with a telescope could glean. If my opponent would like to seriously suggest that this is somehow an illusion created by "wet space", then it would behoove him to support this with evidence.

Argument 0: The Curvature of the Earth

The opponent's number here are largely correct, as it concerns how the curvature of the earth is mathematically described. His assumptions about what this curvature entails, however, are largely misguided.

He argues that this curvature should be noticeable when on the ocean, as water on a globe should mostly form a curved, globular shape. He reasons that we do not notice flying over a "760 mile high hump of water" when flying from California to Hawaii. The opponent's difficulty in this is assumably due to his lack of perspective.

For the purposes of this explanation, assume the Earth is round. "Height" is a measurement of the distance from the surface of the earth/ocean to some reference point above it. In other words, if one were to draw an arrow perpendicular to the ground upwards at many points along the Earth, the arrows would all face in different directions and away from the center of the earth. (Think sea urchin.) Because of this, person A could be 10 miles above Texas and person B could be 10 miles above China, but they would objectively be about 8,000 miles away from one another.

Similarly, when a plane flies it attempts to maintain a constant altitude. Because of the curved Earth, this means the flight path of a plane is actually curved -- it is not literally flying in a straight line from California to Hawaii, else it would pass through water.

We know the "hump" exists because we cannot stand on a tower in California, pull out a telescope and see Hawaii. If the world were flat, as the opponent contends, such an action would be possible. (Technically it would not, as the density of the atmosphere would obscure Hawaii. But we would at least see a white fuzz instead of the sky.)

While the maths regarding the Earth's curvature are correct, the opponent's belief that this disproves a round Earth is unfounded. On the contrary -- the fact that from hawaii one cannot see any other landmass is indicative that it is indeed surrounded by a "hump". (Though from the perspective of a citizen on the island, it just looks like the sea extends infinitely in all direction, because as the opponent mentioned -- the curvature of the Earth is too slight for us to notice it when on the ground. People are unable to tell that the ocean is 6 feet lower from 10 miles away. Our vision is nowhere near that good.)

Argument 1: Distances Sighted

The opponent brings up an instance in which the Chicago skyline was visible from Michigan, something that should be impossible if the Earth were curved. This was explained as being what is called a "superior mirage". Instead of trying to explain the exact science behind mirages, I'll take a different approach.

Let us assume that the Earth is flat and that the Chicago skyline was visible because of this. This would imply that the Chicago skyline is always viewable from Michigan from that particular spot, if weather conditions are normal.

This simply isn't the case. Normally, one cannot see the skyline from Michigan. What's more, the mirage often does show up as inverted and mirrored. [1] This conundrum can be explained in one of two ways. Either the opponent is correct and the Earth is flat, but Chicago itself regularly pops into and out of existence, with the occasional horizontal inversion or the referenced video is indeed a superior mirage.

The most *reasonable* conclusion is that the image seen is a superior mirage. It is highly unlikely that Chicago is flitting in and out of existence.

Argument 2: Reflection of Light on Flat Water

For the first part of this, the opponent maintains that water always attempts to be "level", which he concludes is not possible on a spherical Earth.

This is easily understood when one understands that "level" means "having the same relative height". As I explained earlier height is measured from the center of the Earth. If you placed a two buoys are different, random positions in the ocean and measured the distance of said buoys from the center of the Earth, you would get similar measurements.

This is because water is affected by gravity and on Earth gravity pulls all things toward the center of the Earth. This is why water can maintain a "curved" shape. (The opponent is fond of physics engines, so I recommend that he creates a gravitational point and then fills the container with a liquid. He will see the water comes to equilibrium in the shape of a globe.)

As for the second part, I'm not quite sure the opponent's point regarding sunsets. [2] I've provided an image of a sunset and it is exactly what one would see in a physics simulation if you recreated the helio-centric model and looked at a sunset from a zoomed in portion of the water sphere you created earlier. (I own a physics simulator, so if the opponent is not pleased I can further demonstrate that this is actually the case.)

Argument 3: Flight paths

There are two reasons for the effect you're describing. The first is demand -- there aren't that many people looking to go from argentina to sydney. There are very many people looking to go to and from north america.

Outside of this, the flight paths of planes don't really do much to indicate the shape of the Earth, in most instances. Planes have limited fuel, must deal with demand and must account for various weather structures and wind patterns. If the opponent provided said map and flight paths, I could provide a more specific rebuttal. But as this argument stands, it isn't saying much or proving much.


Here I'm simply outlining some questions for the opponent to answer. These are not arguments -- just questions.

