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

The earth is a ball or sphere or anything but flat or possibly concave.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,810 times Debate No: 84986
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




Bop is on pro. Proof must be either personal observations and common sense, videos, photos, or scientific experiments that have proved it. Please keep math to a minimum. Debate can be informal but no ad hominem.


I accept this debate.

I would like clarified however what type of sources are acceptable, are we only able to use our only experiences? Or can it come from anyone?
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you pro for accepting the debate I hope both of us will leave with a bit more knowledge as should be the reason for any debate.


Okay well from experiences, if you ever watched a sail boat sale away from a harbor, the last thing you would see would be the tips of the sail, which suggest a curved angle.

Also if you notice how water droplets form, they form sphericle, and if you look through a telescope you'd be able to notice the round shape of other planets, as well as the moon, suggesting that all these planets form in sphericle shapes.

We also know how vast space is, and in space things just tend to float, there is no direction in space, if the earth was flat we'd fall off. A round earth makes sense as it spins and keeps us grounded. Take a grocery bag put stuff in it and spin it. Notice how everything sticks to the bottom of the bag.
Debate Round No. 2


The age old "ships go over the curve" has been disproved several times over since the invention of the telescope, but for the sake of this debate, I'll show you one video, and provide a simple explanation. I can understand why people long ago believed in a spherical earth. They saw boats appear to go over the horizon in all four directions. At a distance, the ship"s hull seems to disappear before the sails and those ancient geographers felt this would only happen if the ship was dipping behind the convex curvature of the spherical earth. This assumption is actually incorrect and if they would have timed or measured the distance that each boat had gone before dipping below the so-called curvature, they would have seen that the "ball" they thought they were on was far too small for their other calculations.

The reason for this is simply the result of perspective. This exact thing will happen on earth whenever something is moving away from the observer. Take a vehicle for example, on a long and flat stretch of a highway. If you watched a car that was driving away from you, the car would appear to slowly get lower and the tires would morph into the road. Soon the body of the vehicle would appear to be scraping the road. So, one may assume that the car has gone over some sort of curvature, but again, this is not correct.

One way to prove this is to bring out a pair of binoculars or even a telescope. When the object in question begins to morph or "sink" below the horizon, looking at it again with the aiding instrument will bring the item back into full view. Did the telescope manage to bend over the horizon to see the item in full again? Of course not. The binoculars were able to allow you to see further and therefore the item reappeared in full to your perspective.

So, next time someone tells you that the ship going over the horizon is proof that we live on a globe" tell them about a little thing we here in reality must deal with called the Law of Perspective. The boat that they think has disappeared from sight can be seen again through a telescope and this was in no way caused by it going over a hump of curved water. Which as we know, is impossible anyway! The natural property of water is that it ALWAYS goes flat. ALWAYS. The railroad tracks going away from you don't get closer together, coming to a point, it only looks this way, it works on a vertical axis too. The telephone poles do not drop in height, they only seem to.

Firstly, Earth is a "plane" not a "planet," so the shape of these "planets" in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these "planets" have been known for thousands of years around the world as the "wandering stars" since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.

Water droplets have nothing to do with trillions of gallons of water with earth (solids) combined. Anything more than a drop of water, it will no longer remain a ball.

No, we don't know how vast space is, this information comes from one source, NASA. We are taking someone's word for it, therefore this argument is invalid. As for falling off, take a plate, an object sitting on the stationary plate will stay on the plate, take a spinning tennis ball, well you get the point. Even one soaked with a liquid, once spun, the water will escape the ball. Comparing a ball to a sack, hmm. No. Centrifugal force causes objects in the sack to be forced outward, stopping at the barrier, in this case, the bottom of the sack. The tennis ball however is more like the earth. And you know what happens to objects on the ball, even with a barrier, things will not stick to the ball.


If you take a telescope and observe that everything is spherical why isn't the earth a sphere? We can see our moon is a sphere and you can see moon orbit other planets, we also don't see any plane type planet out there.
Another easy experiment you can do is to just look at the moon, on the Southern Hemisphere it will be inverted, which can only happen if the earth is sphericle, we have easy global communications now. Find any random person south of our hemisphere and skype them to confirm the inversion of the moon.

