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

The Earth is not Flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,930 times Debate No: 96377
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (250)
Votes (0)




First Round:

I challenge 'Edlvsjd' for this debate. In the first round is acceptance and presenting which model of the Earth we accept and giving explanations on things we observe and experience, such as how far the sun and moon is and explanations for the downward force that keeps us on the ground and things that can vary from model to model.

The model I accept is the standard Globe Earth model - The Earth revolves around the Sun and is a large star currently midway through it's life and approximately 150 million km from the Earth. Gravity is the downward force we feel originating from the Earth's mass. I follow all the explanations given from the heliocentric, globe earth model and universe.

Since my opponent is in the stance of CON, he shall present his ideologies. Does my opponent accept elements from the most accepted flat earth model by flat earthers such as the sun and moon which is 3000 miles away and is going around above the sky, and if not, may you please present your explanations for these things within the first round?

There shall be no rebuttals in the first round. I hope you enjoy this debate.


I accept this debate on the grounds that I do not represent any model put forth by any organization, and am not required to prove any model in it's entirety. I simply contest that the earth is flat, or not spherical, and that it is not moving. Some of the flat earth community I agree with, some I don't. There are several claims that are ridiculous, and are likely being pushed by shills here to discredit this awakening. This has caused some of the tenants of the model to be misconstrued. I hope my opponent is open minded enough to consider this as a possibility, It's sad to see so many young, brilliant, closed minds.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate, now onto my starting points - I shall present the main points why I do not believe the earth is flat. These will only be points and the evaluations and detailed descriptions to expand my argument shall be presented in later rounds, and I request my opponent to do so as well.

First point:

There is video evidence, or recorded cases of a globe earth, either taken from spacecraft or satellites. I am aware that flat earthers dismiss this video evidence but frankly, I do not know why they think this, or what evidence they have to support why they are faked. It is not just NASA, the Indian space program, the Russian, the Israeli, the Chinese, the Nigerian, the Iranian, the Japanese space programs have all sent spacecraft outside of the atmosphere. Perhaps flat earthers may suggest that all of these recorded cases are faked, but I don't see how or why all of these countries would want to waste money into creating a conspiracy to keep people believing in a globe earth for some unknown reason. Surely it would be more rational to think that if ALL these governments were to fake anything, it would not be what shape the earth is, and perhaps some issues directly related to the situation of the country itself - such as the communist ideals in China, the aggression between the Russians and the Islamic State, or even the situation of India's poverty. All these cases, in short, would make more sense to fake than a 'flat earth', since if all these countries are faking a flat earth, it would be nonsensical in the sense of usefulness and a waste of time.

Second point:

Most flat earthers show videos of either the horizon from the ground, or from an air plane. The horizon in all of these cases look flat, and most suggest that this is proof that the earth is flat. They, however, fail to acknowledge their own angle of view, not realising that if they see the horizon as flat, it is actually evidence that the eye, with an approximately 60 degrees angle of view, cannot see the curvature of the earth.

Third point:

There are many questions that flat earthers have not answered, such as how the p-wave and the s-wave shadow zone would form on a flat earth if the shadows depend on the refractive index of the crust, mantle and core on a globe earth, and since my opponent does not adhere to a specific model, how the sun would work on a flat earth, or more specifically, how raleigh scattering and other phenomena dependent on the sun would work on a flat earth, if we have used a globe earth to explain them thus far. I would like my opponent to explain questions such as this.

Also, to my opponent, since gravity will be an impossibility on a flat earth, what replaces the theory of gravity to exlpain the effects caused by gravity?

These are questions that I would like answered please.

Fourth point:

I will keep this short, I have seen that many flat earthers suggest that, while objects do disappear beyond the horizon, suggesting that the earth is a globe, if you zoom back in, you can actually see the object again, suggesting the earth is flat. I shall ask my opponent what his explanations are for this? Do you think that perhaps the light cannot reach our eyes? I would like an explanation, thanks.

