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

The Earth revolves around the sun.

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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 343 times Debate No: 95018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




The Earth revolves around the sun. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not. [0][1][2]

R1 Acceptance
R2-3 Arguments and rebuttals
R4 no new arguments.



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I meant to make the debate four rounds instead of 3, so ignore the structure, new arguments will be allowed in the last round.

Humans first figured out the Earth revolves around the sun in 900 BCE by Yajnavalkya. [0] Now almost 3,000 years later a good portion of humans don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun.

" the Catholic church forbade Copernicus" book and vehemently tried to suppress all arguments relating to his theory." [0]
"Galileo compared the Copernican system with the Ptolemaic system, but was subsequently convicted on "grave suspicion of heresy", forced to recant his beliefs, and subsequently spend the rest of his life under house arrest." [0]

As you can see what I stating in this debate is a grave heresy. On some level I cannot believe Christians aren't up in arms with pitchforks, torches, and assault rifles raiding education buildings for teaching such vile heresy. This is why I am confused brought up Christian. I didn't understand why people would teach Christianity and then tolerate such overt heresy. The conflict has lead to a great amount of cognitive dissonance for me. [1]

"Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors." [1]

As you can see belief in Christ and belief in the Sun revolves around the Earth are conflicting a person who holds both beliefs will have cognitive dissonance. That has resulting in a some mental pain for me trying to figure out which one is correct.

Here is a scholarly source stating other planets orbit the sun. [2] "We find that 22% of Sun-like stars harbor Earth-size planets orbiting in their habitable zones. The nearest such planet may be within 12 light-years. "

I find it reasonable to assume that if other planets that are Earth-size are orbiting the sun, that the Earth is orbiting the sun.

Here is another peer reviewed source stating that the Earth is in orbit. [3]

"The so-called Aten asteroids, evolving on orbits with semimajor axis a0.983 AU, spend most of their time inside Earth's orbit. " [3]

From these sources I find that the Earth orbits the sun. Thanks for the debate.



I'm an atheist, I've heard of the disbelief of Christians regarding this here topic. It turns out they were not completely wrong. I grew up believing that the Earth does indeed revolve around the Sun as well. However, about 10 minutes after I seen this and researched rather or not what we've been taught in school is true or not... It turns out that what we have been taught in school isn't entirely true at all, and your reasonable belief and arguments falls flat upon discovery.

The Earth, Jupiter, Pluto, and so on, doesn't revolve around the Sun. In fact everything in our solar system, including the Sun, revolves around something called a Barycenter. [1] [2]

As you can see from source [1] it comes straight from NASA. This knowledge is what helps them discover other planets! The second source is simply addition to further solidify the first source.

I do thank you for creating this debate, I would have never thought to look into this had you not created this debate.

Debate Round No. 2


"In the planar bicircular restricted four-body problem the Earth and the Moon revolve in circular orbits around
their center of mass, and the Earth-Moon barycenter moves in a circular orbit around the center of mass of the
Sun-Earth-Moon system (Gómez
et al.
, 2001)." [4]

Yes, a barycenter exists. Your answer is more accurate if performing spaceship and satellite launches. Nevertheless, you haven't disproved my notion. The sun makes up over 99% of the mass in the solar system. Therefore, I conclude it is correct, if not completely accurate that the Earth orbits the sun.

Thanks for the debate.



As NASA states "You've heard that Earth revolves around the sun. Well, that's not quite true!" Why? Cause it actually revolves around the barycenter. As my sources explain. [1]

This unequivocally disproves the notion that Earth revolves around the Sun. NASA, the United State's space agency, the only space agency that has landed man on the Moon [2], explores Mars [3], sent spacecraft towards all the planets in the solar system [4], Voyager 1 traversing into interstellar space NASA's spacecraft [5], the space agency that discovers 1000s of planets [6] ect.. Says that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. If anyone is qualified to explain and tell how things work in space, it is NASA. As they state it as well as the other site, everything revolves around the barycenter. As NASA explains, it is that fact which helps them spot planets throughout the cosmos.