As far as testing the light on the moon, just test that with a golf ball. You can only get the shadow curvature with something sphericle

I brought up the boat thing hoping you'd try to disprove it. just because we can't see the curvature of the earth does not disprove it's sphericle shape. The only thing it proved is just how, minuscule we are compared to the earth. It's like putting an ant on a giant boulder, let's say 40 meters Boulder. That's a gigantic Boulder compared to the ant, that's bigger than my house. However the ant will not be able to notice it's curvature because of how tiny it is.

Besides nasa isn't the only institution that claims this. Just because they may have lied before does not mean everything is a lie.
Debate Round No. 3


I see you've been youtubing its okay I do it too I do try to look at both sides, trying to debunk it, but I've already seen and learned what the smart people want us to know, but when I started thinking for myself, I'm amazed at what proof on the contrary I find. I'll start with with the moon.

Inverted Moon
If it's one thing I learned from people like Albert Einstein, it's keep it simple stupid. So I'll give you an analogy:
You and I are on opposite sides of a room, a FLAT one. In this room is a round ceiling light in the middle, on this light a bug lands that is closer to you than it is I.( can you end a sentence with I?) Now because we on opposite sides of the room (disk that is earth) the bug will be at one of our tops of the light (moon) and the other's bottom... <Lol< the moon is simply passing between us overhead, we don't even have to Skype each other for that experiment! Sorry I'm a little blazed

Spherical objects in the sky.
I'm wondering if I should just copy and paste from the last round, or try to simplify it even more. No disrespect.

1.There is no reason to assume that little lights in the sky should be identified as a faraway "place" like the one you and I are standing on. At all! It's as ridiculous idea and I don't what idiot first came up with the idea. Again no disrespect, it's not the first time I've heard it. From that logic, we can all assume that we were in a giant ball of fire! The only difference between a(planet) and a star is that they move around the earth differently. We can also use this logic to say that all cats are dogs. We know that cats are animals and all dogs are animals, so logically all cats are dogs, 100% proof!
2. Telescopes consist of round lenses and CONVEX or curved mirrors as most people know. If not I'll give you a minute...;

Now the problem is, with curved mirrors or lenses, the image is distorted in that the center of the image bulges towards the viewer, causing a fisheye appearance, making lines curve, and straight objects appear round.

I'm glad you at least know NASA lies, I'm curious, what have you found out that they lie about? I can only find one true document NASA has produced. Here's a copy, treasure it because they are rare!
Please note the very first paragraph.

If you're talking about google, feel free to use their search engine and search for the image they put on their search engine's home page for 2013 earth day. I'll give you a hint, it's not a globe!
I'll give you one to debunk:
If the earth spins at 1,000 mph, a person traveling to another continent for example, would only have to fly a bit north or south, wait on their destinations to come to them, and try to land on a target that is moving 1,000 mph.



Wth are you blazing? Pass it over. I don't know what you are trying to say with your fly analogy. Because if a fly landed on the light it would appear to be at the top of the light anywhere you stand in the room. The reason you would need to skype someone would be because you want them to be in the Southern Hemisphere where there is a difference in curvature. We are so minuscule compared to the planet That the curvature seems like it's not even there.

It's not a ridiculous idea because it's true. Yes telescopes have concave or convex lenses but so do glasses, people that wear glasses don't see everything as a curvature, I wear glasses.

As far as the nasa thing, the if you don't read the introduction it'll be easy to assume a flat earth theory. However it just makes the math easier or something like that, it's hard to understand their language.