This is the end of my first round, I would prefer if my opponent follows the same format of presenting the main points first of all, but he is in no way required to follow it.


As the format has not been proposed, I'll begin this round with some evidence in favor of the flat earth theory or against the spherical earth theory, as this may cover most of my opponent's questions about my stance. I'll begin full rebuttals in the next round.

Preface: Examining evidence
In this dichotomy, the preponderance of evidence for a flat earth far outweighs what little evidence that the ball earth theory touts, most of those are anecdotal, theoretical, inconclusive, or largely unrelated. When examining evidence, determining which stance is the true one requires that evidence to pass these tests, or it is a speculative assumption. We ultimately would take the choice with the least assumptions. I will show how all of my opponent's arguments are at least one or more of these, while providing empirical, experimental, and or logical evidences that point to a flat, motionless earth.

Point 1. Distances sighted.
The curvature allowed for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference is easily calculable, but the lesson was curiously never taught in school, despite being indoctrinated about the globe since kindergarten. For the first mile, there should be a declination of 8 inches. Wikipedia will tell you this much, but since we don't live on a slope, the next mile will drop further than just 8 more inches. After the first mile, you must square the mile to get the accurate drop for the proposed ball. This formula is a simplified version, and has been verified in CAD programs. Example 10 miles (10x10=100x8=800/12=66.6 feet of curvature (I know right) Now that we know how much curvature that must occur in order for the earth to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, we can falsify this supposed curvature.
Since telescope, binoculars, and telephoto lenses are readily available, it's no wonder they won't teach us how to falsify this basic tenant of the round earth theory. Anyone who lives close to a body of water can perform the simple task of verifying whether or not that body was relatively flat. Case in point. Joshua Nowicki has been photographing Chicago from across Lake Michigan for some time now, this is a span of over 60 miles. When we plug this mileage into out handy dandy formula, we get (60x60)8"=28,800"/12=2,400 feet. The tallest building in Chicago is 1,400 feet, so we should not be seeing any of Chicago, yet there it is, in it's entirety.(1)

People are doing this simple experiment all over the world and the results are the same, no curvature, anywhere. This matches up with common sense daily observations of the physics of water, which is to find and maintain a flat, level surface. By the way, (2) this is a superior mirage, and inferior mirage, and they are always (3) inverted mirror like reflections of an object. Common sense will tell anyone that this couldn't possibly be a mirage. (4) Also, any time this simple test has been performed, no curvature has ever been found.(5) These are empirical, direct observations that refutes a basic tenant of my opponent's argument, if you examine that evidence objectively, the ball part.

(5) curvature tests:

Point 2
Experimental evidence you live on a flat plane
Take a piece of sheet metal and hold one side up to your eyes and the other end flat out at a light source some distance away. You will be able to get an image very much like this, if you hold the metal flat enough(6), however, bend it over, and you won't even see a reflection, because it is hidden behind curvature. Reflections of lights on balls produces a specular highlight, that always faces the source. Anyone with a christmas tree can confirm this. (7) The sun would be hitting 90d in relation to the observer and the center of the earth at sunset, about 4,000 miles below your feet in the flat earth model, the sun is out of reach for me to find out exactly what, where, and how the sun is, but it has never appeared to be below my feet, or 93 Brazilian miles away (7). It is a moving light in the sky, anything else i would have to speculate, and we are debating the earth, not (the) heaven(s), which is another debate altogether.


