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

The earth is a spherical shape.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: Select Winner
Started: 2/19/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,349 times Debate No: 86864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (186)
Votes (0)




Pro, please provide proof that the earth is not flat. Bop is on pro. Proof must not depend on the first assumption that it is a sphere. Proof must be reprovable with common sense and everyday observations and experimentation recorded anyway. Any media publicly available is useable. Sources can include anything until the opposition proves them unreliable recources, or the claim is false. I hope pro accepts this debate, I feel this is the most important conspiracy. It proves the bible true for one, and shows mankind what these people are capable of, and has been doing for hundreds of years. If pro successfully provides proof, and I am thoroughly convinced, I can finally rest, and I won't get treated like a kook anymore. I can go back to researching the smaller conspiracies. Pro may start round 1. I hope to both provide insight and receive it. Good luck, should you accept.


I'll just use each of those points as an argument so con should disprove them to empower their position.
Debate Round No. 1


I've argued these same points several times now, I was hoping that my opponent could offer some new insight as to why he thinks the earth is a sphere but since I have had practice with these same questions I await your argument.


You haven't said anything to disprove my argument? So it stands and I'll leave it at that until you disprove them.
Debate Round No. 2


As you will see, there is not enough room for all ten rebuttals in this format debate, each topic must be reexplained using the basic senses. They are The only things we know are telling The truth. I will address a few, and ask that pro suggest one or two more from The list, because I would like to provide some proof of a pancake at some period in the debate. Why are all my thes caps? I'm so blazed.
The moon
A)lunar eclipses
The flat earth may not have come up with an explanation as a whole (some theorize a 3rd invisible object in the sky (which could be where this idea originated from), a black sun called Rahu,(1) and civilians have no access to whatever can see the light it gives off as many claims of these bodies exist in the official universe , (this would explain the chemtrails, maybe, there are certain predictable circumstances that it can be seen, in a clear day that is) while others claim it to be a projection, or hologram, which I will get to in part b), but we know through scientific observation that no solid objects can produce a red shadow, such as a blood moon. Also, accounts of lunar eclipses have shown both the sun and moon appearing above the horizon, this is impossible if the earth is directly in between the sun and the. moon(2). With these two observations, it can be logically deduced that the earth does not block the light of the sun on the moon.

B)lunar phases
This one is a little harder to explain, (and believe, but you have to believe your own eyes on a situation like this) and I gotta admit, it is one thing I myself am still wondering, but, we know some things don't match up with the official story like, it does not spin like all the other celestial bodies in the universe as they claim, we've never seen the other side of it! And the faces wouldn't match up if the sun were not standing still. it's kind of hard to explain, I hope this video helps you understand(3). Recently, many people have recorded what appears to be a refresh line (4)slowly going up the moon, which if you have ever seen a security camera pointed at another screen, you will see a slowly ascending, or descending (depending on if you were in the southern or northern hemisphere) line. This has not been observed anywhere else in nature. If you put two and two together you can safely assume that the moon is not what we are told it is, and we may never fully understand it. Why do you think they have not commercialized flights to the moon by now? When they go back to the moon(lol, if you believe that)(5), we as taxpayers, should demand a live(delayed) camera aimed at earth, available to all taxpayers. Surely you have figured out that the lunar landings we're all a hoax. But that is another debate all together.

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. 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. This effect is multiplied with distance, meaning it gets a lot thicker very close to the earth, and drops off fairly quickly as altitude is gained. 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 (8)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, uncut video of this happening though.

Shadows and Sticks
Errortosthenes' experiment depends on this, since the sun is 93 Brazilian miles away as modern astronomers claim, the sun's rays would hit the earth parallel to each other. Errortosthenes also claimed he circumnavigated the earth when he saw elephants in the west(african) and then again in the east(indian). Anyone who uses their eyes at all can see that the sun's rays do not run parallel to each other.(6)Furthermore, the moon is exactly 400x smaller, and 400x closer in relation to the sun! The odds of this happening in a totally random, ever expanding at light speed universe on the planet we humans (the only physical place we have ever been, and can prove exists) live, is astronomical. But it's just a coincidence they say. Right.

