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

The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

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: 1/31/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,652 times Debate No: 85825
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)




Please provide real evidence of a spherical earth. Math is a useful tool for many reasons, but it should not be used to substitute or represent reality, therefore complex equations may not be used, it also confuses voters. Proof must be a in media, scientific experiments or observations. This is a serious debate, any trolling will result in forfeture. Good luck.


A flat earther? In 2016? Well, I respect you - at least you question what you are told. Hopefully I can convince you the Earth is not flat.
Disclaimer: The Earth is not a perfect sphere, it is a spheroid, but it is still a spherical shape. I will be proving that the Earth is not flat with my arguments. Anyways, let's start this.
Argument 1: Gravity
If the Earth were flat, then how could we get to the Southern Hemisphere? Wouldn't gravity cause them to all fall down? And if gravity is towards the center of the Earth as opposed to straight down, then why am I not moving towards the GMT line? If the Earth were flat, then the center would be at the GMT line, so gravity would move me that direction. But it doesn't, which is one proof that the Earth is not flat. ( "When Newton discovered and measured the force of gravity, that number could then be tested anywhere the theory was known. Since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels."
Argument 2: Flight Paths
Anyone who has been on a plane or looked at a flight path knows about this one. When you look at the map, it seems that the plane is going along a "curved path". But this is the shortest route - how is this possible? Well, this website clarifies (
"It"s simply the shortest distance. (...) "great circle" routes, accounting for the earth"s curvature. These routes won"t make sense if you"re looking at a traditional flat map, because when the earth is crushed from its natural round state into a horizontal one, it becomes distorted as the divisions of latitude and longitude stretch apart. (...) If you have a globe handy, however, the logic of great circles is very apparent. Measuring with a piece of string, it"s obvious that the shortest distance between New York and Hong Kong, for instance, is not westerly, as it would seem on a map, but pretty much straight north, up into the Arctic, and then straight south. Over the top, in other words."
So these paths are actually the shortest ones. Why? Because the Earth is round.
Argument 3: Pictures from Outer Space
Look at this one, for example ( The Earth is clearly round. Now you can claim that spacecraft is a conspiracy, but use a GPS system and then ralize that would not be possible without spacecraft.
Argument 4: Columbus/Magellan etc.
You can sail around the Earth. How would this be possible if the Earth were flat?
Argument 5: The Horizon
I won't get into the math as my opponent requests, but the fact that we can only see a limited distance in any direction proves the Earth is not flat. If you want the math, look here (
Argument 6: Stars
This website explains (
"This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator. After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that "there are stars seen in Egypt and ["] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (...) The farther you go from the equator, the farther the "known" constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat."
This website also has diagrams that show that the point of view must be different to see different constellations, but if the Earth were flat, the point of view would be the same from anywhere. Check out the pictures if you don't understand the argument.
Argument 7: Time Zones
Similar to the stars argument, the sun would rise everywhere at the same time if the Earth were flat. But there are different time zones, so the Earth must be round.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for acceptance, I wish you luck, and hope that both of us gain some insight into this very interesting topic. 2016 is our year, as we have already got two semi-major celebrities on our side. (rapper b.o.b. and tila tequila. People are questioning everything they are told, and this won't be the last time you are confronted with this information.

1. Gravity
Gravity will no more force you to the southern hemisphere that an ant on a plate that is level. Furthermore, gravity, in the sense that things are attracted to the center of a ball, has never been formally proved. No experiment or observation has the sheer mass of any object causes things to stick to the bottom of or orbit around it. What can be proved is density and weight. Things of low density rise in a higher fender medium and vice versa. Gravity can actually be disproved with this. The sun, according to the THEORY of relativity, delicately holds the earth in its 18 mps orbit around the earth, but it goes away from the sun in winter, closer in summer, then, without any opposing force, pulls back out of the closer orbit, saving us all from a fiery infernal crash into the sun. The center of the flat earth (and the universe for that matter) is the north pole, directly under Polaris. Leaving this point in any direction will take you south, taking a left or right will take you east or west respectively. The earth is said to spin at the rate of 1,000 mph, centripetal force would be far stronger at the equator than it should be at the poles, if gravity is exhibiting equal amounts of force, I would weigh considerably more at the pole(s) considering it would take less of a pull to keep centripetal force from flaying everything from it so a force that is provable is, in this way, counteracts by a force that is non-provable in reality, or a syntactically and experimentally provable environment.
From Universe Today:

"Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."

Gravity is used as a catch all for today's astronomers, so if gravity is false, in any meaning other than density, how much else is false, so until we can prove this form of gravity exist, we shall try to ignore it.