1. Why has no one document the "edge" of the Earth?

2. Why is it night in some places and daytime in others, simultaneously?

3. Why can't you see Hawaii from California?

4. What's on the "other side" of Earth? If someone's seen it, why isn't there evidence of their journey "over and around the edge?"

5. Why would this conspiracy exist? Who does it benefit?

6. Why do ships sail below the horizon?

7. Why can I skype someone in China and see the moon when I cannot see the moon from where I am?

8. How do you explain Rayleigh scattering?

9. How do satellites work if the Earth is flat? If satellites are a myth, why does my cell phone work? How does google maps have accurate images of my neighborhood from space?


I've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments do not hold up. I expect that he will rebut my arguments in the next round, as well as defend his own. Hopefully he will answer my questions as well.


1 -;

2 -;


My opponent asks for evidence as to why it is thought that space. may be a liquid, which, again is irrelevant to this debate, but I will amuse him. This might put a damper on my argument due to lack of characters. I would like to present

exhibit a: sololuminescence. Scientists are finding that light can be created, with sound, in bubbles underwater. The discovery is relatively new, and more research is needed, but the point is it is a possible explanation for stars underwater. The scriptures say that the Firmament divides waters above from waters below, and that Yahweh spoke (sound) saying, "let there be light" and it was so. Surely you have heard of the Firmament. Where do you think the term glass ceiling comes from? An unseen, but impenetrable barrier.

Exhibit b: views of celestial bodies through the p900.
stars close up / zoomed in collection - not light years away
More and more people are pointing their high zoom and def cameras at stars and planets. Now whether the body is a reflection on the water, underneath the water, or the object itself is beyond the surface is not clear, but this footage shows that there could probably be water in space. This has also been observed on the moon, to a degree, known as lunar waves, which have been filmed over a dozen times, from different sources, with different camera setups, which proves it isn't just a fluke or some equipment malfunction.

Exhibit c: underwater lakes and rivers
These phenomenon were found in the gulf of Mexico and are incredibly dense, so that the people that first made the discovery, upon attempting to descend into the waters, bounced off of the surface. Which leads to further examination of the go Fast rocket launch. At it's apex, the rocket, instead of gradually slowing to a stop, and descending at normal speed, it stops rather abruptly, and, after the fuselage is ejected (notice that it sounds like it is UNDERWATER), it slowly begins it's descent, still in slow motion, replicating the physics of an object suspended in dense liquid.

This is evidence which can neither be alternatively explained, nor ignored. Since it is supported by the likes of Nikolas Tesla, Ancient texts not limited to the bible, Tycho Brahe, and more, but it would require another debate altogether, and as I stated has little to to with the physical terra firma we stand on. Therefore I will focus instead on the earth, that is the subject of this debate.

Rebuttal 1 Gravity exists and demands a spherical Earth
The observable fact that things of high density fall, and things of lower density rise does not directly imply that gravity exists. Gravity is said to be a force that affects everything in nature. Of you drop the ball off of the cliff, why does it not stick to the side of the cliff? It doesn't even slow it, or warp it's direction on it's way to the earth. Gravity is, according to scientists, indiscernible from centrifugal force. As for the tides, the moon may or may not have an effect on the earth's oceans. Since the tides rise and fall more than once a day, not once as you claim, and the moon passes over us only once daily, this is a direct contradiction to the claim. Instead mainstream science claims that when the moon is both overhead, and directly below a point, that point experiences high tide. So gravity causes things to stick to an object, while causing others to orbit around, while some objects pull, and sometimes push upon other objects. If the moon's gravity pulls the earth's waters at 250,000 miles, and earth's gravity is 4x(?) stronger than the moon's, how are we able to do space walks at the ISS? If gravity gets stronger when an object is close to it, and the typical orbit is elliptical, what increasing force pulls the planet back away from the sun against an increasing gravitational pull? It doesn't make sense, and there is no evidence for any of it. Gravity was invented to make the ball work. The tides are likely caused by electromagnetic forces from the sun and moon which are close in the flat earth model. Alternatively, it is caused by the rising and falling of the earth as it floats on the waters below.

Rebuttal 2 view from airplanes
Airplanes have convex windows which produces the same effect of a fish eye lens.

Rebuttal 3 other spherical bodies...
Again, celestial bodies have nothing to do with the shape of the ground we're standing on. This is not empirical evidence of a spherical earth.

