The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rottingroom
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The Flat Earth Theory is True. The Round Earth Theory is False.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
rottingroom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,142 times Debate No: 39154
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (6)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

The Earth is flat. First round is only for accept. I have amazing proof.

Q: Hasn't the flat earth been put to rest

A: F*ck no! Theres tons of proof thats being hidden


rottingroom

Con

I accept. In your opening arguments please state the mechanism that causes what science commonly refers to as gravitation and explain how that mechanism works.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
rottingroom

Con

It's unfortunate that Pro did not post an argument. I was looking forward to it. I will just post something I have prepared in response to his initial argument from another debate about Flat Earth regarding intuition. I will also begin with one simple proof that the Earth is not flat along with a refutation of the Monopole model of the Earth that is used by The Flat Earth Society.

Intuition

Science is not bounded by intuition alone; it is merely the starting point. When discovering empirical truths about the external world, intuition (much likely a biblical text) can serve to function as a device to form a hypothesis. The scientific method requires that we define the question, form a hypothesis, test it, adjust, and then test again. Repeat until you have something that can be reproduced consistently. Flat Earth Theory (FET) was once a sound theory because it gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time. At such a time the general feeling was that the earth was flat. Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness? The FET would make it seem that the surface doesn’t deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile. This isn’t terribly wrong because it is certainly close. The curvature of the Earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the FET is wrong, it happens to be nearly right.

Teacher: How much is 2 + 2?
Joseph: 2 + 2 = purple
Maxwell: 2 + 2 = 17.

Both are wrong but isn’t it fair to say that Joseph is more wrong than Maxwell?

Suppose you said: 2 + 2 = an integer. You’d be right, wouldn’t you? Or suppose you said: 2 + 2 = an even integer. You’d be righter. Or suppose you said: 2 + 2 = 3.999. Wouldn’t you be nearly right?

The curvature of the Earth is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile. For the time of the ancients, such a curvature was immeasurable by the techniques at their disposal. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat Earth to the spherical Earth.

Apparent Movement of Celestial Objects

The video above is a time lapse video of the rotation of stars somewhere in the northern hemisphere. The star directly center of this rotation is known as Polaris and is otherwise known as the North Star.

Pole Stars

While other stars' apparent positions in the sky change throughout the night, as they appear to rotate around the celestial poles, pole stars' apparent positions remain virtually fixed. This makes them especially useful in celestial navigation and their angle of elevation can also be used to determine latitude.

Looking at Polaris from the north pole shows its position directly overhead and as one travels south its angle in the celestial sphere will gradually move toward the horizon until an observer meets the equator. From there an observer can see both Polaris and the Southern Cross. Currently, there is no South Star as useful as Polaris. Sigma Octantis is the star closest to the south Celestial pole, but at apparent magnitude 5.45 it is barely visible on a clear night, making it unusable for navigational purposes so the Southern Cross constellation functions as an approximate southern pole constellation, by pointing to where a southern pole star would be. As an observer continues southward toward the south pole the Southern Cross will gradually rise until it is overhead. If the observer pressed on and traversed all the way back to the north pole but this time on the opposite side of earth the Southern Cross and Polaris would behave again the same way but on the opposite side of the night sky.

Rise and Set Stars

During the rotation of the earth, some stars rise from below the eastern horizon and later set below the western horizon. Appropriately enough, these stars are called rise and set stars.

The angle rise and set stars (including the sun) make with the horizon as they rise is the same for all rise and set stars for that observer. Specifically, the angle is 90° minus the observer's latitude. They make this same angle in the west. In the northern hemisphere the angle is tilted towards the south and in the southern hemisphere the angle is tilted towards the north.

Circumpolar & Never-Rise Stars

Stars near the celestial poles make small circles and may not pass the horizon plane. If they are always above the horizon they are called circumpolar stars. If they are always below the horizon they are never rise stars. Circumpolar stars for the northern hemisphere are never-rise stars for the southern hemisphere and vice versa.

Example

As time passes, the stars rise in the east (just like the sun). But notice that they rise diagonally, not straight up. The diagonal goes from north (left) to south (right). After a few hours, these same stars will appear high in the southern sky.

Turning to face south, we see that the stars there are moving from left (east) to right (west):



By now you can probably guess that stars set in the western sky, again along a diagonal:



And in the north, the motion is most interesting. Stars rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, moving in counter-clockwise circles around a point that's high above the northern horizon:



Feel free to follow http://physics.weber.edu... to use an applet that can show you these rotations from any location and at any time.

The Flat Earth Society's Monopole Model of the Earth

One of the FE models is that of a disk centered around the North Pole, with "Antarctica" circling the circumference as the Ice Wall.

Map.png

The FE explanation for sunsets is that the sun gets far enough away such that it appears to sink into the horizon and/or it's light can no longer reach us. Since sunrise and sunsets happen at very predictable times then this distance needs to be constant. That is, sunsets are hardly dependent on atmospheric conditions if they're dependent on that at all.