Point 3.
Not one real picture of earth from space.
Probably the most regurgitated "proof" for a spinning ball is "photographic evidence". But how do you know it's not Photoshop? Every picture put forth by NASA has either been admitted Photoshop, where graphics artists stitch together scans of earth(9), which could easily be done on a flat earth with a u2 spy plane, or be proved fake. I challenge my opponent to produce any picture of a ball earth for examination, all of them have discrepancies. NASA uses fisheye lenses to curve the horizon in their videos and pictures, where you see a fixed, eye level horizon. Proof of this is in Felix Baumgartner's Red Bull sponsored record breaking sky dive. If you watch carefully, many times the horizon is way overly curved, like the land is covering 1/4 of the entire ball, or even concave. The true horizon is only visible when Felix Baumgartner is preparing for the jump.(10) Honestly, we could have allocated a cool million on a NASA -grade camera, trained it on the earth and mounted it on the moon available at no cost to the taxpayers, who have thus far invested about 1trillion dollars, adjusting for inflation, for such things as this, but hey, we got Tang and Velcro. Here we have a logical proof the the earth is not a ball, as this should have been done long ago. By the way, Felix landed in the opposite direction he would have if the earth were spinning around under him at 1,000 mph. Which brings us to another basic tenant of the most widely believed religion in the world, movement.

Point 4.
A preponderance of evidence shows anyone with half a brain and use of their basic senses that when you are still, you aren't moving an inch. People were equipped with motion sensors in their ears. Go on any ride, slow or fast, you will always be able to sense movement (still forgetting about changing directions at breakneck speeds) especially when they are moving with the direction of travel verses away from it. If evolution and a spinning earth were true, there would be no such thing as motion sickness. Think about it.
This motion has never been proved in any experiment trying to do so. Aireys failure found none, Michelson Morley found none, and The Sagnac experiments confirmed this. Science claims that these experiments were searching for the existence of the aether, it was in fact done to determine the movements of the earth in respect to the Aether, both popular ideas at the time. Though the more radical ideas took precedence in that day, unless you could dazzle your audience, scientists made very little money, and the aether was ruled out instead of the ridiculous idea that we were spinning. This is why Einstein said " Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."(11) The Sagnac Interferometer came along and confirmed the existence of the aether(12), which they back engineered to also fit along with TOR. Any person can get a decent gyroscope and test for any sort of movement themselves. A digital pitch indicator laid at rest also confirms this. A decent phone has a gyroscope in it, and a pitch indicator app will also show no change in direction in relation to space. So we have another empirical observation of a few experiments we can perform to conclude the earth isn't spinning.

(12) The Michelson-Morley Experiment:

So there is no evidence of any curvature, and there is no evidence of any spinning, two basic tenants of the heliocentric model that started out as assumptions and remain so to this day. Assumptions are ok to test out a theory, but this model has piled assumptions on top of assumptions on top of these two assumptions, sooner or later you must prove those initial assumptions. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2


This round will be presenting my rebuttals to my opponent's points, and they will be separated into the points my opponent presented. Let's begin:

Opponent's point 1:

My opponent proposes that the globe Earth has a circumference of 25000 miles, with the curvature declination being 8 inches per mile. He is correct, and he is also correct in calculating the declination of the earth's curvature in his example of 10 miles. With this, he goes on to falsify the curvature by giving the example of Chicago viewed from across Lake Michigan which spans across over 60 miles. I should mention that the curvature declination of 60 miles is about 2380 feet, and since the tallest building is 1400 feet, it should be impossible to view Chicago from 60 miles across! Or so he proposes.

Well, it should be made clear that the position where Joshua has been taking the photos of the Chicago skyline is actually NOT 60 miles, this is a common mistake flat earthers make when arguing against the curvature (since the Chicago skyline is something referred to commonly by flat earthers as evidence against a curvature, it is not a new argument I should mention). Where flat earthers got the 60 miles figure is by travelling around the bottom of the lake, while the direct distance from the place the picture was taken from and the Chicago skyline is ACTUALLY 35 miles. Now, let's refer to the handy calculation of the curvature declination, and with that the declination is... less than 1000 feet! As my opponent ever so correctly pointed out, the highest building in Chicago is 1400 feet (I thank my opponent for giving me such figures). With these newly gained revelations, let's see some errors with the flat earth argument on the skyline. We have already discovered that it IS possible to see Chicago on a globe Earth (from where my opponent proposes the photo was taken from). My opponent makes the other mistake of suggesting we are seeing Chicago in its entirety, when in fact we see but a fraction of Chicago. Here are just some of the things we cannot observe on this photo if we are seeing Chicago in it's entirety and if the Earth was flat (remember that I am referencing the photo my opponent sourced):

1. Chicago has a pier named Navy Pier and on that long boardwalk is a 150 ft Ferris wheel. It is brightly lit around dusk and yet it cannot be seen.