Let me ask you this. If the earth was flat, how do we retain water? If the earth was how do we have an an atmosphere? How is there day and night on different parts of the planet? How are people able to predict solar eclipse if there is no orbit? Lunar eclipse?
Debate Round No. 4


Blazing kush as always, but I thought for sure you would understand the fly analogy, instead of ceiling light, say a disc shaped light fixture, and the fly lands on the underside of. While it isn't literally the top of the fixture, if you and I were on our backs both facing the fixture, your top (the side closest to you) would be my bottom, and vice versa. I can assure you, curved glasses do affect images viewed, your pupil is directly in the center, so you would only see flat lines when they are centered, if your corrective lenses are not very curved, your eye site is relatively good, or you have just gotten used to the effects and your brain is translating the information back to normal. Most people are affected by this curvature. makes the math easier because it really is flat, they are supposedly the smartest of the smart, why would they cut corners on the math?It sounds like you've never heard about or researched the flat earth geocentric model, I encourage you to check out at least one of a growing number of documentaries on the subject, it will help answer a lot of these basic questions about it. I recommend Eric dubay, jeranism, these are the most prominent ones to me, though most people free on most of the basic stuff, beware of shills as some of them will make you think silly things, and you will get discouraged if you are disproved. But to answer your questions 1. The flat earth is disc shaped, with the north pole at the middle. Going from here will take you south as it would on a globe. Antarctica is completely different though, it actually encircles the rest of the world and holds all the water in with its 1-200ft walls.

Here's where it gets a little confusing. I'll start with what we are taught in school. The moon is about 400 times smaller than the sun, but the sun is about 400 times further away than the moon! This is why they appear to be exactly the same size, so when they cross over each other, the moon blocks the sun perfectly, every eclipse. What are the odds of both of these events happening in this "vast , chaotic universe"? Bout a Brazilian to one. And it's happened to the place we call home, the Only place we know for sure that life exists. Let that sink in. Now every time we see these illustrations or demonstrations of eclipses being explained, the objects being used are almost always out of scale, with the little flashlights and crap. Saw a guy demonstrate one on a talk show, with a flashlight, an orange and a golf ball or something, and he had to do it just right to make it look right. There have been numerous reports that during several lunar eclipses, both the sun and moon are visible above the horizon, this would be impossible if the earth were exactly without a degree of error between the moon and sun. As they can both appear in the sky, it can logically deduced that the earth does not block the light of the sun on the moon.
Many people think that modern astronomy"s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the "heliocentric ball-Earth" was even a glimmer in Copernicus" imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.
As far as night and day, the Chinese described it With the yin yang symbol, the light from the sun does not illuminate the whole disc of the earth, it goes out of range when it illuminated the other side. With atmosphere, it should be asked the other way around. Space is supposedly a vacuum, astronots needed aluminum, glass, some baler wire, aluminum and gold foil and a bit of duct tape to get to the moon, lol< because this vast vacuum would suck all the air out because vacuum seeks equilibrium, but our atmosphere rests on this vacuum for some millions of years resistant of the moon's gravitational pull, the sun, often both simultaneously and the claimed tilted back spinning at 1,000 miles per hour revolving around the sun at 19mps, while the solar system flies around the galaxy even faster, which rockets around the universe At 670,000,000 mph ( and we still have our hair) combined speed of 670,568,000 in every direction at once, that no one has ever felt, seen, heard or measured.

But our atmosphere, on some days is pretty motionless. In most flat earth models, as it is explained in the bible, there is a dome, similar to the Truman show. This can be proved with a rainbow. Modern day science tells us that rainbows occur when light travels through moisture in the air, but the effect cannot be reproduced indoors, except with mirrors or crystals, not to say you can't put moisture in the air inside, this can be achieved with an air moisturizer creating a 3 dimensional field for a 2 dimensional rainbow to produce itself on, it takes a second beam of light coming from a slightly different angle, from the same source, as if reflected from the mirror or crystal. A curved mirror will produce a rainbow in such a moisture field. Another proof can be found in the covert operation called operation fishbowl after the first rockets reached this dome in the space race, operation fishbowl was put into effect to try to break through this dome. Science will say this was to dissipate the harmful radioactive field around the earth, so as to exit the party's atmosphere, but this would, as shown with most nukes, create more radiation.


You can see and make rainbows indoor...

I've traveled from the California, to Taiwan, to London, to New York and back to Cali.

Space doesn't work as the super vacuum as depicted in cinemas, those are just over exaggerated. It's explained here

As far as the lightbulb, are you serious? If you draw a dot on the lightbulb it will be in the same position wherever you go. And the top of the light bulb looks exactly as the bottom of the light bulb any part in the room. So your anology doesn't explain anything.

That's not how glasses work either.... I have poor vision, -2.5 so it's pretty thick with a big curvature, looking through it doesn't make everything seem curve though. If you don't wear glasses you have no right to say what I see through my lens. Our eyes are round and our cornea is round, do we see everything curved? No we don't.

As far as eclipse? Sure that random coincidence is possible, because we exist and have life on earth! A random chance such as life existing is also crazily random yet it happened.

You think our atmosphere can compared to a fictional movie? We also have a magnetic shield protecting the earth that is created by a molten core spinning around in the center, which is why we aren't all walking around with cancer. You try to use the bible as a source as well. Which is not a valid source.

The other reason why I know the earth is a sphere is because I built the damn thing. So why are there so many people that would want to argue other wise?

Source - I am God
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Regardless of your personal opinions I think we all know that Con won this debate wise. Pro just stated info and Con debunked it so Pro came back saying, I knew you'd debunk it but that proves nothing....

Con used sources, Pro pulled out the I am God and your statement is invalid.... Lol
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Also @ GoOordin
Take a look at the flight paths, you will see that there is only one Flight Path that goes near Antartica, On site does claim to go there, however its just the coast, Which you could do on a flat earth anyways. However there is no record of someone flying all the way across Antartica. In fact the one man who tried such a feat, the very man who wrote "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was a miltary man. He was leading an expedition to Antartica but as he flew above, he saw land for as for as the eye could see, He kept flying but there was, and I quote "More land then the Americas combine" He never fully explored it due to a treaty being signed by All the Nations of the world not to explore any farther. He also stated how there was an abundance of natural resources there and couldnt understand why the nations wouldnt want them. Antartica is still unexplored land, why do you think people still go over there and try to explore it?

P.S Wouldnt it be funny if Mars and the Rover was just in Arizona at whatever Area 51 is xD The scientist are all amazed by finding Sphinxes and Water LOL. Mars wouldnt be able to have water as it supposedly has no atmosphere. And it also explains the Sphinx! Life became a lot more simple.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Wait wtf? Did Pro just say a bunch of BS and say he is God so its ok? Lol ok then... But honestly Con seems to have a point. and A lot of things about space are all lies. Like for example, Lunar Eclipse is Red due to Earth's Shadow... Ha. See its funny how NASA explains this crap. Tell me, have you ever seen or heard of a RED shadow before? Like seriously! I cant vote due to me being a new user, but wow. Even the amount of evidence used by both sides was obvious. Pro were you even trying to defend the Globe? As he said, just because we cant see the curvature doesnt mean it isnt there. Well bud, Curvature begins turning at 1 mile, at miles it should already be 36 inches of curving, and so forth, its exponetial. Curvature has already been disproved hence by Science, it is false! Plus we are told by NASA that we are Obelete Sphereiod to cover up all the loopholes but show us pictures of a perfect sphere.... Or the fact they just came out with the ORION to get through the atmosphere which we never managed before. Meaning Voyager and everything all BS. Obviously the only thing Pro has managed is to agree on facts with Con and offer no evidence for his own side.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Please view and vote
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Although I can prove most of them fake
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Media is useable
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
media does not count as proof for either side.

However History does.
People have actually travelled there. They travelled around the entire globe.

Media is all photos, videos, programs, etc which suggest we can visually observe the whole planet and use it as fact. THOSE are obviously not valid examples of Proof, because neither contendor is IGNORANT of them, and thus has by default provided the argument they are redundant. And they are redundant "facts" because you cannot support them.

To the contrary, People hate one another, so international history which is not dependant on the exceedingly wealthy to band together to maintain the illusion - especially when taking into account civil and international war, enslavement, poverty etc..

We can suggest we know the world is not flat because of the French & the English have exceptional sea fairing records.

If you are trying to suggest that the Antarctic is unidentifiable while on that sea, and the current moves quick enough for you to get all the way around it before you think the trip around the globe was too short... HA. gj. that's called delusional. but if u don't share it with a psychiatrist, I'd have to hand it to you.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
If you are talking about documented scientific studies, yes saying my brother flew to space and saw it,no
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
As long as it is provable. Yes not sure what you mean by that pro
No votes have been placed for this debate.