However, if you actually map out sunrise and sunsets on this single-poled model, you find that this distance changes dramatically throughout a year. For me it changes by a whole 13.8% of the distance between the north pole and the equator!

Below you can see the to-scale diagram of this. The red is during the summer solstice, the blue during an equinox, and the green during the winter solstice. The dotted lines represent the distance from the sun to me during that time. Notice how they're all different sizes?

Thus, because this model is inconsistent with FE arguments (mainly sunset is caused by distance), it can be safely thrown into the garbage.







Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
rottingroom

Con

It's a shame that pro has not participated in this debate.

I wanted to clear up a couple things about my arguments.

In my intuition argument I was bringing up the difference between being wrong and MORE wrong to show how intuition is unreliable. With the shape of the Earth, technically the planet is neither flat or round but a somewhat pear-shaped, oblate spheroid. My intuition arguments is meant to show how intuition could tell you that the earth is flat or round and how both answers can be nearly right but one is more wrong than the other.

My movement of celestial objects argument is also indicative of a spherical planet because in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere the direction of celestial objects in the sky is essentially reversed. If the earth were flat then this would not be possible.

If Pro has anything to say at all I'll finish the last round with some background on a famous flat earth experiment called the Bedford Level and I will explain why that experiment is inconclusive and should be disregarded.
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
rottingroom

Con

Well I don't think it's necessary for me to po anymore arguments. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Well JonathanDJ, what if at the edge of the flat earth there was a teleporter that automatically transferred all the molecules of whatever hits the edge to the alternate side of the planet, this includes light waves so you think you are seeing continuous earth, when in fact you are viewing the other end of the same plane that you are on. :-D8
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
Flatearthers don't believe in gravity
Posted by coconick240 3 years ago
coconick240
Sorry for posting this i need to say it

i earth was flat you wouldn't be able to go around the world without going into a place called space. if gravity had an effect to the world being flat you would be thrown as you get to the edge cause the gravity is to strong to turn you 180 degrees that fast if your not thrown you would be split apart by the confusion of gravity trying to pull you different ways.
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
I hope anti-atheist hurry's up. As I already told him I won't have much time after today to post arguments. I have today, then I won't be able to post anything until Wednesday. He led me to believe he wanted to do this quickly.
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
CRAZ4SWAN. I am going to win this argument by thinking like a FE'r. You seem to be confused. I know the Earth is round. I have accepted this debate and I am playing CON. The fact is that measurements of the sun's distance from earth are derived from Trigonometry. The equations for that distance work on the assumption that the earth is round and that the earth (and venus, since that is an integral part of te equation) revolve around the sun. These are assumption that I agree with but if one starts with the assumption that the earth is flat then all these measurements don't work. The diameter of the sun is derived from the distance so there too... it requires that we assume the earth is round. I can easily debunk the things I just mentioned and if anti-atheist cares to bring up any of these points, I'll be happy to address them, but this is what FE'rs think. I know this because I debate FE'rs frequently. You and I both know how we can prove the earth is round, but I'm familiar with their arguments because I know Flat Earthers.
Posted by CRAZ4SWAN 3 years ago
CRAZ4SWAN
@rottingroom https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Of course the Earth is Flat, because I can leave my car with the handbrake off without it rolling away, if it was rounded, it would roll and I'd have to have the handbrake on. :-D~
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
Crazy... Please stop writing arguments in the comments. Also, things like the distance of the sun and its size would not be the same on a flat earth. Such measurements were arrived at using round earth assumptions so you can't expect that argument to hold weight.
Posted by CRAZ4SWAN 3 years ago
CRAZ4SWAN
anti christ call your friend by phone who is living on the other side of the world and if both sides claim that it day at the same time - there u have got it right.. if not - u r wrong and yeah u r worng -_-
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
Don't worry star. I know the earth is round but that video is full of fallacies. Please don't provide any more arguments in the comments.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Cantseeinthedark 3 years ago
Cantseeinthedark
Anti-atheistrottingroomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have liked to know pro's proof. haha
Vote Placed by B3N 3 years ago
B3N
Anti-atheistrottingroomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Really?
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Anti-atheistrottingroomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Anti-atheistrottingroomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The conduct for the forfeits of course (I'd double award it for forfeiting your own debate, but atlas). Con presented a number of solid arguments regarding the night sky centered around polaris. While, Con technically engaged in strawmen (presenting FE arguments and countering them that his opponent never made), this was only because Pro never made a case. I am happy to see Con presenting a solid argument and not just pass the debate back to allow no debate to occur. While Con did provide pictures to highlight his points, he provided no sources.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Anti-atheistrottingroomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Anti-atheistrottingroomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Send me a message if you want me to clear things up, but I think this vote is obvious.