2. Chicago has a famous road called Lake Shore Drive. It sits right on the edge of the lake for most of the 16+ miles. We cannot see the the traffic on LSD, which should be illuminated by streetlights and headlamps by this hour.

3. There are several beaches " Montrose Harbour, North Avenue Beach and Oak Street Beach to name a few. They are well lit and prominent in their visibility, and yet we cannot see them in the photo my opponent sourced.

4. All of these many buildings in the photo are but a fraction of the city. There are more that you can"t see.

5. Additionally, Chicago sits well above the lake on a break wall.

I shall await an explanation of how we cannot see these things in the photo if the Earth was flat, and I shall not accept such excuses as 'we cannot see these things due to the light not being able to reach us' or 'we can zoom in and see these places'. Note: I am not accusing my opponent of giving ANY of these excuses, I am simply referencing some excuses other flat earthers have given.

Opponent's point 2:

I would first like to point out that my opponent has not made it very clear what he is exactly focusing on, so I apologize in advance if I misrepresent any of his second point. But from what I can understand, my opponent is focusing on crepuscular rays and the impossibility of such rays in a sunset, since that would require the sun to be below the flat earth, which he implies should not be the case since he claims that the sun is a moving light in sky, which I should mention is yet another vague proposition, since he has not specified in which direction it moves in to fit into what we can directly observe. However, I cannot see why he would mention this since there are anti-crepuscular rays which are observed at sunrise or sunset which can explain how the light my opponent observes can occur on a globe earth. I would like some further clarification on this argument from my opponent since I am unsure whether I fully understood what he was trying to argue, since it was quite vague!

Note: I would also like to mention that his proposed experiment and its results will not be comparable to the situations we see on earth, since the metal and the earth has quite different surfaces and atmosphere and compositions (if you haven't noticed), and comparing two contrasting things would be a false comparison.

Opponent's point 3:

My opponent is correct in saying that NASA does use Photoshop on the images we see of Earth. But NASA uses Photoshop in the same way one's wedding photographer would use Photoshop, or in the way that the editors of cookbooks would use Photoshop. What flat earthers heavily misrepresent is how NASA uses Photoshop on their images of Earth. Let us recap on how a picture of Earth by NASA is created - a composite of several images taken by satellites is brought together into one image, which can explain the discrepancies seen on these images (see Blue Marble (1)) since the Earth would have spun while these multiple images were being taken, and after it is one image, this is where Photoshop comes into play. Just like a wedding photographer would use Photoshop to enhance the images taken of a husband and wife, NASA uses the program to enhance and make the image truly appear like one image.

My opponent is open to rebut this but what I do not want is a repeated assertion of the claim that 'it is fake!'.

1. -

My opponent is also correct in saying that fish eye lenses were used in recording Felix's jump which would have distorted the surface quite heavily, which can be seen in this photo (1). But perhaps my opponent forgot to mention photos such as this (2), this (3), or even this (4), where even by eye inspection, a clear curvature can be seen. It is slight I should admit, but it is clear enough to see a curvature.

Perhaps my opponent might use this (5) to argue against the observed curvature, since the photo was taken at a higher altitude than the previous photos, but hopefully he shall not forget the importance of angle of view on a photo!

Note: his analogy of the globe Earth to a 'religion' is demonstrably false, but that topic is for another debate.