Better sight at higher altitude
I've explained the perspective laws, and how they work. If you were to rise above this thicker air, well it only makes sense that you could see more, because you have eliminated some of this atmosphere from your vision. If you were looking over any curve, objects would gradually lean away from you the further you could see. You would also be overcoming the law of perspective to a degree. Drop a quarter on a football field and stand 50 yards away, you would certainly see it from halfway up the goalposts sooner than standing on the ground.

You Never have to look down at the horizon.

Ride a plane
Ever wondered why plane windows are concave? Concave windows, lenses, and mirrors. Have an effect on things, like a fisheye lens (which is used in most high altitude videos) otherwise known as a go pro camera. The effect actually bends straight lines that aren't centered. This (7)balloon has 2 cameras on it, a gopro, and a regular lens. (I'll let you guess which one is the standard lens, hint : the gopro also bends the earth outward when the horizon is below centered) it is important to notice the difference, because nasa usus the gopro, or fisheye camera a lot. As you will agree, (ruler on the screen) the standard lens shows a truly flat at any altitude horizon. Any cameras showing any slight curvature, has only seen the extent of the sun's rays, explaining time zones. In other words, nighttime. The next argument is actually a proof of mine, as your source states "Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also, theoretically (and some do, though with stops along the way), circle the earth." this is a contradiction. If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintai.n their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

There are no fixed “East” or “West” points just as there is no fixed “South.” The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth, with South being all straight lines outwards from the pole, East and West being concentric circles at constant right angles 90 degrees from the pole. A westerly circumnavigation of Earth is thus going around with Polaris continually on your right, while an easterly circumnavigation is going around with Polaris always at your left. You don't actually fly completely around the globe, you fly in seemingly straight lines from fueling station, to fueling station, until you come to the starting point.
"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, proving nasa an unreliable source.

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 on 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.

At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.

Guess what map (9) the official atlas creaters use? My map. Go to the AE map and scroll far right. USGS it is also represented on the United nations flag and symbol. Anonymous uses the same flag but a global earth. Pitting globalists against anti-globalist. Each is divided into 33 sections. I'll let you research the number 33 and it's symbology and numerological significance.


I would first thank con for putting effort into this debate which I at first accepted offhandedly and has now admittedly piqued my interest, however, I will now refute the points con has made and introduce a few of my own:

1) It is true that most of the time lunar eclipses cannot occur as the sun is out, but under special circumstances cab happen because of the atmosphere's refractive properties that causes the sun and moon to appear as if they are further up than they really are. You've clearly thought about this extensively so I'm sure you'll have time to look at these links so I'll leave some diagrams for reference here:

2) The reason why the moon always faces the earth in the same direction is because its rotation speed is perfectly synced to its rotation speed around earth. The video could be fake or any number of effects added in post processing so I don't it's the best evidence. Commercialized flights to moon is tricky because it is of course enormously expensive to even consider operating so the investment sum would be in the billions, then we must consider the target market which is the top 0.1% and from that tiny number pick out the people interested in going to the moon. From that it's easy to tell that it's far too big a risk on investment for very little profit, if any at all, it will most likely operate at a loss. Despite these issues, apparently the russians have done it albeit only orbital because it would take even more fuel to reach the moon. I won't really comment too much on the moon landings as I think its not relevant and I don't rule out the possibility that it was faked at the height of the cold war.

3) this one is difficult to record because it takes a really long time of sitting there with a camera that won't run out of battery and apparently no ones interested enough to really film a whole unedited segment to view the behaviour. Yes water normally finds a level surface because of gravity in space it goes everywhere, and if an object is round the gravity pulls towards the center thus giving water the properties you are describing. If atmospheric perspective was that dense we'd be seeing a grey blob. You also talked about the distance (which distance are you talking about up or side to side, it wasn't clear?) and it being multiplied when closer to the earth but it wasn't very clear so I won't comment on it, feel free to clarify it.