2. Flight Paths
Flight paths go over Greenland from us and Europe because it is the shortest route, yes, but not because it goes over any hump of water( which is impossible anyway, because the natural physics of water is to go level, which was proven with the Bedford level experiments). If you take your finger on a globe, which has this supposed curve, and trace a line to and from these points, you in fact do not go over Greenland. However if you do the same with the flat map, you can. It's more apparent with trips to and from Australia and south America, as shown here.

As you can see and verify, by booking a flight yourself or watch this guy do it. These flights have stops some hundreds of miles out of the way north on a globe, but if you trace the path on a flat map it makes more sense.

"Pictures" from space.
I will prove that at least one or more of NASA's photos are faked, and it will be assumed, given the circumstances, that all are faked as well.

In this comparison, America has over doubled in size. Proof one.
Blatant copying and pasting of cloud formations. Proof two.

The word "sex" wrote out in cloud formations, really? Proof three.
There are several proofs of NASA Photoshop, these are some of the worst, besides the fact that there are no satellites where there would be thousands, an actual photo of earth should look more like this: proof four.
NaSA admits that most if not all of their "photos" of earth are in fact composites put together in Photoshop, since this can also be done in a flat earth with a high altitude plane, it does not prove a spherical earth.proof five
A little off topic as it doesn't involve earth, but still has to do with NASA's"photos". The recent "picture of pluto is my favorite.

4. Circumnavigation.

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.

The horizon.
The fact that we can't see forever in any direction in no way proves that the earth is a sphere. It is according to the LAW of Perspective. The railroad tracks only seen to close in on each other and come to a point, this works on all axises, as shown by the telephone pole dropping in height. At a certain point, all things will blend in with the horizon.

You don't see stars on the other side of the disc for the same reason you don't see the sun, it's just too far away, they blend in with the horizon. Aka law of perspective? Think of the railroad tracks going into the distance, the two tracks are the same distance from each other, but they appear to meet, this works on a vertical axis too. Just as the telephone poles get shorter and eventually disappear. It's funny you should mention stars though. Did you know you can see Polaris( a star that is directly over the north pole and doesn't move, not even while we are wobbling around in the "cosmos") from well past the equator, which would be impossible on a ball. I will ask you this, if the earth is spinning, orbiting around the sun, and the sun is orbiting around the center of the universe at some speed that is preposterous to say the least, why don't the constellations change? Not even a little bit, we should see a whole new set of stars if the earth were on a different side of the solar system every six months. Also as we approach each side, the stars should appear to move closer together or farther away depending on where they and we are in the universe. They don't, it's flat and there's a dome.
Polaris is shown to not move at all by taking a slow exposure photograph of it shown here.

The sun is not 93 Brazilian miles away as modern astronomers and scientists tell us and it follows the LAW of Perspective also. They say the moon and sun only appear to be the same size because the moon is 400x smaller, and the sun is 400x further away. Coincidence? No, they are the same size and distance away.



OK, let's go down the arguments.
1: Gravity
My opponent tries to disprove gravity. Seriously? Jump up right now. You came back down. I rest my case - gravity is legit. The reason we don't fall into the Sun is because while we accelerate toward the Sun, our velocity is not in that direction, so we move in a circle ( And I'm sorry, you denying gravity does not make it false. So that's enough to affirm right there, but I'll adress the other points too.
2: Flight Paths
First of all, that map makes no sense. People have found the South Pole. It is not on that map. Why? Because a flat Earth is nonsensical. I have gone from California to India, and no, I did not go over the North Pole. I went through Europe. My opponent's points are completely inconsistent and intellectually embarrassing.
3: Pictures from Space
NASA does use Photoshop, but not to make up their photos - just to interpret the feed from their devices. But even if you think NASA fakes their stuff, ask the people who filmed Gravity - they got their shots from outer space itself. And I'm sorry, any source that claims the Illuminati is real is probably not credible. Also, can you link the photos, not just paste them? Maybe these photos are made up - but by a third party source, not by NASA. As for the clouds saying sex, people see stuff in clouds all the time - dragons, bunnies, whatever it may be. Doesn't mean it's faked. Randomness can be beautiful. I mean, we are all random too.
4: Circumnavigation
I already touched on this, that model has no South Pole when we have clearly found one, so it is faked. This is the easiest place, but not the only one, to vote aff in this debate.
5: Horizon
My opponent talks about perspective. But that's only true when there is something higher that blocks your view. If you look across a flat lake, you should be able to see the next city. But if you try this when you go to the beach, you won't see across the ocean because the Earth curves. So good try, but perspective only applies in certain cases.
6: Stars
I'm not talking about distance here. I'm talking about how the Southern and Northern hemispheres have different stars visible. You can see the Big Dipper in the North, not in the South. My opponent doesn't cover this at all. Easy vote for me here as well.
7: Time Zones
Once again, looking back at my opponent's map, I've shown why it's nonsensical. I've driven around Australia - a mile there is the same as a mile here. To suggest the distance there is larger is preposterous.
So all my points stand, (unless the Illuminati is real, then all but one stand) which means this is an easy affirmative vote.
Debate Round No. 2