Rebuttal 4 unlikelihood...
The unlikelihood of an event is not empirical evidence that it is not true. It is not unlikely that governments are conspiring against the public to steal their money. We are ever moving towards a one world government. I, and many others, don't believe that all these governments and organizations are actively trying to suppress the true shape of the earth. We believe they are simply wrong. Mistaken, just as you are, because they have been told, as you were, that the earth is a sphere, and they have been told that science supports it, and the story is so amazingly pervasive that people believe it without trying to verify it for themselves. They don't necessarily have to know the shape of the earth, only few claim to have been far enough away to see the earth in it's entirety, but I believe that they are all lying about space capabilities to jump on the bandwagon and steal their citizen's money. Would you take a hefty paycheck (look at Nazi... I mean Nasas budget.... ) For cgi drawings and rockets.

Rebuttal 5 the edge
Why is it conceivable that an infinite space can exist as a 3d model, but not and infinite plane on a 2d model? The "edge" of the world, as everyday citizens know it, is Antarctica. It is not a drop off into nothingness. It exists as a sheer cliff, sometimes 2-300 feet, holding the waters in. Antarctica is completely off limits to civilians. If you try to fly anywhere near Antarctica, the world military will promptly escort you back. The Antarctic treaty was put into place as soon as they found whatever is there in operation high jump (be it an edge or dome) just so happens it was the same time Operation fishbowl started, and NASA was created. Why is no one allowed to go to Antarctica? Every country has kept this agreement for as long as it was started. The longest worldwide treaty ever held. They won't even let oil companies drill for oil there despite accounts of vast resources of every kind, according to pole explorer admiral Byrd. Not only can they not drill for oil (you know as well as I that if oil was discovered in human fetuses the drilling would start the next day) they can't even discuss it! When has anything trumped oil or money? Ever. I think it expires in 2065 Or something. Regardless, people falling off the edge of the world is something the opposition came up with to discredit the movement. Please do not assume you will disprove the flat earth by saying we can't see the edge. These are FAQ that have been addressed several times, I came across a FAQ for basic questions, since you did not properly research the flat earth theory. You'll find the FAQ at the end. Please, in future rounds, to save character space, refer to this link first, and refute the answer given there. Understand though, that there are a few various views on how things work, and the firmament, and I may not hold exactly the same views expressed there.
Rebuttal 6 Sheer evidence overload
Why are the u2 spy planes still in service if we have satellites? Could these planes produce like results from high altitude flights? Of course! One word proves satellites don t orbit the earth: thermosphere. It's way too hot for anything to survive out there, this is according to your model. We went to the moon in the sixties with the equivalent of a Nintendo game boy, we should have a McDonald's there by now, but virgin has 800 investors they can't even get to space. Some investors are now demanding refunds. All photos of earth are composites, this could be done with high altitude flights on a flat earth. Please, give an example of these pictures from space of Earth.

Argument 0
Planes fly level with the horizon for thousands of miles, this is impossible on a globe, in 1 hour, the plane would be facing away from the earth. Gyroscopic artificial horizons prove a flat earth. You can't see California from Hawaii because of linear perspective, and, as you noted, atmosphere. At 60 miles, Chicago is very small, At 2,500 miles Hawaii would be smaller than a pinhead.
1 distance sighted
Time lapse from the same spot. Sure let conditions are "just right" all day.
2. Reflection...
Link is dead, argument stands that curved water can't produce an uninterrupted linear reflection.
3. flight paths
Argentina to Sydney. While it is plausible that these flights occasionally detour slightly out of the way, but these paths add 20 hours and go thousands of miles out of the way. Refueling indeed.
1. Either the Firmament holds us all in, and we're not allowed to test, or there is no edge.
2. The sun is close and small, it lights locally, and goes out of sight at night due to linear perspective. Same for the moon.
3. You can, but it's just a speck in the horizon, even a telescope will not being it to view, mostly due to atmosphere. As you can see from the timelapse, Chicago just kind of appears in the morning.
4. Admiral Byrd has a good interview hinting at what he describes as a land "past the south pole"
5. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Here's a FAQ, out of room
Note: ifers is down.
Video FAQ
Debate Round No. 3


A great many ideas are currently being discussed here and I believe if I tried to address each of them as individual arguments, the debate would become muddied, hard to follow and difficult to judge. Instead, I'll be defending some specific concepts, the very nature of which imply the falsehood of my opponent's claims. These concepts specifically are: gravity, satellites and arguments concerning the inconsistency of a Flat Earth.

Gravity and Satellites

The opponent seems to have a fundemental misunderstanding of what gravity is, in that he repeatedly attempts to show gravitational ideas are inconsistent by referring to properties of gravity that are not considered to be true. The opponent begins by attempting to explain gravity as a faulty assumption that is actually explained by density and buoyancy.