1. -

2. -

3. -*

4. -

5. -

Opponent's point 4:

It clear that my opponent is arguing that the velocity at which the Earth is spinning is an absurd notion, since we should be moving or at least feeling the force of such a velocity (also somehow the non-existence of motion sickness since we should be moving at speeds faster than any vehicle should, further suggesting how we should be used to feeling the force of the velocity). I shall rebut that first.

It is scientifically established that Newton's Laws of Motion applies to all physics involving movement (refer to name of the laws - Motion). My opponent in his earlier point suggested that Felix should have landed on ground that would have arrived at his feet from the spin of the Earth, but this is an impossibility since Felix would have still been moving in the same direction of Earth's spin with the same velocity, since objects in motion stay in motion unless influenced by other forces, meaning that Felix would not have traveled downwards separately from Earth's spin and velocity.

Furthermore, the reason we do not feel the Earth's spin is:

Simple - we are moving at a constant velocity and therefore would not be feeling any force. This is simple forces physics.

Complex (explained using the Coriolis effect) - To fully explain how we do not feel the spin of the Earth, we need to take the example of a much faster spinning planet that Earth. I am running out of space so here, read the second answer. (1)

1. -

Your mentions on the Aether and the flaws of heliocentrism are non-sequitur to this argument which specifically focuses on a flat earth, so please withhold any mentions of it. If you want, I will be open to debate heliocentrism and even special relativity on a later debate, but it is not related to this one.


Pt1 Pictures and video. "My opponent is correct in saying that NASA does use Photoshop"

Both parties agree, image editing software is used to create images of earth. This "evidence" is already anecdotal, because no civilian has ever seen the earth as a ball, only a few hundred oath swearing astronots have supposedly seen this. My opponent insists that the image in question is several scans of the earth, merged together in Photoshop, (he ignores the point that this could also be done on a flat earth) which begs the question, Why? With all the satellites out there, we should be able to take a HD camera to space and take one real, unedited picture, there should be hundreds, which also means that a genuine photo would look like this, but no satellites are in any of the "photos".

He also downplays this, claiming they're just touching up the image, which is ridiculous since the point was agreed upon, that several images are stitched together. To this I provide an interview with the artist, and leave it in the hands of the voters. (1) Another image of earth, also has some "discrepancies" (2).

So we have an anecdotal proof that is probably faked, hell, anyone can get photoshop and provide evidence of whatever shape earth they please. Does he think NASA is just going to outright tell us they are faking pictures of earth?

Here is a picture of a giant gorilla that kidnaps white chicks and climbs buildings. This proves nothing but that we just saw a picture of king Kong.

You only need to look at some of their other fabulous works of art.

The first one looks like it was from a PlayStation 1 game, clearly not a photo. The second one has copy and past clouds all over the bottom left. In the third picture The United States takes up a half a hemi(sphere), over double the size of anywhere else. The last one should be mostly dark, similar to the right hand side of the 2nd picture, seeing how there would be no source of light other than the sun, and it is almost at the earth's back from us. This actually aids my conclusion since this is either a proof for it or against, and we see now which it is. I'll cover Felix's high jump while we're here to touch all of the bases. As shown in the video, the horizon can easily be bent using a wide angle lens. No lens is known to straighten out a curved line, so let's examine some footage from a balloon that reached just short of where Felix was claimed to have reached. (3) The Dog cam featured both a wide angle lens, and a standard lens, one on each side. Guess which one shows no curvature?

We also see an interesting sun in this video that appears to have grown substantially in size, and a hotspot directly under where the sun appears to be. But that's another debate altogether. On to my opponent's screen grabs. Take my opponent's last grab and throw a ruler on it. This is a straight line. We can see the false curvature was corrected with go pro correction software because the aluminum device extending from the craft is straight. This is the earth from the highest point in this jump. Any curvature from any altitude below this can be considered fake, especially since the bar is in none of the other shots to compare it to, the earth would not get more curved as one descends, and, since they are stills, we won't see any morphing. But we already know that Go pros were used in this dive. They were sponsors. Not sure what my opponent is referring to when he says "angle of view", they look like roughly the same angles to me. I'm guessing he thinks that looking at curved lines from a certain angle will flatten them out? Look once more at the Dog Cam, compare that to my opponents pictures from lesser altitudes he claims proves curvature.