4) I don't quite understand what you mean by the sun's rays being parallel so I'll skip that for now, please clarify if you wish. Humans are a coincidence, Pi is a coincidence, the gravitational constant is a coincidence, the universe is full of coincidences, this ones not a big one also I'll post an article with more detail.

5. More is not the same as Clearer changing the fidelity in your vision does not affect how much you can see it only affects how clear you can see it. The model you showed is too small for the purpose of this, the earth is very large and we are very small relatively so the curve is much more subtle, thus it is inaccurate.
50 yards is barely anything, you can't notice the curviture at that distance.

6. I can't really prove whether or not the lenses that are used are what curvature or whatnot and how concave/convex they are and neither can you, I do know though that wearing glasses( which are also convex/concave) does not affect how one views the world other than clarity. As for the planes, it is not a contradiction because a plane does not have the ability to reach escape velocity so gravity constantly pulls it towards the earth which means pilot's don't need to adjust. So your entire last point is completely false because of this reason.

6) I have not used NASA as a source as of yet so I'll just say that NASA has both artist renditions and real photos and Idk how you've proved those photos are from NASA, you could have made them for all I know.

7) according to your flat earth diagram I'd need you to explain the lines better but I'll pose a few questions

1: How high up are the sun and the moon and how large are they according to this model
2: How would this model explain days and nights
3: what do the flat earthers think is at the world's edge?
4: why hasn't some random japanese fisherman sailed to edge while whale hunting?
5: I'm no meteorologist but from my understanding the earth has many complex seasonal climate changes that are caused by magnetism/ water temperatures and seem generally impossible base on a flat earth
6: what is the point of a conspiracy to cover up a flat earth? The bible? Christians are already the dominant faith in the world so that doesn't make much sense.
7: If I understand it correctly much of this debate has religious implications and I'll note that religion gets on my nerve so I apologize ahead of time if I come off as passive aggressive when I speak about it.

End Rebuttal
I think I've covered con's main points pretty clearly but please reiterate the points I have missed.


1) when bullets are fired from a long enough distance they are affected by the corialis effect. The corialis effect would only be possible if the Earth itself rotated.

2) if one believes in a flat earth how does one explain days and a sundial?

3) why hasn't anyone fallen off the face of the earth (literally) ?

4) if we are a flat earth, what does the sun and moon look like? In fact what does jupiter/saturn look like?

5) how do satellites perpetually stay up without any propulsion and just rotate around the earth?

I think I have offered sufficient evidence to most people and I'd like to thank con for actually putting in the effort to research his position too often do religions get used as an explanation because one is too lazy to do research.
Debate Round No. 3


I could tell that you have not done much research on the shape of the earth, this is sad, most of society is just blindly accepting what the "smart" guys tell us since birth. I call this indoctrination. I thought that maybe if you were going to go 5 rounds with a flat earther, you would at least look into it so you had some idea to what you were debating against. Maybe your research will start now. Better late than never.

1) 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, and the shadow would go up the moon.

Are we to believe that "refraction" has not only placed both the sun and moon in opposite directions that far above the earth's surface, but has moved the shadow the wrong way to boot? We can now clearly deduce that the earth never blocks the sun's light on the moon.

2) Pro admits the strong possibility that the lunar landings were faked. Why then, since you have admitted the government (who can be proves to be one of the most unreliable sources) has lied about this, can we believe anything they say about space in general? The video I assume you were referring to is lunar waves. This anomaly has been filmed repeatedly by more than one person, with a few widely different camera and video setups, disproving equipment failure or any doctoring. Since bop is on pro, I assume he can provide proof to this claim. For more videos, simply search lunar waves on YouTube. Until pro can provide evidence that such videos are in fact doctored, the claim stands as stated in the rules. In source video 3 I provide a small demonstration about the phases and how they do not match up, if the sun were on the other side of the earth, the phases would reset every six months. Pro has ignored this point entirely.