Density in and of itself is simply defined as the amount of mass (not weight, mass) that a given thing has per cubic unit. Ie, water has a density of 1000 kg / m^3, which is to say that every cubic meter of water contains exactly 1000 kg of water. Density itself does not define any particular physical behavior, but rather a physical characteristic.

Bouyancy, on the other hand, does define a behavior in many ways. It's definition is "the upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of a submersed object". Weight is defined as "the force on an object due to gravity". In noting this, we see that the opponent is assuming the existence of gravity by claiming to believe in buoyancy. Without gravity, the concept of buoyancy would not exist.

What's more, buoyancy deals with fluids -- not gases or solid matter. We are currently being "held to the Earth" in a gas atmosphere, meaning no liquid is involved. This means that even if buoyancy didn't already assume the existence of gravity, it still would not explain our current dillema.

The opponent's referenced FAQ uses a cute picture of various color liquids being suspended on one another in a beaker. The characterstic of density does play a role here, as more dense matter is pulled beneath less dense matter. If we were to hypothetically assume that this account for us staying on the planet, then we run into a consistency when considering the "Vomit Comet".

For those who don't know, the Vomit Comet is any plane that flies in a specific parabolic, largely vertical flight path whose purpose is to introduce people to what it feels like to be free of gravity. In the opponent's view, the density of the air inside the plane is less than the density of a human, so the human should remain on the ground. We find, however, that when the plane enters a controlled fall, the people and object inside begin to "float" and can move around the plane in any direction without being pulled towards the Earth. In the opponent's view, this should be impossible. Clearly the flight path of the plane does not change the density of the objects inside, but we still see that the behavior of these objects changes.

This counter-example effectively disproves the opponent's "density" argument. We are, again, left with the idea that object possess an innate attraction toward all other objects and that particularly large objects exert this force to a noticeable degree. We should also note that the opponent ignore the evidence I presented that clearly shows a science experiment in which the gravitational pull between two relatively small objects was able to be measured. This evidence is an actual observable measurement of the gravitational pull between two things which are not celestial in size.

Next, the opponent attempts to provide "gravitational counterexamples", which I will address here.

1. "Gravity causes some things to stick to other objects, some things to orbit, pulls on some objects and pushes on others."

Barring the last behavior (pushes on objects), which has never been demonstrably observed, the other behaviors are all the same.

Gravity causes things of mass to be drawn toward one another. The strength of this force depends on the distance between the two objects and the mass of the objects. Two grains of sand in a vacuum, void of any other matter, would be attracted toward one another and would eventually meet. This would take a considerable amount of time, however, since grains of sand are very small.

As far as Earth is concerned, we can think of the Earth's gravity as "causing things to fall". Objects in orbit are literally falling toward Earth, but their horizontal velocity is great enough such that they effectively remain at the same altitude, even though from a fixed perspective they are clearly falling. All satellites eventually will fall to earth, if left untouched, as they slowly lose their horizontal velocity over time due to minute frictions. Gravity pulls on all objects and there is no observable behavior that violates this idea.

2. "How can we do space walks on the ISS."

As was mentioned, things in orbit are falling. Just as you can do a "space walk" on a Vomit Comet, you can do one on the ISS, since both are falling. It is a common misconception that gravity is "too weak" on the ISS that it allows floating. Rather, the ISS and other satellites are in a constant state of falling, which allows for the sensation of weightlessness.

3. "How do elliptical orbits work."

Perfectly circular orbits are nearly non-existent in nature. All orbits are elliptical to greater or lesser extents. An elliptical orbit "works" because an objects relative velocity changes dependent upon its location in the orbit. If you think of the "portion of the orbit" where the object is coming back to the larger body from its long leg, it is moving at a very fast speed. The satellite moves past the planet, then loses velocity as it reaches the far end of the other leg, then comes back. A highly elliptical orbit is basically an object that is falling toward the planet, but has the horizontal velocity to just barely miss hitting the planet.

Again, all orbits are elliptical to some extent. And to further make clear an important idea here, if something has a velocity that it going against the direction of gravity, that object can still move for some time in that direction, though gravity is decelerating it. Consider that you can "jump" on Earth. You jumping gives you a vertical velocity against gravity. This velocity is reduced because of gravity's acceleration in the opposite direction, so eventually you stop moving up and come back down.

I hope this clarifies gravity for the opponent. Doing something as simple as reading the "gravity" wikipedia page clearly answers many of the opponent's questions, as gravity is a very understood phenomenon. (I say understood in that we know how objects are affected by gravity. The nature of what actually causes gravity to occur is not understood at this time.)