Point 2 "Most flat earthers show videos of either the horizon from the ground, or from an air plane."

My opponent's attempts to group me with all flat earthers and claim this as proof of a spherical earth is just ridiculous, and wrong. I have shown high altitude balloon footage with a flat horizon, and have even pointed out an over the shoulder flat horizon on the skydive video (which my opponent ignores). Stereotyping flat earthers is not conclusive, and completely unrelated to the conclusion.

Point 3
My opponent again groups me with flat earthers and assumes they represent my views. The point is just a series of questions, mostly pertaining to irrelevant aspects of an overall model, none specifically pertaining to the shape of the earth. For the sake of discussion, I will review some of these questions, and provide a FAQ(4) again, and invite him to research this a little more carefully.

1. S-waves and p-wave shadow zone this evidence is also based on assumptions. First, is of course the earth is a globe, and second that scientists know anything about what exists past 8 miles below the surface. Third is how exactly whatever is down there behaves with seismic waves. The waves could be reflecting off of something, like a layer of dense liquid, cavern floors and walls, or worse (for atheists) hell's floor at specific angles.

2. The sun
I'm not going to speculate what the sun is, or where it is exactly. It appears to pass overhead, and when looking at an most flat earth models, the sun has a circular path around the north pole. Again, having a sun doesn't prove the earth is a ball.

3. Raleigh scattering Raleigh scattering is just an excuse for why the sky is blue. The truth is, the sky is blue because there is a vast body of liquid above our heads. The same as a pool, or an ocean, blue during the day, black or clear at night. Again, having a blue sky doesn't prove the earth is a ball.

4.The theory of gravity My opponent insists that gravity can't exist on a flat earth. My answer to this is how do you know gravity exists? The observable and demonstrable fact that unsupported objects fall down is not dependent on the earth being a ball. No experiment irrefutably proves gravity, in my opponent's use of the word, exists. Look up gravity on Wikipedia and find the word proof. What makes gravity do what it does? With what? Why can't we demonstrate small objects stuck to the side or orbiting around others? Newton's Apple fell because the molecules that made it up were more dense than the molecules that made up the air around and under it. There's no need to complicate it. To say that things wood float around if the Earth was flat is a silly assumption. The theory of gravity is entirely dependent on a spherical Earth, in other words they needed a good reason for why things stick to the bottom of a ball which has never ever before been observed. It's like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature in your head and going out trying to find evidence that it exists, and upon finding the tooth of an alligator, declaring you have your evidence. An assumption based on another assumption.

Point 4
My opponent's last proof of a spherical earth is yet another question. That being why objects disappear over a certain distance. Modern "Scientists" love to use advanced mathematical equations to prove reality, and while sometimes these maths add up to what we observe, the human eye and it's limits are not completely factored into these equations. The ancient Greeks theorized the earth a globe from observing ships appearing to drop over the horizon. But if they were to time and measure this distance at which they started to disappear, they would've figured out the size of the earth was far misjudged. If a ship appears to go over curvature at such a short distance, and our eyes see much more from left to right that straight ahead, we should indeed see curvature from even ground level. Perspective is the reason this appears to happen. These ships are reaching the vanishing point, and intercepting the ground plane from your perspective at a certain altitude. A few blades of grass blocks the view of anything behind it when it is at or near the vanishing point from your perspective. A simple experiment can be performed to verify this. Place a camera on the ground at one end of a football field. Start walking down field. You will notice at about 20-30 yards, your shoes will have disappeared, and at the other end zone, nothing but the waist up can be seen.(5)