The argument against gravity goes back to as far as tesla. I would be ignorant if I didn't say that what goes up must come down per se. It is the kind of gravity that we can't prove or observe that I am against. You know the part that says that the sheer mass of an object will attract make stick to or make orbit around it. Until this can be shown or demonstrated in a real world environment, it remains a theory. Honestly I feel my opponent either didn't understand, or didn't bother reading my entire argument against gravity in relation to celestial bodies. Please, explain what force pulls the earth back to it's outer orbit that it makes in the winter solstice. You can't rest your case since you have not even addressed the argument.'s_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

Flight paths.
This map made sense enough to use it as an official map for flight for years. The south pole has been put in 4 different places by Wikipedia, which begs the question, do they really know?


As most people know the poles are not flyable with reports of approaching pilots being shooed with threats of violence. (which is why you didn't fly over it) The south pole is not geomagnetic, only the north pole, and any pole they place on the ring of Antarctica is only theoretically a pole.

Why would you go through Europe, which is north of India, when India is southeast of cali? Intellectually embarrassing indeed.

You admit that NASA uses Photoshop to help create their images of earth, but you fail to recognize the fact that this can be done on a flat earth also anyone can take a flat surface scan it and use Photoshop to turn it into a ball.Oh you saw a movie that proves the earth is a sphere? I thought when I was younger, because I saw it on a movie that a giant gorilla was climbing towers and kidnapping white chicks. Intellectually embarrassing indeed. Links to the NASA photos are below. As for words in clouds, the odds are tremendous an animal, yes, symbols and maybe what might appear to some as a letter, but that word? In the instant NASA decided to take a photo? No.
I thought surely, since you accepted this debate, that you were competent enough to either recognize or research these images yourself, and find out they are official, but here you go.
I know you were discussing the distance to the stars, but I was, and they fall into the realm of the Law of Perspective. Again this is not a theory, and is not debateable.The only aspect of this argument would be the distance to the stars


First, I apologize for the flight to India remark - we stop in Europe due to lack of fuel. But the point still stands - read my pilot's testimony. That itself went unrefuted.
On Gravity, my opponent says "oh nobody has proved it" but we observe it everyday. This makes no sense whatsoever. Extend my points still.
Even if the South pole is in 4 places, the point is they aren't that far apart. If you believe my opponent's map, the distance between those two points on Antarctica are 10x more far away from each other than California and Texas. And that's just bullcrap. No map of a flat world will ever make sense given circumnavigation, and as I said, that's the easiest way to vote aff. Remember I only need to win one point since my opponent only has defense, and never made an argument why a spherical Earth is impossible. He only showed alternate interpretations. This means this one point is game over already.
I have to agree with you on the pictures though - they do look faked. I'll concede that much, but like I said, I've still won.
So you can vote for me on Flight Paths, Circumnavigation, or Time Zones. My opponent's map makes no sense - the globe is legit even if NASA isn't. Thank you for this great and actually pretty interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Behold// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both Con and Pro had great conduct. Kudos guys. Unfortunately they both made multiple spelling and grammar mistakes. Unfortunate, but a tie. Some arguments, because there were so many, were weaker than others. IMO, Pro didn't refute Con's argument on gravity very well. Too many others fell flat though to deny a spherical Earth. Sources go to Pro, Con's scraping the barrel a bit here.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by both debaters or explain why one side didn't meet their BoP. Merely stating an argument made by one side and saying it wasn't well refuted is an assertion, not an assessment. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess sources given by each side and not simply dismiss one side's sources without explanation.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: kkjnay// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con is really not a bad debater, however the stance they argue is unequivocally incorrect. At no point were the first round arguments presented by Pro adequately refuted.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to do more than just state that one side is obviously winning the debate and that their arguments weren't "adequately refuted." Voters are required to explain the decision by analyzing specific arguments made by each side.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
No vote from you I see
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
100th monkey is almost here though
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Ya, it might take a while to break the programming
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
180 days for voting period???

What do you have in mind, dear @Edlvsjd? I wish you luck, maybe you can convince as much people, to believe that the Earth is flat, as that if they voted you would win. Or was that already your purpose?

Anyways, you are the Instigator, its you who decides on the length of voting period.
Posted by Zarium 2 years ago
I thought you said "Maths" is no longer a valid proof for this flat earth, or is that only true when the math disproves your ideals?
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
You stopped there for fuel, because it was on the way.
No votes have been placed for this debate.