Flat Earth Counterexamples

I'll providing some counterexamples, either based in logic or based on what any person can do themselves. I'm not going off any "video evidence" or "photo evidence", as the opponent believes that these could be part of some epic conspiracy.

1. You can't see Hawaii from California.

Let's be clear -- I understand that the atmosphere would not allow one to see 2,500 miles in one direction. However, I title the point this to harken back to the points mentioned earlier.

If the Earth were flat, one would expect that you could look at the horizon and either a) see very distant earthly objects or b) see a white "fuzz" caused by the atmosphere. We see, however, that whenever we look over any horizon at night, we can clearly see stars. If the world were flat, we would expect to see a "fuzziness" that goes up for a while, which then turns to star light once we are looking through little enough atmosphere to see.

This is clearly not the case. I say any horizon because I want the opponent to understand that this ability to see the stars has nothing to do with local geography, but is a global phenomenon.

Consider this gourgeous image that I have provided. It illustrates a portion of a flat Earth. The distance between the penguin and the city is some 2,500 miles and he is looking in the direction of that city, over the horizon. He should see an atmospheric blur in a flat earth, but he is in reality able to see the stars directly over the horizon. This reality is completely inconsistent with the flat Earth model.

2. The Flat earth is inconsistent with gravity.

As I have already demonstrated, gravity is a real force that even the opponent unwittingly used to describe the behavior of objects in his "buoyancy" claims. A flat earth could not maintain its shape under gravity and people near the "edge" of the flat earth would not be pulled down but rather at an angle between "down" and "over". Let's explore both of these ideas briefly.

Just like water, the earth generally attempts to rest at the "lowest point", which is to say it attempts to exist in the state in which it has the least potential energy. Just as if one built a sufficiently high skycraper it would eventually crumble under its own weight, so would a flat earth's edges crumble toward its gravitational center. This is why celestial bodies are generally round -- gathering matter during planet formation attempts to rest in the position in which it has the least potential energy. This shape is a sphere, in which every point on the surface is roughly as distant from the gravitational center as every other point. (This is also why water forms a sphere -- it is at its "lowest" point when the surface of the water lies along the radius of a sphere, as it is as close as it can be to the "center".)

Additionally, the gravitational center of the earth would still be at the "middle of the plate" in a flat earth. This means objects near the edge of the plate would be pulled in that direction and would, based upon the size of the earth, literally slide in that direction, since they are not affixed to the earth.


Unfortunately, I'm out of space. I look forward to the opponent's response.


It's clear that my opponent has abandoned trying to prove the rotundity of the earth, which is the point of the debate, and is trying to strong arm the G word, as if for some reason the basic observation of things going down and things rising proves his case. He speaks of my ignoring an argument proving that two bodies are attracted to each other, after reviewing the article, I must point out some excerpts:

"In the lab, a measurement of the strength of gravity must be free of any trace of stray electrical forces. It also has to account for the enormous influence of Earth’s gravity, as well as the influence of the Sun, Moon, and many other factors."

"The resulting set-up was so sensitive, says Tino, it had to be operated by remote control otherwise the measurement could be skewed by the gravitational attraction of the scientists in the room."

"According to Tino’s experiment, Big G is 6.67191 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. But as Tino’s results vary from the official value of 6.67384 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 they don’t resolve the problem. The rubidium experimental result is an outlier – but so are almost all the Big G measurements made over the last 20 years. It remains one of the mysteries of experimental physics."

Now I don't know about you, but sometimes I can tell when someone is pulling my leg, and this seems to be one of those times. Firstly, the experiment is largely based on quantum or microscopic measurements, and as we all know, "gravity" acts very different in the quantum field. Secondly, it seems that the only way to get accurate results is in deep space, but the other planets and sun STILL have an effect on the results. This is not practical in any way. Why can't they just take a pebble, spin it around or make it stick to the side of a boulder? Do it on a spacewalk! I know this is your all in hand, but I'm not impressed. Also not how con ignores the possibility of an endless plane, where "the edge" that would "crumble on its own weight" is nonexistent. How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla.

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

~ Nikola Tesla.

But things are still better explained using buoyancy and density. I've seen zero evidence of the orbiting of two bodies, two bodies attracted to each other other than things of high density are drug down, or a simple experiment showing water can stick to a pressurized spinning ball in a vacuum. You can have buoyancy with a gas, I thought everyone knew this. Here is an elementary study on the subject of buoyancy:
noun1.the ability or tendency to float in water or air or some other fluid.

noun1.a body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing.