Now my opponent can speculate that football fields are curved, and we all know that is a false assertion, football fields are level from end to end, with some slight drop from the middle to sideline for drainage. Waves and spray cause the bottom of the ship to merge with the water, creating a type of mirage. A flat earth proponent analyzed unedited footage and upon further examination, confirms this(6). So to answer my opponent's question, yes, the unaided human eye has a limit, sort of. Since this is entirely an visual observation, I'll link some videos with explanations to help understand.(7)(8)

Rebuttal-rebuttals and conclusions in the last round.
Debate Round No. 3


I have written my entire final argument in this link:

I am expecting my opponent to read this argument fully, not partially, fully. I will be pointing out any glossed over arguments in the comments for the voters to see if it is evident that he as failed to do so.

Note to viewers: The document may take a little while to load, so please be patient until all of the content as been loaded.

Vote Pro - I ask any voters to carefully consider every criteria required in voting for both of us, thank you.


I'm at a slight disadvantage for time since My opponent posts his entire debate on a Google doc that's password protected and logged off for some time. With no time to waste on pleasantries let's get started at a conclusion and rebuttals.

"My opponent proposes that the globe Earth has a circumference of 25000 miles"

Wrong, it is my opponent that proposes this lie. I only give this statement it's falsifiability, explaining how much the earth should curve, if it were true. If this curvature, that is required, is not found, we can safely assume the statement is false. My opponent claims, without rhyme or reason, that the distance to Chicago from where Mr Nowicki has photographed it is only 35 miles. Every other point was basically agreed upon. The actual distance is the attempted refutation, and since weve gotten the ridiculous idea that this image is a mirage out of our heads, the distance is actually 57 miles. (1)(2) So we shouldn't be able to see any of Chicago from this far. Lake Michigan is known to have on average 4-8' and higher waves, (3) which would hide the regions my opponent uses, when perspective is factored in. If this EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION isn't enough to prove my case, what would it take?




"my opponent is focusing on crepuscular rays and the impossibility of such rays in a sunset, since that would require the sun to be below the flat earth, which he implies should not be the case since he claims that the sun is a moving light in sky"

My opponent misunderstands my case, claiming the focus was of the sun, and not the reflection of it upon the earth. He attempts a refutation in his "sidenote", so let's address this.

"since the metal and the earth has quite different surfaces and atmosphere and compositions (if you haven't noticed), and comparing two contrasting things would be a false comparison."

Water is a reflective surface, as is sheet metal. I think most would agree the experiment would be a valid comparison. My opponent's confusion in such a simple concept is likely a last minute tactical ploy to ultimately dodge a refutation. In the case he actually doesn't understand, here is a picture of the results of such an experiment. (4) They produce near identical results. If my opponent had offered some logical reason why atmosphere would cause this, it might have passed he sniff test, or at least the "I memorized all of my indoctrination pamplets" test. Another direct observation that, when seen through objective eyes, shows the earth is not a ball.
3 My opponent insists that pictures of earth from space should remain a positive proof of a spherical earth. Even after it was agreed that Photoshop was used to basically create the images, and it was ruled as anecdotal, this point is inconclusive for my opponent. Most "images" of earth are ribbons of data that are literally stitched together in photoshop, (5) and my opponent ignores the fact that one could theoretically do this with high altitude flights over a flat earth, U2 planes are still in operation today, nasa owns and operates a few, which is odd, because satellites should have forced them into retirement long ago. His analogy of atoms, quarks, the marinara trench are fallacious, two are not visible to the naked aye, and the trench could be seen, with the right equipment, by anyone(4). Space however is unattainable to anyone but NASA and friends, which is odd, but is another piece of evidence in itself. In conclusion, the fact that not one real picture, or video of earth as a ball directly proves my case. If they successfully took a picture of earth from space (6) riding on the technologically equivalent of a Gameboy, we should logically (due to advancements in every related field) be posting selfies with the blue marble in the background from a McDonalds on the moon by now. Also, with over 2,000 giant pieces of aluminum foil and baler wire zooming around the earth, the sun should reflect some glimmer of light back to the camera, with the sun at the photographer's back.