3) It shouldn't be difficult or time/battery consuming to start filming a ship as it gets closer to the horizon, and show that it goes over any hump of water downhill, which is absurd even saying it. Until pro can provide a proof of this claim, this burden of proof has not been met. We aren't seeing a blob because at some point, the law of perspective takes over, causeing the illusion that it blends in with the horizon, the telescopes brings it back into view, as my source says, proving it does not go over a hump. Similar to watching a car go in the distance, at a point, the tires will seem to have disappeared, and the car will appear to be dragging it's undercarriage on the highway. Distance refers to the distance to the object, going along the earth's surface with the highest density of atmosphere, directly above sea level. Which brings us to the globe-trotters' catch all, gravity.
Ah gravity, that magical force that (without observation) causes things over an uncertain mass to make some things stick to it, while others float around it in a circle. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims "gravity" does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets. What we can observe is that things of high density, when placed in a less dense medium will sink while less dense objects in a more dense medium rise. At what amount of mass do these magical things happen? It doesn't, it's a theory, and we're taking someone's word that it even exists. Kinda reminds me of some or most religions, telling us to believe something that can't be proven or observed in a real world environment. For gravity to exist in this way, you must first have to assume that the earth is a ball. Therefore any ideas involving gravity in this way is against the rules stated in round 1.
For more gravity shenanigans.

It's funny how Pro disregards all these coincidences. Is it possible that all these coincidences are in fact proof of intelligent creation? I think I have shown substantial proof of this here.
Shadows and sticks
For Eratosthenes is experiment to prove a globular earth, the sun's rays have to hit the earth at a near perfect parallel. They do not as I have clearly shown in the previous round.

5. Is not the coin size to the football field relevant to the person and the flat earth? As of yet Pro has provided no proof of any curvature. I also point out that pro ignores the fact that any object appearing over a curve would be leaning away from you. Since Pro has not provided any proof of this we can safely assume that at higher altitude we are not looking over the curve of a ball.

I have in fact provided proof and the difference between the two lenses that are used at high altitude launches and/or NASA videos. The most obvious would be a morphing horizon, appearing to get larger and smaller and even curving outwards. I even provide a clear example of this. Watch Nazi, I mean NASA sponsored Felix Baumgartner's jump from the edge of space, the only time they don't use a GoPro camera in that video is when they use the camera that is inside the vehicle as he opens the door looking out, you can clearly see the horizon does not bend at this section in the video as it does in the rest of it. The fact that you do not see curved lines through eye glasses Is because this information is pre translated due to the subconscious telling you that the line is in fact level. Also, you are not looking through the entire lens. Only the middle.

The fact that planes do not have the ability to escape velocity has nothing to do with the fact that they would be flying nose down almost constantly. Any pilot can tell you that this does not happen, they fly level with the horizon at all times. The fact that pro never offers a proof that they do fly nose down, proves that they do not make the corrected altitude measurements as described in the previous round. Gravity again is brought up in this argument, so I will provide another proof that gravity in this sense does not exist. Planets are said to have an elliptical orbit around the Sun, how can this be possible when Newton's law depend on distance showing what the strength of gravity should be, if distance is decreased, then gravity should increase, what opposing force is pulling these planets back out away from their closer point of orbit around the Sun?

Honestly I thought if you were going to debate the shape of the earth, and provide pictures as proof as you did in round one, you would be able to correctly identify even portions of suppposed pictures of Earth from space, it appears I am wrong, I will provide links to the images used above directly from official sources.

Pro does not try to refute the to prove that I provided at the end of the last round, so we will assume that he concedes to these proofs.

I will quickly try to answer pros questions. The sun is about 32 miles big, 3,000 miles away.
The distance to the sun is not great, so it, and it's light are subject to the laws of perspective also. We cannot see the light from the Sun when it is on the other side of the flat plane because it is just too far away, it blends in with the horizon. Only a few people know what is at the edge, if there is an edge. If an infinite space is conceivable, then why not an infinite plane? The edge, if there is one, as you can see from the map I provided is past anartica the ring of ice surrounding the earth that has been carved out from the heat from the Sun.

As for a reason, I can think of a few, let's start with treason. They wanted to win the space race, so they faked it. Stanley Kubrick coded a confession in "the shining" JFK prophesied going to the moon before 1970, they figured out it was impossible and hired the creator of 2001 a space odysee to help out and show superiority to the world. There may be lots more land past Antarctica. Land is a very valuable resource. Some have referenced the Great Deception as depicted in the bible. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist. They have convinced us that we are random coinidences in an insignificant corner of a vast universe.