As it stands going into round 5: view from airplanes: dropped, other spherical bodies: dropped, unlikelihood of an international conspiracy: dropped, end of the earth: dropped, sheer evidence overload: dropped (opponent's arguments for a spherical shaped earth)
My opponent also drops the distances sighted argument, the reflections on water argument, and the flight paths argument, all of which show empirical proof of a flat earth, and goes all in with his "proof" of gravity. My opponent, who claims that gravity proves a spherical earth, also makes the claim that vomit comets prove gravity, do vomit comets prove gravity? Let's examine his statement:

"For those who don't know, the Vomit Comet is any plane that flies in a specific parabolic, largely vertical flight path whose purpose is to introduce people to what it feels like to be free of gravity."

Largely vertical flight path are the key words in this statement.

"In the opponent's view, the density of the air inside the plane is less than the density of a human, so the human should remain on the ground. We find, however, that when the plane enters a controlled fall, the people and object inside begin to "float" and can move around the plane in any direction without being pulled towards the Earth."

So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with an apple?

To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force. The ISS maintains a constant altitude, the only way the vomit comet works, is because the plane is falling at the same rate that density is carrying the ball to a place of equal or higher density, as you stated, it is falling. its is acting the same way that it would if there were no plane, and since the barriers of the plane are always just out of reach, the apple will only appear to float.

Gravity is one of the top ten mysteries of science.(1) Believing in something you can't physically see (orbiting, etc) is more a faith.


"The entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton’s “law of gravitation.” Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by “law” are caught up in the Sun’s “gravity” and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it. They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their “ball-Earth” without falling off.

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science." Eric Dubay

Scientists who disagree with (and prove it) gravity.

It's surprising how when I mention how overuse of the G word is a pet peeve, my opponent shifts his entire argument to the existence of it, and ignores all other evidence.

Con offers some flat earth counterexamples, since we have dismissed any question that gravity is absolute fact, I can address them.

He doesn't seem to realize, and completely ignores, how linear perspective works, or atmospheric refraction for that matter, let's look at both of them.

Linear Perspective
Another seemingly elementary law is the Law of Perspective. We've all seen the railroad tracks closing together to form a point, called the vanishing point. This point is, essentially, as far as we can see. what my opponent may not remember, is that this works on a vertical axis too, explained by looking at the telephone poles. The further the telephones get away from the viewer, the smaller they get. This eventually gets to a point where one simply cannot see the poles any longer, simply because the viewer is too far away from the pole, and it is now blended in with the horizon. this would be the equivalent to me saying that since the Nikon p900 can see objects ten miles away, mars, which is (supposed to be) 33.9 million miles away, should not be able to pull it into view, yet here it is.

Here is a study on linear perspective.

A video on the subject, since it is an entirely vision based concept, videos explain it better.

Perspective, when combined with atmosphere, effectively blocks anything past a certain point from being seen by shrinking it, blocking it, and bending the light that is trying to come through.

"Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces miragesand can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, elevated or lowered, stretched or shortened with no mirage involved."

This is clear when looking at some telescopic views of boats going out to sea. See how the water past a certain point is barely visible, reflecting the blue sky, with only breaks being visible.

Please, the next time you are outside, look up and try to make out the details on a 747 that is only about 7 miles away, then imagine that times 2-300, this is why you cant see a white "fuzz" when looking at the stars at night.
Debate Round No. 4


Welcome everybody to this, our final round. We're currently discussing the shape of Earth and, in the previous round, I narrowed the topic to a discussion on gravity, satellites and the inconsistency of a flat Earth. I did so not to "ignore other arguments", but to limit the scope while still upholding my resolutional burden.

Note that I have demonstrated that gravity, if it exists, is entirely inconsistent with a flat earth and, beyond that, demands that large bodies be mostly spherical. I also discussed satellites, mostly for the opponent and finally discussed one "gravity unrelated" example as to why the Earth cannot be flat. I have chosen not to return to some of my previous arguments, not because I felt they were weak, but because I knew that 10,000 characters was not enough to do them justice. In other words, I've chosen "depth" over "breadth", as I believe my opponent has "canned" answers for most of these issues that do not stand up to serious examination.

It seems I did explicitly drop bringing up the "sun's linear reflection on water" argument, though I'm fairly confident that my current evidence for a round earth will "trump" that. I'll briefly mention it again, should I have the time.


The opponent has decided to both make up definitions and make up known physics in this final round to justify his point. While I can allow that he is operating under the assumption that gravity does not exist, I cannot allow that he is free to come up with his own physical models backed simply by his own conjecture and no empirical evidence.