As for angle of view and perspective curving lines, where at lower altitudes, when Felix is in freefall, the earth is a ball, and at higher atitude, it is flat, I must leave with the voters, because it is highly illogical to me.

On my opponent's display of ignorant arrogance concerning the Nikon p900, "a camera which does not have the zooming capabilities close to even the most commercial of telescopes.", this is simply not true. "The Nikon Coolpix P900 is not less than a "telescope" with a 1080p digital camera attached. The astonishing device boasts a record-breaking 83x optical zoom lens, which is equivalent to a 24-2000mm on a 35mm sensor. What that means in regular jargon is that you can see really, really, really far."(4) His statement: "Opponent, before trying to display the "true nature" of something and the flaws of widely held knowledge, please do inform your viewers on the actual truth on how the information was obtained, instead of displaying charlatan-like behaviour by intentionally keeping them in the dark on how you got these pictures of "stars". It is plain dishonest and a shameful practice." is completely uncalled for. As my opponent puts it, "I suggest you put some effort into learning about (ultra zoom cameras), before trying to refute it!"


I have shown that in more ways than one, anyone can prove that the earth is not a ball. My opponent offers proofs that it is in anecdotal, theoretical, inconclusive, or unrelated to the topic. Let's discuss my opponent's arguments a last time.

We have already decided that this evidence is anecdotal, and not only could be faked, but is likely that way. These observations ultimately proves that either the earth is not a ball, or that nobody has got far enough away from it to take a photograph of it as a ball.

His 2nd point was just an pitiful grouping me with flat earthers, assuming none have shown a flat horizon from a high enough altitude. The Dog cam shows a perfectly flat horizon at 110,000 feet, as does the Felix Baumgartner high jump video at 128,000 feet.

His 3rd point is mostly unanswered questions he has about the model as a whole. Science has based all it's findings on the assumption that the earth is a ball. It took the most brilliant con artists in history to make us believe why humans, water and buildings can remain on firm foundation on the bottom of a spinning ball. Had the scientific community based their findings on the fact that the earth were actually flat, these questions would've likely been answered long ago. In short, i personally can't answer his questions, i don't claim to be any sort of scientific expert in any of these fields. But direct, empirical observations ultimately prove that there is no curvature to be found. The decision should be simple. If we cannot prove any curvature, or detect any movement, if our basic senses are not decieving us, how can the earth be a spinning ball?

I'm quickly running out of time so I'll have to leave it at that, and hope that common sense prevails over years of indoctrination. Good luck to y opponent. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
250 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
I would consider this to be one.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
"Ongoing debate"?
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
TL:DR I am (this account) taking a hiatus, and will come back some time next summer. I will be online on Monday so you can ask me anything about this during this time.


- Zaephou
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
I am currently announcing that this account will be inactive for the duration of this academical year. I will stop responding to messages or notifications for this time, and this goes especially for Edlvsjd and the on going debate. If you have any queries I will be online tomorrow and only tomorrow.

Expect my return sometimes next July/August.

Toodle-oo! :D

- Zaephou
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
If you a making a post on a flat earth sub, I recommend you stay away from /r/theworldisflat and /r/ourflatword. They are notorious for globe-earther censorship, and basically ban any globe-earther who criticizes them or debunks their proofs.

If you want to hear from both sides, just post on /r/flatearth.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Why don't you make a post on there? Or were you the guy that posted 'f*** you n******' and left?

I mean, you have trolled me before.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Why don't you make a post on there? Or were you the guy that posted 'f*** you n******' and left?

I mean, you have trolled me before.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
What about reddit, the fact that I am still active on reddit?

Oh the fact that I made a post on reddit? Don't worry, it's coming ;)
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
On reddit
No votes have been placed for this debate.