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

The earth is a ball.

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: 2/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,678 times Debate No: 86536
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (1)




Burden of proof is on pro Pro may start to round out with his proves that the earth is a globe or any spherical shape.



I will provide reason and evidence to demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere.

1. Circumnavigation
People have circumnavigated the planet both by boat and plane, meaning they have traveled all the way around it and started and ended in the same location. If the Earth was flat, this would not be possible.

2. The Moon
During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow blocks the Sun's light from reaching the moon, causing the moon to "disappear." During a partial eclipse, we can see the curvature of the Earth on the Moon itself. If Earth was flat, the Earth's shadow would look flat on the Moon.

3. Other planets
All other planets are round/spherical, there is no reason to suspect ours is any different. Also, other planets rotate too, which would be impossible if they were flat.

4. Timezones
If the Earth was flat, the Sun's light would reach the entire planet simultaneously and we would all operate under the same clock. This isn't the case because we do have timezones.

5. The horizon
With strong binoculars, you can go to the ocean and watch as ships slowly "sink" beneath the horizon as they move further away.

6. Constellations
If the Earth was flat, constellations would appear in the same orientation at all places on Earth. But they do not. Their orientation shifts when you view them from different locations.

My opponent wrote in the comments that he/she was expecting some of the arguments I shared. In return, I am expecting thought out responses to each.

Let's have some fun!
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks pro for accepting this debate. I hope we leave this argument with a bit more knowledge. I will give rebuttals and follow with a few proofs of my own.

The flat earth model is disc shaped with north being dead center of the disc, and the universe for that matter, going from this point in any direction will take you south, taking a left or right will take you east or west respectively. Taking the path of the sun moon and stars as shown here.

Lunar eclipses
This is tricky one because we haven't really fully figured out exactly what it is, we may never know. We do know it's not what we're told by modern astronomers though, I will discuss a few reason for this.
1) blood moons
Never in scientific history has a solid object created a red shadow.
2) selenelions(1)
Several accounts say that both the sun and moon were visible above the horizon. This would be impossible if the earth were directly between the two.
3)lunar waves(2)
More and more people are filming an anomaly happening on moon that can only be described as a refresh rate line. Similar to what you see through a security camera footage of another output device, or screen. The line actually changed the position of the moon. It's hard to catch but around 7 people have filmed it over 12 times. I'm not sure what it is myself but it looks cool as folk!
4) stars, atmosphere, night and planets in the moon(3)
Pictures and videos are popping up more often of a translucent moon, questioning the solidity of the moon.
5) lunar landings hoax. (4)
Even the most skeptical can watch one documentary about the lunar landings and with a little research, come to the conclusion that we didn't go to the moon. If you still think we went to the moon, this should wake you up.

There are more, harder to explain proofs, but we will start with these 5 things that tell us that the moon is not what we are told, and that the earth does not block the light on the moon.

Other planets
There is plenty of reason to say that objects in the sky have nothing to do with the ground that we stand on. These objects are all glowing, we assume that the sun and stars are balls of fire, does that mean we are to assume we are too? With this reasoning, can we also assume that since cats are animals, and dogs are animals that cats are dogs? Planets differ from stars in their relative motion only. They are as luminous if not more so than some stars. Telescopes show sphere-like objects because they use curved mirrors and lenses which cause the center of any object being viewed to bulge out at the center. Just because these objects in the sky seem to rotate, does not mean we do.

Timezones exist because of the Sun is not 93 Brazilian miles away. Its light cannot stretch all the way across the disk that is earth. It disappears like the ships do. A few simple observations can prove this. How does the sun's heat get to the earth through all that vacuum? It gives us 100 plus degrees Fahrenheit temperatures at the equator, but go only a few thousand more miles away to Antarctica and we never get above freezing. At that rate the next planet closer to the Sun would be far worse than molten lava. The next planet probably wouldn't even be able to exist except as a cloud of smoke. The moon, should be on fire as it goes nearer the sun, and freeze over on the other side.
Another proof is the sun's rays, we know that the Sun casts rays at different angles. Anybody that walks outside on a cloudy day can see this, despite what science tells us which is that they all run perpendicular.

Ships never go over any curve (which goes against common sense seeing that the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface), they only disapear because they, and everything else follow a few rules of perspective, atmospheric perspective and the law of perspective(5). As we can barely make out the last mountain in the photo below, it isn't because it is over any curve. Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust, anything that hovers close to the flat earth that will eventually, at a distance, block light from coming through all together. As it is thicker at lower altitudes, an object going away from you will appear to disappear from the bottom up, until it hits the vanishing point. A telescope (6)will bring it back into view, provided it can see through the dense atmosphere, which gets thicker with distance. Any videos, I've seen and proven this, that show boats going over the horizon only lower the camera to below where the waves break. A source of this claim that I couldn't prove did so might sway my opinion. I've yet to see a legitimate video of this happening though.


‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! 
Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of
our reach for ever.’
‘What are the stars?’ said O’Brien indifferently. ‘They are
bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we
wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the cen-
tre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.’

This is an exhert from 1984 by George Orwell. In the flat earth model, (i might add the Bible, and the great Nicholas tesla (7) back this up as well) the stars are much closer to the earth, and rotate around it. If this is actually the case, they would follow the two aspects of perspective. It is and they do. They are in the firmament. It exists, and rainbows are proof of it.

Having fun yet? Buckle up!

Proof 1

Stars and constellations (8)
The fact that we see the same stars for all of recorded history is proof that they are not part of an expanding universe. If it takes 12 months to orbit the Sun and after six month's time we are on the other side of it whatever stars where on the other side of the Sun we cannot see because the Sun blocks the light from the stars, and it has come around to that side, we would only be able to see the stars that were on the opposite side of the globe from the Sun. Polaris is visible in the north at all times of the year despite it being directly above the axis of the earth that is tilted away from the Sun. This is impossible in an ever expanding universe.

The moon(9)
The same above goes with the way the moon is lit up, if it is 38th is on the opposite side of the universe, the phases would not remain constant, they do, and even though it's supposedly a sphere, the northern hemisphere does not see a single degree more or less of it than the south does. If I held a beach ball, and two people looked at it from different angles, one would see a part of it that the other wouldn't and vice versa. The reported distance would make it less noticeable but not completely unnoticeable.











Thank you Con!

Con writes that Earth is the center of the universe. How do you know? Next, according to Flat Earth Theory, the planet’s “edge” is the ice wall formed by Antarctica. Now, how is it possible that of the billions of people that have ever lived, there is not a single photo, video or even drawing of the supposed “edge” of the planet? If the Earth truly is flat, you’d think that people would be investing more time and energy into exposing the largest conspiracy of all time by all the governments and space agencies around the world. We don’t even hear about people claiming to have seen the edge; yet, we have people who claim they have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and have been abducted by aliens. Imagine how much money the Flat Earth Society and religions would make if we found out the Earth is flat. If we are actually the center of the universe, this would be undeniable proof that some sort of deity exists.

Lunar Eclipses
I thank my opponent for his honesty in admitting he cannot explain lunar eclipses rather than trying to make up something like other debates I have seen on this topic. Fortunately, the modern world and science can explain lunar eclipses in a way that makes sense, as I described in round one.

Blood Moons
Yet another phenomena we have logical explanations for. “The Earth’s atmosphere can scatter sunlight, and since moonlight is just scattered sunlight, it can scatter that too. Red light can pass through the atmosphere and not get scattered much, while light at the blue end of the spectrum is more easily scattered. When you see a red moon, you’re seeing the red light that wasn’t scattered, but the blue and green light have been scattered away. That’s why the Moon looks red” [1]. This can happen when the Moon is low in the sky or during a lunar eclipse.

While this used to be unexplainable, we now know how this “impossible” event occurs. “There are typically a number of high ridges undergoing sunrise or sunset that can see it. Although the moon is in the Earth’s umbra, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can both be seen at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth’s atmosphere causes each of them to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position” [2].

Lunar Waves
My opponent apparently believes that the Moon is fake, a projected image created by NASA and other powerful organizations to deceive billions of people. Con writes “It's hard to catch but around 7 people have filmed it over 12 times.” That’s it? The world’s biggest conspiracy of all time, and only seven people have caught it on film? I took a look at the video myself, and I am not impressed. Firstly, those effects could be replicated by anybody with a decent video editing software. Secondly, Con later writes “Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust…” Perhaps those fuzzy lines are all that mass getting in the way, no?

Stars, atmosphere, night and planets in the moon
My opponent speaks of a translucent moon. The video he linked to appeared to show stars appearing in dark areas of the moon. There are two logical explanations for this. First, the image of the moon was photoshopped by whoever took them. And/or second, the “stars” are actually dead pixels, little white dots on a camera’s sensor that show up in dark areas of an image upon zooming in.

Lunar landings hoax
Seeing that my opponent did not share evidence that the Moon landings were supposedly faked, take a look at some of the most common arguments and why they are incredibly flawed.;

Other planets
Con writes that there are plenty of reasons that Earth is different from other objects we see in the sky, writing that the planets “... are as luminous if not more so than some stars.” This is simply because the planets (in our solar system) are so much closer to us than the stars.
My opponent also states that because of the curvature of telescope lens, planets only appear spherical due to the lens distortion. Well, the moon appears just as round with a telescope as it does without a telescope, so the curvature of the lens clearly does not impact what we see. Also, our eyes are convex lenses, yet we trust them to accurately portray what is in front of us.

Time zones
My opponent states that time zones exist because the sun is not 93 million miles away, like all scientists will say. I am disappointed that Con did not provide their own distance which they believe to be more accurate. I request my opponent share how far away the sun really is and how he knows this is true. Con asks “How does the sun's heat get to the earth through all that vacuum?” Check it out. “Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see). The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat” [3]. Next, Con asks why the Moon doesn’t burn and freeze as it revolves Earth. The Moon’s temperature may change as its distance between the sun changes, but not to this extent. Besides, the Moon is covered with rocks and dust which can absorb heat.
My opponent’s next proof of a flat Earth is sunrays, providing pictures that appear to prove that the sun is much closer to Earth than what they scientists say. In reality, these are called crepuscular rays. “These rays, which stream through gaps in clouds (particularly stratocumulus) or between other objects, are columns of sunlit air separated by darker cloud-shadowed regions. Despite seeming to converge at a point, the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight, and their apparent convergence is a perspective effect (similar, for example, to the way that parallel railway lines seem to converge at a point in the distance)” [4].
If the sun was this close, why has nobody ever flown a balloon to “sun-level” and captured video/pictures of it?

My opponent writes that ships disappear because of perspective; the vanishing point. This doesn’t explain why the bottom of the ship disappears first; if the Earth was flat, the entire ship would fade out of our vision, not just certain parts of it. How does my opponent explain that I can climb a cliff and “re-see” the bottom of the ship after it has disappeared? A telescope will not bring the ship back into view; only moving to a greater height will.

My opponent quotes George Orwell, who wrote in his book 1984: “‘What are the stars?’ said O’Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out.” A few kilometers away? Why has nobody ever tried this? Because the stars are not a few kilometers away. They are millions, billions of kilometers away. Besides, the book is a dystopian novel. It is fictional.
Next my opponent says the Bible supports the flat Earth model. The Bible also says there are talking snakes. It is not a science textbook.
Con states that Nicholas Tesla believed in the flat Earth. This is a poor understanding of the quote my opponent cited. The quote rather beautifully explains how everything is connected, how the universe and everything in it are one. Nowhere did he imply that the Earth is flat. Even if he did, that doesn't make it true.

Stars and constellations
My opponent writes “The fact that we see the same stars for all of recorded history is proof that they are not part of an expanding universe.” Con fails to realize that our “recorded history” only began seconds ago compared to the 13.8 billion years that the universe has been around. “Our ancestors may have recorded their view of the night sky on the walls of their cave some 17 300 years ago” [5]. We can see that millions of galaxies are moving away from us [6].

Sources in the comments. Apologies; I ran out of space.

I look forward to my opponent’s response!
Debate Round No. 2


We know that the earth is the center of the universe because of all the evidence, no stellar parallax, north star never moves, sun goes around us. This all proves the bible, and we are Not random coincidences floating around in a speck in the vast universe. Bop is still on you though. Up until last 100 years, we haven't been able to even reach the Antarctic circle, when we did, temps and storms prevented us from going too far, also, who said anything about an edge? If an infinite universe is conceivable, why not an infinite plain? You pretend to not have heard of the Antarctic treaty.

Blood moon
Remember bop is on pro, as I do not have to necessarily explain what an eclipse is, I simply have to disprove what he says it is, which I have. You never see red light or green (so blue and green makes red?) coming from earth outside the atmosphere, much less a red shadow.

In the video the shadow of the earth is obscuring the moon from the top down rather than the bottom up, contrary to what would be expected when the earth is passing between the moon and sun. The sun's light should be peeking over the earth's horizon and hitting the moon from the top down.

Are we to believe that "refraction" has not only placed the moon that far above the earth's surface, but has moved the shadow the wrong way to boot?

Lunar waves
Although I'm sure this will change, not many people just set up expensive cameras and film the moon all the time. The fact that this many people film it on separate occasions, with widely different set ups, prove that it is not an error with the camera. Furthermore, since bop is on pro, he can't explain it other than through atmosphere, but since we have atmosphere above us at all times, we'd notice this anomaly at any time without cameras. Atmosphere has not caused this effect anywhere else in nature, and it clearly moves the position in the moon.

Lunar landings hoax
I did in fact, give a source to a great video explaining the lunar landings was a hoax, and your source which supposedly claims they have no credibility is a dead link. As always I urge voters to do their own research, and make up their own minds.

There is in fact a video that was done on a balloon, which was launched and at its peak shows a sunspot on the clouds directly underneath the clouds, which would not happen if it were that far away at that angle, and the sun itself appearing much larger than normal, and at a 90° angle. And not the size difference cannot be blamed on glare because more atmosphere is more glare as shown in this picture. Since there is little to no atmosphere at this height, the sun is in fact closer.
Con ignores the subject of atmospheric perspective, and the fact that it is thicker at lower altitudes, which explains, without saying he is looking at them over a curve and at an angle, why he can see farther from a tree.

Con asks why hasn't anyone tried to blot out the stars, seriously? Airy's failure prove the stars go around the earth and the earth has not moved.

Con concedes to my last proof that the moon can't be a sphere if two people looking at it do not see any more of it If they are on opposite hemispheres.

Since con has only tried his best to disprove my arguments, bop was on him. I have successfully rebutted his rebuttals though and that burden has not been met.


Thank you Con! In this round I will make final rebuttals and write my conclusion.

“We know that the Earth is the center of the universe because of all the evidence, no stellar parallax, North Star never moves, sun goes around us.” What evidence? Please be more specific next time. We do observe stellar parallax; take a look at the following photo. These are two long exposure photographs taken at the same time of the same thing in two different locations, Boston and San Francisco. They each show the movement of an asteroid (the white streak). We can see that the asteroid passes over slightly different spots of the background stars depending on where you see it from [1]. Also, the North Star doesn’t change positions in the night sky from our perspective because it is directly overhead of the North Pole.

“..We are not random coincidences floating around in a speck in the vast universe. Bop is still on you though.” I chose to defend that the Earth is a sphere, yet my opponent expects to make statements such as these without any support? The burden of proof lies upon anybody who makes a claim. I believe I have met my burden of proof throughout this debate, while I cannot say the same for my opponent and his claims.

After I brought up the hypothetical "edge of the world," Con writes "who said anything about an edge?" Every picture demonstrating what the flat Earth would look like has an edge, like the very first photo my opponent shared. It doesn't make sense that people wouldn't try to go to the edge. It seems like something important that more people would be trying to find if the Earth was actually flat.

And yes I have heard of the Antarctic Treaty. Take a look at what it says: "Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue" [5]. It seems to me that something of this debate's nature would count as a scientific investigation. So why are't flat Earthers going on science expeditions to photograph the edge of the Earth?

Speaking on lunar waves: I don’t know why the moon is so relevant to this debate. Nevertheless I will respond to Con’s claim. “Furthermore, since bop is on pro, he can't explain it other than through atmosphere, but since we have atmosphere above us at all times, we'd notice this anomaly at any time without cameras.” The videos my opponent refers to require the camera to be zoomed in 50x to 100x, much closer than our eyes can see. Any camera forced to extend its lens this far is likely to show some distortion. To believe the Moon is a projection is silly. A comment on one of these “fake moon” videos sums it up nicely. “Have you ever thought how they would project a hologram every day for the past thousands of years and follow the same schedule for thousands [of years?] It's irrational to even think the moon is a hologram” [2]. The Moon has been observed for thousands of years with the same 30 day cycle. To believe it is a projection is nonsensical.

Regarding the lunar landings hoax, I apologize for the dead link I shared. This link should work:
It mentions arguments such as how the flag appears to be blowing in the wind, which should be impossible in space. It simply appears like this because of the inertia of having just shoved the flag into the Moon’s crust. Another argument is that the photos are faked because there are no stars in the background, just darkness. “The moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light” [3]. The list goes on, and so do the rational explanations.

With respect to the assertion that the Sun is much closer to Earth, my opponent’s evidence is severely lacking. It is curious how the video he posted cuts from real shots of the sun directly to extreme close ups.

“Con ignores the subject of atmospheric perspective, and the fact that it is thicker at lower altitudes, which explains, without saying he is looking at them over a curve and at an angle, why he can see farther from a tree.” This is nonsensical. It doesn’t explain why there is such a clear, distinct cutoff between the visible part of the ship and the "invisible"/lower part of the ship. The atmosphere would have to go from incredibly thin above around 100 feet (the part we can see), and then incredibly thick under 100 feet (the part we cannot see). The atmosphere should gradually thicken, not suddenly become thicker.

Con has ultimately been cherry picking. My opponent refuses to accept that the Earth is round, that we revolve around the Sun and that we have been on the Moon, despite the absurd amount of video and photographic evidence that point to the contrary [4]. Con likely believes that NASA photoshops their photos and videos, yet when he shares photos and videos that he thinks support his case, he expects us to accept that they are real and accurate without stating why.

To conclude, it is beyond irrational to imagine that all the governments and space agencies would go to such great lengths to hide Earth’s true shape. There is no possible way they could keep such a huge secret from each of the billions of people that live on Earth. Imagine all the staff they would need to edit their photos and videos to make the Earth appear round. You’d think at least one of them would pull a Snowden and release a “real” image of the flat Earth from their many satellites. Besides, what do they have to gain from spending so much time and energy trying to hide the truth from people?

It is a fact that the Earth is a sphere.

I thank my opponent for debating me!


Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
...Excuse me? Care to elaborate on that?
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
The vote was a sham
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
That cognitive dissonance
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
That cognitive dissonance
Posted by JayShay 2 years ago
Look, I have better things to do than attempt to continue a debate whose victor has been chosen. The way you conduct yourself tells me you would rather attempt to immediately disprove anything that you don't agree with rather than at least consider different perspectives.

I will not return to the comments. Good day.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Do you even know how much a ball 25000 miles in circumference is suppose to curve?
Posted by JayShay 2 years ago
Dude. The experiment was done in the 1800s and 1900s. We're in the 21st century now. Besides, that experiment did show that the earth has curvature upon using more accurate equipment.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was understood to follow any hypothetical curvature of the Earth, the observation that the three poles aligned perfectly when observed through a theodolite serves as evidence of a flat Earth.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 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: Given in comments.