The Evidence

Edl attempts to show my evidence "unfit" and "untrue" because different experiments have been unable to nail down the exact force of gravity on objects. To be clear, the quantitative part of these two different results were 6.67191 and 6.67384. This is a noteable difference, but they are both extremely near one another -- exactly what one would expect during experimentation. Rarely in experimental physics do the "results" precisely match one another. As my opponent has mentioned, there are a great many objects that have a gravitational force that must be considered.

As for his claim regarding "quantum measurements", this is just untrue. The measurements of the force of gravity were on a microscopic scale because the actual equation for gravitational force itself shows that two relatively small objects have a very small gravitational force. The actual objects whose relative gravitational force as being measured were not microscopic -- just the force they shared, which is expected to be very small. The fact that multiple tests found numbers very similar implies that they tests were successful to some large degree.

Odd Counter-Examples

"Why can't you just take a pebble, spin it around and make it stick to the side of a boulder?"

The gravitational force between the two is extremely weak. If you did this in deep enough space (where the force between the two is stronger than the force of extremely distant bodies) then yes, the two would eventually "stick together". This would take a very long time.

"Con ignores the possibility of an endless plane."

Uh, yes. I actually did. A) We have reason to believe the amount of matter in the universe is finite. B) If the Earth's plane were infinite, it would have an infinite amount of matter very close together and the earth would quickly collapse into a black hole. C) Even if this part of physics wasn't real and it didn't collapse into a black hole, it would certainly collapse into itself. This only makes my spherical body due to gravity even more relevant. D) If it was infinite, I can admit there'd be no edge -- but that wouldn't stop the "middle parts" from crumbling in on themselves. Surely we're not assuming that a mysterious force holds the plane together in that shape, when we can clearly remove parts of the surface?

"Nikola Tesla says...."

I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "", "" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.

And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing.

Buoyancy and Density

Here, the opponent makes up the definition of to suit his whims. I'll first admit, though, that some sources consider the term "buoyancy" to apply to gases, while others would use a different term, reserving buoyancy to only apply to liquids. This is irrelevant to the next part of my argument, however.

The opponent presents a source which clearly says "All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force—called buoyancy—on any object immersed in them." His "elementary study" defines buoyancy in respect to gravity, which was my entire point. His definition for "weight" is obviously of his own creation as it is downright incorrect.

As every physics I student knows mass and weight are two completely different things. One concerns the amount of matter in an object, while the other considers the downward force that object possesses in a gravitational field. (Feel free to use any dictionary and look at the definition of weight. You'll see that gravity is mentioned.)

Because buoyancy only makes sense under the assumption of gravity, the opponent cannot claim that buoyancy is the explanation for gravitational events, but that gravity does not exist. If gravity does not exist then buoyancy, as it is defined, does not exist either. You cannot have the latter without the former.

Vomit Comet

This is the part where Edl makes up a bunch of physics. He claims that because VC's fly in largely vertical flight paths, "the force [of the motion of the plane] counters the force due to density", causing it to float. This doesn't actually make physical sense, since the density of the person in the plane and the air around that person in no way physically changes due to the motion of the plane.

When the person begins to float, they are moving through the clearly-still-less-dense air, which should be impossible if density alone explained the "downward force". If the opponent seriously wants to argue that another counteracting force comes into play, he should understand that this counteracting force would equally apply to the person in the plane and the air inside the plane. Both forces would be countered the same amount, meaning the more-dense thing should still remain on the bottom of the plane.

And yes, I understand that a helium balloon would float in a VC. This as not my point. [Though it does so because the air inside is less dense than the air in a plane. If you did the experiment in reverse and flew upward extremely fast, you'd find the balloon rested on the bottom of the plane, despite it being less dense than the air around it. Here, I am using the term density as the opponent has used it.]

Gravity is a Mystery

Yes, it is. Why gravity exists at all and where this force specifically comes from is a mystery. The effects that gravity has on objects is well understood. We don't know why objects possess this fundemental force, but we do understand the physics involved regarding this force this object emits.


The opponent again attempts to explain gravity away with "buoyancy", while not realizing that buoyancy itself is defined as only working because of the existence of gravity. In a few places he makes up definitions to attempt to get around this, which I did not let stand, and in others he attempts to make up his own physics, which I also did not let stand.

At this point, the opponent has in no way brought himself closer to explaining the force we call gravity in any terms other than gravity. As a result of this, my arguments concerning the impossibility for gravity to exist alongside a flat earth stand, eliminating the possibility of a flat earth. Ive further demonstrated that gravity causes spherical planets to form, upholding my end of the resolution.

Looking over horizon and seeing stars, not an atmospheric fog.

The opponent talks about linear perspective, then makes up some science. I'll look at each.