I believe that I have thoroughly proved that it is NOT the Sun that Earth and the other planets revolves around but the BARYCENTER, that they all, including the sun, revolves around. Again thanks for the debate.

Vote con.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
>Reported vote: epidexipteryx// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con, in their arguments, showed that the Earth does not revolve around the sun itself but a barycenter. Pro had no arguments to refute this point.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically evaluate arguments presented by both debaters. Merely saying that one side posted arguments that the other side didn't refute is not sufficient.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 month ago
I apologize that I took a position that gave me an advantageous position, well not really. I looked at the resolution, I looked at the facts, realized that the common belief is incorrect. I wouldn't call my argument a technicality, it was based on the truth.

Definitions was not needed, my argument fit in your original thoughts.

Revolve: to cause to go round in an orbit.

Earth: planet that humans live on.

Sun: The star in Earth's solar system.

I didn't manipulate anything. This is what I believe has happened, essentially, you made this debate expecting an easy win and that didn't happen. However, what you said about the issue of manipulating and such is real. So in the future, give your debates a better structure so that those things don't happen.
Posted by Stupidape 1 month ago
I found this debate annoying. I would have rather if my opponent was arguing the barycenter that he/she would have put this in the comments. I think the barycenter argument was too technical. Especially considering my acceptance round background referencing Galileo and the catholic church.

"And the fact that only 74 percent of participants knew that the Earth revolved around the sun is perhaps less alarming than the fact that only 48 percent knew that humans evolved from earlier species of animals."

I still contend that unless your trying to find other planets or launch a spaceship that my answer is correct enough for most circumstances. That my opponent used an annoying technicality to win. I don't mind losing, as much as the way that I lost.

I find this is a problem that is rampant in this website. That people often try to change the definitions, burden of proof, and anything that is not explicitly stated is inferred to their advantage. Instead of debating, which you would expect on a website called, we argue whether or not somebody broke the structure, definitions, burden of proof, and it just takes all the fun out of debating.

That you have to spend a good hour or two before creating each debate and see how your opponent can come at it from an angle you don't want. For example, if you argue any religious argument, you might get the atheist angle and get a quick loss because you can't prove God exists.

That you have to put in all these definitions and explicitly explain the burden of proof and round structure. That anything that is left implicit will cost you later in the debate. Which takes all the improvisation out of debating. Often, I create a debate in only 5 minutes only to realize I can't possibly win, and pounce somebody accepts and defeats me in r1 before I can edit the debate. That's no fun for me.
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
Continued from votes...

The only way PRO connects his source to the argument is by explaining "The sun makes up over 99% of the mass in the solar system. Therefore, I conclude it is correct, if not completely accurate that the Earth orbits the sun."

The problem is that this is just his unsourced opinion and it flies directly in the face of the sourced evidence CON provided in R2 which explains how the centre of mass of orbiting bodies works and which specifically points out that the barycenter is outside the sun.

This seems to be the crux of the argument and as CON's point os sourced while fundamentally the one key point that PRO relies upon is nothing but an opinion, I have to give it to CON.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 month ago
There is only 3 rounds.
Posted by Stupidape 1 month ago
I meant 4 rounds, so skip the no new arguments in last round.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 month ago
I think I might accept. Haha
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 1 month ago
Lol pity the fool who accepts this argument
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Overhead 1 month ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO R2 is in large part a preemptive strawman against Christian anti-science which turns out to be unapplicable. The rest is presenting the seemingly common knowledge notion that the earth revolves around the sun with some sources. However CONs R2 shows that this is just a simplification and the earth actually revolves around the centre of mass of the solar system which is separate from the Sun with the Barycentre stated as being "just outside the Sun's surface" in his first source. PRO's R3 rebuttal is very weak. He quotes an example from a source which talks about a "planar bicircular restricted four-body problem". As the Solar system isn't biplanar and has more than 4 bodies, this seems irrelevant. Furthermore, it just states that the "the Earth-Moon barycenter moves in a circular orbit around the center of mass of the Sun-Earth-Moon system". It never states that the center of mass is the sun. (cont in comments)