Coriolis effect.



I have posted a diagram of the effect that con is talking about, it is clearly different than his and shows how the phenomenon con is talking about is possible with our understanding of physics.
For the plane I clearly explained that gravity holds it down until it can reach escape velocity as the plane is flying it is little by little moving down as it travels the curvature of earth. Also do try to remember that earth is covered with bumps and isn't a perfect sphere. The roundness and near perfect sphere shape comes from the atmosphere that is also being pulled down since gravity is equal on every part of earth. Con has a deep mistrust of science which is the system that most humans on earth use to make the things we have, tv? Science,planes? Science, computers? Science, we even have quantum computers so how can you deny the existence of at least quantum mechanics? Con must understand that some of NASA's work is indeed artist renditions but is applying the no limits fallacy in that "if one is fake they're all fake". As for the filming of the ships, here's the thing: most people don't care enough to do it because they know how it works. Ptolemy observed this centuries ago. Con says "blindly believing what the smart guys say" referring to scientist I suppose? Well they have been responsible for every major technological invention and advancement since Franklin zapped himself. Without these scientists we may still be living like the same savages that arrived in the new world and murdered an innumerable amount of native/aboriginal/true AMERICANS. so as for why I trust scientists more than con it's simply because con has not achieved the same level of success in the sciences and how could they if they don't believe in integral parts of it. Con also says that I must prove that the videos are doctored, well con has to prove that NASA doctors their legit photos and pointing all those things really doesn't mean much because anyone could doctor the photo and then post it and say NASA doctored it. This debate can only go so far if the most basics of physics is continually being denied, which I'll note that the computer con is typing on is using the same laws of physics con is denying. Gravity makes everything stick but the force of the pull is only apparent when the object has enough mass, remember that just because you feel it with your senses doesn't mean it exists. On the contrary human senses and memory are very much flawed for example, the St. Louis arch. When viewed it appears as the arch is clearly taller than it is wide but when measured it is actually exactly equal both ways, how can this be if not a human perception error? Comparing gravity to religion is laughable, gravity has not been disproved since its discovery. Cons logic is flawed gravity does not exist because the earth is round, the earth is round because gravity exists. Why is it that when you drop a ball it bounces but not as high as where you dropped it? Gravity accelerates things downward by 9.8m/s2 so when it hits the ground it will impart x force which is the mass of the ball multiplied by 9.8m/s2. When it hits the ground the ground imparts the same force on the ball but air resistance saps the energy which would be called work. Religion didn't give us the answer to this question, physics did. Con's football example isn't good because the numbers are too small and con is not accounting for terrain and such/sea level. The earth curves 8 inches in one mile, it does not take 9 miles to curve 72 inches. To show this, let us return to the Pythagorean Theorem method used by Harley, but using 6 feet for the curvature. You say NASA only uses gopros but according to:
They use Nikon's

Con then uses Pythagoras theorem as a source when he does not believe in other aspects of math such as calculus which was invented by Isaac Newton. Then con cites the law of perspective as a source once again he is cherry picking which rules of physics are true and which are false in such a way as to strengthen his argument. I'm not sure what con is trying to demonstrate with Pythagoras theorem but since the earth is curved it can't be calculated with Pythagoras theorem because B would be curved. The suns rays hits more like this:

Lets remember that euclidean geometry is different than ellipses geometry. In euclidean geometry a triangles angles sum up to 180 degrees but in ellipses geometry the sum is always greater than 180 degrees. Once again in regards to the plane, why would they be flying nose down? Draw the tangent lines of a circle to understand how the gravitational field works.

This gives some insight as to why people would believe in flat earth theory. Con also exhibits every one of these disturbing qualities which leads me to conclude that they are cut from the same cloth. So I'll be blunt:

What did they do that caused you to mistrust them and why do you want to believe in a flat earth, is it because it agrees with the bible?

What if the bible is written by the devil? The greatest trick he ever pulled was convincing people he does not exist what better way than to use the "holy" scriptures.

What if god is evil? In Leviticus god states that you cannot plant 2 different types of seed in your farm. Modern farmers know that this is an important part running a farm. Following Leviticus was what caused the Irish potato famine.

I think I'll leave these for now if con still does not believe than please once again state those that you do that believe. This debate kinda veered of course into religion so I apologize to any viewers that are offended, I first and foremost respect your right to believe what you want but when it is affecting people and causing delusions that's when I draw a line. In the end it will be the viewers who decide who's argument is stronger.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent's diagram does not show how the supposed shadow of the earth can move the opposite direction than it should. It only reinstated refraction as an explanation for both Sun and Moon being visible above the horizon. In my video, for the shadow on the moon to go down, the sun would have to be on the underside of the earth coming up.

"The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon (selenelions) is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the center of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards--thus proving that if refraction operated at all, (atmosphere is far less dense, creating far less refraction than water) it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth's shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon's surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility." Samuel Rowbotham Zetetic Astronomy
So the shadow of the earth should be well below the horizon. And if atmospheric refraction is the explanation, which even a straw in water which is in liquid form and would produce more refraction than it's gaseous form cannot produce the amount of refraction required to make these things happen. If refraction can account for selenelions, then refraction should in fact throw the the light from the moon and the shadow of the earth in opposite directions. Yet in some cases the lunar eclipse lines the Moon and Earth's shadow up perfectly which is too big a coincidence for me. Especially when faced with empirical evidence stating otherwise.
I apologize if it seems that I imply that I did not trust science in general. I do not have a background in physics or formal math. But I am learning enough to know that the globe can't be correct.
As you may know, you can put science in a handful of categories, such as natural sciences like studying the world around us, social science, or studying cultures, and formal science or mathematics. The latter is separate from the others because math DOES NOT depend on empirical observation. So if an idea, or fact, as some might call it, is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not science, it then becomes faith. It can not represent or substitute reality, and should not be used or implied as fact. It is not a coincidence that science, in every category that does not use these theoretical equations, or Zetetic science, proves in more than one way, with verifiable experimentation. (bedford level experiments is one example) that the earth is flat, if you want to bring your science textbook to the debate, and just claim everything in it is fact, then the debate is pointless because of cognitive dissonance. If this debate were set in the 1980s, you would tell me that Pluto was a planet(or did they flip flop on that again?), a debate in the 1930s would have led to the claim that DNA has nothing to with our genetic makeup. I would have been told in the 1800s, that animals like mice can come into existence spontaneously out of thin air.

2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute is not little by little, especially when the average speed is 500mph. We were not taught the curvature of the earth for a reason. Pro continues to rebut yet again with the theoretical gravity by saying "since gravity is equal on every part of earth" so I will use this information that HE provides against him. If gravity is absolutely uniform, the force needed to counteract the centripetal force acquired by spinning at 1,000 mph would have to be varying, because we know, by looking at any spinning ball, that the equator of the ball is exhibiting more centripetal than the rest of the ball, because it is moving at a slower and slower rate as you move toward each pole. Does this mean, since gravity is uniform, that when I travel to the poles I will weigh a significant amount more? Again at what amount of mass does an object have to be to exhibit this force? Are objects sucked sideways to mountains? Or is that not big enough? It seems that it is only when The object is planet size that this force begins to take effect. Therefore you must first assume that The earth is a giant ball for gravity in the celestial bodies sense of the word (the part we can't demonstrate, and provide empirical evidence of) to exist. The curvature must be squared after the first mile. So with 2 miles you have 32" the 3rd mile would yield 72" or roughly 6 feet. So at a little more than 3 miles, you should not be able to see another human, because he would be over a hump in the earth. There should be a hump over 700 miles high between Hawaii and California. Which is a distance of roughly 2,500 miles.

Basic Geometry on a Sphere

The Global Earth theorists for 500 years have been telling us the Earth is a sphere. IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity"every part must be an arc of a circle.

From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram above. Spherical trigonometry dictates that a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference would curvate 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the mile, so after six miles there would be an easily detectable and measurable 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature.

To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away.

Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1

Miles squared X 8 inches
one foot = .000189394 miles

Curvature of Earth
1 mile 5.33 ft. or .12626 mile

10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles

100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles

So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance.

The mistrust does not include something that has empirical evidence, such as computers, etc as you mention. I mistrust those who said that they went to the moon, or that we are on a spinning ball, which can only be proved by using mathematics assuming first that the earth is a spinning ball. Empirical evidence shows that we are not moving in every direction at 1,000 mps.
Pertaining to photos of earth, I thought since pro accepted a debate, and provided proof in the way of photos of earth from space, that he could at least recognize the few examples I provided. There aren't many, which is odd enough, and all but 2-3 are admittedly composites(1), which I noted would be possible on a flat surface from high altitude flights. 1 has the word sex in the clouds, the other one was supposedly done in the Van Allen belt, I'm not even sure how that one work but in the film a funny thing happened on the moon, I can see how it happened. These are the people I do not trust because of empirical evidence that they lie repeatedly.
By GoPro i generalized it with any fisheye lens which can be affixed to any camera


At this point I will let the observers decide which to believe and leave a few links that I feel best sum up this the pro side of this debate.

Calculations for Earth's roundness:

Symptoms of Pseudoscience vs True Science:

Good article for everyone to read:

Good video for everyone to watch:

In the end I felt like no amount effort would be sufficient to satisfy flat earthers so I'll leave it to anyone that votes. Good luck :) and thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
186 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
Hm I think when it comes down to it, I have been thinking this entire time, but truly the winner is Edlvsjd. Both were equal in sources, both were equal in attitude, both were equal in almost every regard! Making this very tough! They rebuted each other and offered strong evidences time and time again! However it truly comes down to who was the Instagator. Con started the debate and his and Pro's arguements landed into a great stand still, Pro offered information about refraction and Con showed logical inconsistencies with the shape of the Earth. Both showed many theories and solid evidence for their side, so it comes down to two things. One Pro did not Prove the Earth is Round. He added suggestions that could show it COULD be Round but never proved it and never disproved the Flat Earth. Pro repeatedly told us that it was hard to prove or difficult in the first round in his refutals while Con had solid proofs that were fully given such as law of perspectives, Pro showed how this could work due to refraction however never proved that the Earth was Round. And Finally, Con was more convincing and was not successfully refuted while he did succeed in refuting the Round Earth, Pro showed that the phenomenons could be explained but never proved it was a Round Earth. Pro was also the first to go off topic changing it into a religious aspect when it was never brought up beforehand until his fourth round. For these reasons I think Con wins.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
>Reported vote: klaralein// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: This was a very tough decision, as when I originally clicked on the debate I had a hard time believing that con could make a realistic argument. However, to my surprise, con had very well thought-out arguments that have legitimate reason to consider. So in the end, I gave the debate to pro for his sources. Con had very good pictures and diagrams, however a majority of his worded proof came from YouTube videos. While YouTube videos can often be used as rational evidence depending on the uploader, pro had more articles as evidence. Again, a very tough decision. I wish there was more than one voting decision other than who I believe won the debate. Very good effort on both sides; I can see myself voting for con if he debates this again (despite me not believing in this argument, he makes very valid reasoning) had pro used just as many YouTube videos as proof.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Given that this debate is a "Select Winner" debate, the voter had to assess arguments and not just sources in deciding the debate. It's not clear that the voter did that at any point. (2) The voter had to do more than just point out that some of Con's sources are problematic. Con cited articles as well as YouTube videos, and the voter can't just dismiss those without explanation.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
This is a great debate on both sides, glad both sides had a strong logical backing and evidence. GJ all!
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Any media publicly available is useable.
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
This is why I chose the vote format instead of using sources as a vote option,
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
What a crock I'm supposed to use mainstream sources to disprove mainstream sources you're an idiot
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself;

Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton"s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince.

In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick u courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics. ~ Goethe
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Empirical evidence
No votes have been placed for this debate.