Linear perspective is a very real phenomenon that occurs when looking at things with our bare eyes. Consider the opponent's "train track" example. If we stand on tracks and look along them, they appear to converge. This is true. However, if you pull out some binoculars, the point of convergence would move from, say 1000m away to 10,000 m away. Linear perspective is a flaw of any "seeing device's" ability to see well. You can always pull out a more powerful telescope and move the apparent convergence point further back. (In this case, you'd reach the end of the tracks.)

The made up part when the opponent implies that we can see stars directly on the horizon and through miles and miles of low ground atmosphere because the light is effectively being "bent" around it. He briefly mentions mirages.

This is completely made up in that it doesn't conform to known physical facts and is the apparent misapplication of the science involved in mirages. I can't really argue against abject lying in any way then pointing out that it isn't true, so I'll again reiterate my point.

In a flat earth, if you looked parallel of the earth toward the horizon, you would expect to see not much of anything (an atmospheric blur). Instead, you see stars, which should clearly be occluded by the atmosphere and cities/mountains/etc. present. This creates a contradiction, whose only rational explanation is that the earth is not flat.


I've run out of space again. I've proved that the force of gravity does exist and that the opponent hasn't provided an ulterior explanation. This proves round earth (see r3,4).


Thanks again con for this invitation to once again prove that the earth is flat. I have to say this is the weakest argument both for the spherical earth and against the flat earth I've ever been a part of. You completely turned the whole debate into one about graVity, and an equally weak one at that. Gravity is entirely dependent on the earth being a globe, and the entire Heliocentric model. Even you say "if it exists" when talking about it in the final round of this debate. I hope this is an act, I clearly proved that the earth was flat with 3 empirical evidences, and disproved every "proof" brought up. Just going over some of the last rounds arguments:

"I believe my opponent has "canned" answers for most of these issues that do not stand up to serious examination"

How can you have canned answers for issues against the mainstream? As I said before, there are hundreds of proofs of a flat earth, and against a spherical one. There are about 12 for a spherical earth. that is canned. I thought that "serious examination" was the whole point of this debate? I mean, I "seriously examined" your evidence. I spend thousands of hours of research for and against the flat earth, comprise a few that are impossible to debunk and I have canned answers?

"It seems I did explicitly drop bringing up the "sun's linear reflection on water" argument..."

Yes you did, and also the distances sighted argument, and flight paths argument, all of which are empirical proofs for my side.

"The opponent has decided to both make up definitions and make up known physics"

How do you make up "known physics"?
Note: No mention of the word "gravity" until you expand the alternative definitions tab.

Since con has graciously given his "evidence" of gravity, which is neither practical, repeatable, or empirical, and I have empirically proved that the earth is flat, without and rebuttal or evidence contrary to my claims, we must apply Occam's Razor, which is defined as:

Principle established by the logician William of Ockham in the 14th century. Like the Principle of Parsimony, this theory states that one should not make unnecessary assumptions and that the answer to a problem is often the simplest. It is the basis of methodological reductionalism and applications of its principles are commonly used in modern strategy and economics.

Do we assume that graVity exists, as my opponent claims? Go to the Wikapedia page for gravity and find the word proof. This is an unneccasary assumption, when we have empirical proof that the earth is flat, and none contradicting it that can't be easily explained away. Since my opponent has dropped all arguments for a spherical globe, and has not refuted any claims for a flat earth, this should be an easy vote.

Debate Round No. 5
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Need some votes on the rematch
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Good vote Kescarte!!!
Posted by Cobalt 2 years ago
I think I'd like a rematch. This time I'll present a different selection of arguments and avoid the gravity thing, since apparently it flew over the only voter's head. (At least that's what he says in his RFD.)
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
This one I had to do from my phone, this one is better.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Actually don't know. I've only skimmed it. I do like the setup. I'd guess pro cast sufficient doubt on the gravity depends on spears argument... The biggest thing I would suggest for future arguments, is using more pictures in the place of lengthy explanations about what we see.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Ya I'm not sure why it was so short, which way were you leaning?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Just came back to cast a vote... Did not realize it was such a short vote window.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
depends? or depend 3rd link down
Posted by Cobalt 2 years ago
I always thought they were Jewish, but the spelling would still be the same.

Our memories are imperfect. Some of those quotes are just repeatedly incorrectly so often that we assume it's correct. People have probably heard fans say "Luke, I am your father," many more time than they heard Vader say the correct line in the movies.

It really comes down to quotability. Barring the Berenstain Bears spelling, almost all of those quotes are more pleasing to the ear and/or give more context than the original quote. Probably has nothing to do with time travel or alternate realities.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: