The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
KthulhuHimself
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The earth is flat not spherical

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 2 votes the winner is...
KthulhuHimself
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,279 times Debate No: 92030
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (205)
Votes (2)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

My opponent would like scientific proof of a divine creator. I feel that if there were scientific proof of a flat earth, this would in turn prove the former. My opponent will argue that the earth is spherical with empirical evidence, and I will argue that the earth is flat. Burden of proof is shared. Any media currently available can be used as evidence until that media or it's producer is proven falsified or untrustworthy. Opponent may start in R1 with his argument and forfeit the last round, or accept in this round. I ask that respect be given by my opponent, as I will do the same. Good luck and i hope both of us gain knowledge and enlightenment with this debate.
KthulhuHimself

Con

Because the null set is believing that the earth is neither round or flat; I agree that the burden of proof is on both of us. I do; however, disagree with the notion that proving a flat earth will automatically prove a god; though I think it matters not... the earth is round.

My opening argument is this:

One thing the flat-earth community can never (or has never yet) explain(ed), is the fact that when navigating long distances, the only applicable type of geometry is spherical geometry. Another way of understanding this, is that if you travel the same direction for a substantial distance, you will always, no matter what, reach the same location. A good example of this, are the many flights between the pacific rim of the US and any major city in eastern-Asia; in which the aircraft does not perform any major turns.

What I assume the instigator will answer to this; is that the earth is centered at the north pole, and its perimeter is the south pole (as described here: http://daseworld.com...). However, this model still does not explain why clockwise flights around the antarctic turn right, not left; and even if it could, there exists no imagery suggesting such a model to be true.

Of course, there are countless other possible retutations, but I'd rather stick to one for the time being.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to a good one. Though it's off to a rocky start. When asking for empirical evidence, I assumed that was what was coming, however my opponents only proof is non empirical. Meaning not everyone can get in a plane and just fly in a straight line using only the senses to judge it. Pilots fly by compasses, and since the earth is a disc with magnetic north being the center, this is entirely possible on a flat earth. Flying in a giant circle is hardly noticeable, unless you were flying close to the north pole. On a globe however, the circumstances change. You would be constantly descending, nose down. This would be noticeable by passengers and pilots alike. So you must ask yourself, is it more likely that pilots are flying around a giant circle, or constantly descending? I hope this clarifies circumnavigation, which is in the FAQ I might add. This actually reminds me of a flat earth proof, which I will discuss now.

1. Flight paths
Some flight paths go in very unusual directions on the globe model, but make perfect sense on what is majorly accepted as the flat earth map (of course, the map can be wrong) I use Delta airlines, as this is the most reputable, and longer lasting airline. When traveling from Argentina to Sydney, every flight makes stops in North America, which is very much out of the way. This distance, on a globe, is about the same distance as Argentina to Alaska, but the Sydney flight takes twice as long, and matches up perfectly with the flat earth map. There are many instances where flight paths exactly follow the flat earth map, and look retarded on a globe. I have found at least a half a dozen so far. This is empirical evidence of a flat earth.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
A little preface for my next proof is some information we weren't indoctrinated on: the actual curvature expected from a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. For some reason, we are not taught this in school. Why not? All they can say is it's so ridiculously massive, that's why there's no curve. Every high school student should be able to cite the allowed curvature over any given distance, and be able to demonstrate it in simple experimentation, but we don't, and we can't. The formula for calculating the curvature of the earth is simple. I'm sure you're going to fact check this, because everyone has to, and no one can believe it. For the first mile you should allow 8". Every mile thereafter, you will need to square the mile. So 2 miles should yield 32" of curvature. At three miles, the average human shouldn't be able to see the ground past this point. I'll let Dr Samuel Rowbotham explain it.
"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 below.

"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."The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
Statute Miles Away
Maths= Drop
1mile 1 x 1 x 8 =8 Inches
2 miles 2 x 2 x 8 =32 Inches
3 miles 3 x 3 x 8 / 12 =6 Feet
4 miles 4 x 4 x 8 / 12 =10 Feet
5 miles 5 x 5 x 8 / 12 =16 Feet
6 miles 6 x 6 x 8 / 12 =24 Feet
7 miles 7 x 7 x 8 / 12 =32 Feet
8 miles 8 x 8 x 8 / 12 =42 Feet
9 miles 9 x 9 x 8 / 12 =54 Feet
10 miles 10 x 10 x 8 / 12 =66 Feet
"To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required."

As you can see, the curvature of the earth should be very noticeable, for instance, when flying from California to Hawaii, about 2,500 miles, you are flying over a 760 mile high hump of water. This math has been confirmed in cad software. Curvature can be proved wrong with simple magnification techniques like telescopes, binoculars, and the flat earther's favorite tool, the Nikon p900.

2. Distances sighted
In an instance where telephoto lenses are not even necessary, a "mirage" was photographed from Michigan overlooking the Chicago skyline, a span of 60 miles, which should be 2,400 ft below the supposed curvature of the earth. When we look at the heights of the buildings in Chicago, we find that The tallest building at 1,450 ft is the Sears tower. We should not be able to see ANY of Chicago from Michigan. Now before you go agreeing with the whole bs mirage thing, think to yourself what an actual mirage looks like, usually inverted, mirrored, partially opaque, and generally distorted, Google some images of actual mirages. Conditions are perfect indeed. This is not a mirage.
There are many instances of long distances being seen, and this is something that anyone can confirm, and is empirical evidence of a flat earth.
http://www.abc57.com...

3. Reflection of light on flat water
Stating the obvious, the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface, and has never been shown to be able to curl around a spinning ball (this "fact" is introduced young so it doesn't sound as ridiculous as it does now). Take a look at sunsets on water as the sun kisses the water, the reflection extends in a straight line, extending all the way to the viewer, or edge of the water. Warp a piece of sheet metal and hold it up to a bulb, you will never reproduce what is seen in water until you flatten the metal. This is empirical evidence of a flat earth.
KthulhuHimself

Con

First thing's first; I would like to address your argument about the constant "descent" that should allegedly entail the flight-path of a plane across a round earth. The earth is far too large for a plane far too slow to travel along it with the nose noticeably facing down. Assuming it's travelling at a speed of 300 km/h, it would take it an hour for it the nose to shift barely 3 degrees, and no-one would notice that.

1. Flight paths
There are many factors in deciding the specific flight pattern of a plane; especially when the distances flown are vast. Some of which could be the dropping and boarding of certain passengers in the middle-way stop, another could be weather (it's particularly apparent why it is the case in your example, as flying over the pacific ocean can be a death-wish in case a storm is present), and another could be re-fueling (not relevant in this case).

2. Argumentum ad curvatura.
I will assume that the formula you've brought me here is accurate.

"At three miles, the average human shouldn't be able to see the ground past this point." That's true; if both you and the object 3 miles away are neither higher than sea level. This says nothing about the fact that we can see objects further than 3 miles away, because either we or the object are elevated above the surface.

3. Distances sighted.
The sighting IS a mirage, as even explained in the very citation you've brought to this argument.

The superior mirage, caused when a layer of air that's nearer to the surface is colder than air higher up in the atmosphere; and results in the light "bending" around the curvature of the earth to give you the image.

4. Reflection of light on flat water.
In your argument, you state that you could not see the straight line of reflection unless the earth was flat; but keep in mind that the ocean isn't a flat surface even if the earth is, causing the light to reflect in all different kinds of manners; yet still mostly in a line between you and the sun. Besides; the earth's curvature isn't significant enough for it to affect the reflection of the sun in the water.

That's all for my rebuttals so far; and I'd be glad to hear your rebuttal of my arguments as well.
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Pro

My opponent starts out with a weak rebuttal to the descending plane argument, and ignores the entire rebuttal about circumnavigation. Where his math comes from is beyond me, so let's do some real math. Planes fly at an average of 500mph, this translates to about 8.3 miles per minute. The curvature for 8 miles is 42 feet. This means the plane descends 42' per minute. If my opponent thinks this isn't noticeable, he is entirely mistaken. Please explain where you get 3 degrees. By the calculations stated here, in 500 miles, or one hour in a plane, you have to descend 378 MILES. Math is here: 500 x 500=250,000 x 8= 2,000,000 ft converted to miles is 378 miles. 3 degrees? Please explain further. Planes fly level with the horizon the entire flight. So I ask again, is it more plausible that planes fly around a huge circle, or descending 378 miles per hour? Please have common sense in this decision, it seems my opponent will deny this argument to the end.

1.Flight paths.
My opponent explains that flight paths go thousands of miles in the wrong direction because of weather! This is ridiculous, planes can either ascend above storms, or simply go at most a few hundred miles around any storms, which are carefully watched to avoid any "death wishes". Since the distance from Chile to North American airports is at least 5,000 miles, on a path almost going away from the destination, this is a silly assumption , especially since ALL flights take the same path, regardless of weather conditions.

2. Curvature
Since this isn't an actual argument, and my opponent agrees the numbers are correct, no further discussion is needed.

3. Distances sighted.
My opponent takes the stance that the picture above is only a mirage. A superior mirage to be exact. I challenge anyone reading this to research mirages, Google pictures of superior mirages, you will not find any pictures that aren't distorted, inverted, etc. as I stated before. Also note how mirages only appear during "special circumstances" and rarely happen so that the entire city appears clear, upright, and undistorted. With this in mind, please look at this time lapse from the same spot.
https://youtu.be...
People in the region say they can see it most of the day. I guess conditions remain "just right" all day long.

4. Reflections on water.
My opponent is trying to "keep in mind" that water somehow curves when I have shown the opposite in all my proofs. He, however has provided nothing to prove his case and his burden of proof has not been met. He states that "the earth's curvature isn't significant enough for it to affect the reflection of the sun in the water" yet in the experiment above, even the slightest bend will not produce the reflection described. Also, my opponent agrees with my preface on the curvature of the earth which states that "the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle". My opponent's closing statement is confusing, in that he has not offered any of these "countless other possible retutations". Going into r4, it stands that my opponent has dropped circumnavigation, and has not refuted my proofs satisfactorily.
KthulhuHimself

Con

First I would like to address my opponent's misunderstanding of what a noticeable descent would be. He and I took somewhat different speeds for what a plane's would be (I took 300 km/h whilst he took 804); but even if you triple the number I stated (3 degrees), you still get 9 degrees per hour, hence 0.15 degrees per minute.

Indeed, the plane's nose is always on the horizon, but the horizon is slightly below being parallel to the plane's vector of speed, meaning that there is a constant yet minor change in the plane's angle.

Also, I got the three degrees using simple geometry, where an arc of a circle is directly proportionate to the angle it is taken from; and what's more, the instigator's math is bogus. One does NOT descend 378 miles after travelling only 500 on a 25,000 mile wide sphere; simple trigonometry disproves this. One would have to travel twelve times as far during the period of twelve hours to get the same descent.

1. Flight paths.
Of course; the instigator completely ignored the the other factors of flight-planning and chose to speak only of one. The flight stops at a major city most likely to drop off/pick up other passengers, which will spare the company both time, available planes, and money.

Moreover, do consider the following, a flight path which takes a trip which goes as follows: https://www.metabunk.org...

On the flat-earth model: https://www.metabunk.org...

On the round-earth model: https://www.metabunk.org...

Why a flight would take a roundabout trip as bogus as this, the instigator will never be able to answer... unless of course, the earth is round.

2. Distances sighted.
The instigator claims: "I challenge anyone reading this to research mirages, Google pictures of superior mirages, you will not find any pictures that aren't distorted, inverted, etc. as I stated before."

But he ignores the fact that the Chicago skyline mirage can very well appear distorted at times, as demonstrated in the following links:

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.wilx.com...

http://www.aol.com...

Of course, you CAN get images of mirages where the image is barely distorted, with the right (and possibly likely) conditions, as demonstrated here:

http://talesofmi.net...

The time-lapse brought here by the instigator says nothing, apart from the fact that the conditions that day were better than usual; and besides, it WAS distorted throughout the time-lapse; pause it at 1:26 and you will see a clear distortion.

Oh, and you would have to be able to repeat this anywhere on earth, not only at lake Michigan.

4. Reflections on water.
The instigator here does not even address my rebuttal here (that being the fact that the water is not a completely smooth surface, due to waves), and so there is nothing more to be said about the subject.

And one last thing before I conclude this round: The reason I didn't bother bringing any more arguments is because:

1. No more arguments are needed.

2. The instigator has not yet addressed any of the already arguments already presented by me, so I do not see why any more evidence is needed when none has been countered.
Debate Round No. 3
Edlvsjd

Pro

Again, with the utmost respect, I do not see how you got your math. Are you suggesting we live on a slope? You agreed to the spherical measurements, and here is a source for the speed. https://answers.yahoo.com...
I have shown clearly that you would descend at an incredible speed, and this math has not been proved wrong. My opponent appears to be making this angle up.

Flight paths.
I ignored the other reasons because my opponent stated that the one I discussed was most likely. Since none of them are plausible excuses for going 5,000 miles in a 90 degree angle from your destination. This will not save anything.

The fact that I used a more reputable airline, and NO flights are non-stop, and ALL of them make stops in North America is reason to question any flights that take this "shortest route". Why don't they all take this route? It seems fishy, and probably are not actual flights. This video examines these flights.
https://youtu.be...
https://youtu.be...
2. Distances sighted.
The fact that the Chicago skyline sometimes appears distorted proves only that atmospheric refraction can get stronger, blocking the light in places, and causing actual mirages. Which, as you can see are inverted, opaque, etc. The last link my opponent provides is claimed to be a mirage, but is actually proof of a flat earth, as you can see, the boat is on the visible horizon (you can see a buoy inbetween the viewer and the boat). The water seems to have blended in with the sky, except where you can see breaks in the water. There is no distortions, inversions, etc. Any of the telltale signs of a mirage.

"pause it at 1:26 and you will see a clear distortion."
A slight distortion is expected through 60 miles of atmosphere. My entire point is that since mirages are a rare occurrence, especially this "inverted type", and this view of the Chicago skyline is visible all day, this cannot by definition, be a mirage.
"Oh, and you would have to be able to repeat this anywhere on earth, not only at lake Michigan"
As I stated before this is not a lone example, no one up until recently paid attention, while realizing you shouldn't be able to see this far. For example, the Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,072 feet below the horizon.
This https://youtu.be...
This https://youtu.be...
This https://youtu.be...
I could go on, but I think we all get the point. This research is fairly new and ongoing.

4. Reflections on water.
The fact that waves exist on a flat surface of water has nothing to do with the overall flatness of the surface.

"And one last thing before I conclude this round: The reason I didn't bother bringing any more arguments is because:

1. No more arguments are needed.

2. The instigator has not yet addressed any of the already arguments already presented by me, so I do not see why any more evidence is needed when none has been countered."

My opponent offers one non-empirical, baseless claim about flying in circles, and feels this is all that is needed to prove his side. If there were empirical evidence of a spherical earth, I promise, I wouldn't be here. Could it be that there is none? Any would be welcome. Since we are going into the last round, and NO empirical evidence of a spherical earth has been presented, while clear, empirical evidence is shown of a flat earth, we must use Occams Razor and make the least amount of assumptions, that is that pilots make a wide turn in the wrong direction, which you wouldn't be able to tell in reality, and take the empirical evidence that I have presented and eliminate baseless claims and presume the earth is in fact a flat plane.
KthulhuHimself

Con

"I have shown clearly that you would descend at an incredible speed, and this math has not been proved wrong. My opponent appears to be making this angle up."

Unfortunately, though the instigator makes this claim, he ignores the fact that he is wrong. I have showed that it is impossible for his numbers to be true, and for two reasons:

1. They do not match up with simple trigonometry.

2. Uses a method which does not work after a certain distance.

The descent would have been less than a tenth of what the instigator had suggested; and here's a detailed explanation why:

The earth's circumference is about 40,000 km, and is 360 degrees round ( because the arc would be a circle). If I take a certain part of the arc, then the ratio between the part and the degrees from the center would have to be directly related to one another; or in other words, if I take a 400 km path across the surface, my angle would have changed by 3.6 degrees.

Assuming that a plane travels at 500 mp/h (804 km), it would take it one hour to change its angle by 7.23 degrees, which translates to 0.12 degrees in a minute, which is a margin of a turn, not noticeable by anyone in the plane.

Moreover, keep in mind that the plane isn't rotating in comparison to the horizon, as in order to maintain the same height, it has to keep it's vector of speed parallel to the horizon.

I will not address this subject any further, because it has become both irrelevant and useless in relation to the topic.

1. Flight paths.

I have already refuted this point quite soundly, so if the instigator has anything useful to add to the table, then he is welcome to.

But in order to not seem as though I am running away from the subject, I will yet again quote what I have said in my rebuttal: " The flight stops at a major city most likely to drop off/pick up other passengers, which will spare the company both time, available planes, and money.-" Even if the flight would take longer.

Heck, he hasn't yet shown me an example of a non-stop flight taking an oblique path which makes more sense on the flat-earth model; and because the example I have brought is both non-stop and makes more sense on the round-earth model, both the facts brought by the instigator and the facts brought by me fit in line perfectly with MY model, not his.

Think of it like this; if it would cost you 1,000 X's of resource to fly a plane from Australia to NYC, and then 1,000 X's of resource to fly a plane from NYC to Chile; or alternatively, 1,500 X's of resource to fly a plane directly from Australia to Chile, yet you still had to fly a plane from NYC to Chile, at the cost of 1,000 X's; you'd rather fly the plane in the first option, especially considering the fact that there aren't many people flying from Australia to Chile, making it less profitable as well.

2. Distances sighted.

I find it sad that a well-spoken and probably somewhat intellectual person prefers to be so willingly ignorant.

"A slight distortion is expected through 60 miles of atmosphere."

The distortion happened precisely at evening, proving the superior mirage explanation to an even further degree. The reason to this is because the superior mirage happens only when there is a difference between the temperatures in the layers of air, meaning that the mirage cannot happen at night.

All the sources brought here are taken at daytime, VISIBLY at a hot day, with not even one exception. If you could bring me a case of long distances sighted, deep into the night, and at sea-level, then I would address the point further.

3. Reflections on water.

"The fact that waves exist on a flat surface of water has nothing to do with the overall flatness of the surface."

What the waves mean is that you have all different angles of reflection, which means that even if the earth was only ten miles wide, you could still see a path of light. Heck, your sheet of metal example only works if you bend the sheet not to a flat surface, but to a CONCAVE.

I rest my case.

4. Shifting the burden of proof.

I will conclude this round with what is probably the strongest piece of evidence for a round earth that exists.

The only possible means of navigation, especially on the long term, is spherical geometry. If you were to use euclidean geometry, you would find yourself lost beyond any degree, proving that the earth is a sphere.

CITATIONS:

http://www.science4all.org... (at "Why Euclidean Geometry is insufficient")

http://www.goodsamt.com...

mskilgard.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/2/13828679/spheregeo_short.pptx

http://www.math.niu.edu...

And so on, and so forth.
Debate Round No. 4
Edlvsjd

Pro

My opponent is correct in saying that the airplane argument has become irrelevant, and this, stemming from his one and only non empirical proof of a spherical earth should be ignored. This leaves us with zero proof of a spherical earth, because if a 9 degree downward dive is hardly noticeable, (I still disagree, an entirely mechanical gyroscope produces an Artificial Horizon on planes and it does not roll back as you travel over the globe) an even slighter degree of turn would also be unnoticeable.

Flight paths
My opponent reinforces his stance by saying "" The flight stops at a major city most likely to drop off/pick up other passengers, which will spare the company both time, available planes, and money.-" Even if the flight would take longer."
This would be a fairly reasonable explanation, if the distance to the "stop" weren't roughly the same distance as simply flying across the ocean to the original destination. The plane could make a stop for refuel in New Zealand. As for the non-stop flights, the fact that anyone can go to delta.com which is the most reputable and longer-lasting airline company (the least susceptible to cancellations and False flights) and book a flight from Sydney to Southern South America and see that they ALL do indeed make stops in North America should be reason enough to doubt that the non-stop flights even exist. These flights were just recently implemented because of these findings. Many of them are only available a few days a week. I am sure that if one were to book these flights something would inevitably cause these flights to never occur. At this point it is entirely up to the voters to make that decision. It is also entirely possible that the map could be wrong. As I stated before this is not the only flight path that is questionably retarded on a globe but makes sense on a flat Earth map but since this is our last round I will not provide any new proofs, that is left to our voters to research. Please Google the flat-earth baby though.

Distances cited
"The distortion happened precisely at evening, proving the superior mirage explanation to an even further degree. The reason to this is because the superior mirage happens only when there is a difference between the temperatures in the layers of air, meaning that the mirage cannot happen at night."
Yet, the time lapse video I provide clearly shows the entire city visible from dawn to dusk you will notice the lights kick on when it gets dark out again this cannot be a mirage because mirages are a rare occurrence and cannot happen all day. I personally saw no Distortion net worth be related to any Mirage(inversions).

Reflections on water
My opponent is suggesting that the Earth is concave while arguing for a spherical Earth. While this is a plausible Theory, it is another debate altogether. My point is that you cannot get this reflection on a convex surface. If my opponent actually did the experiment and held the sheet metal up to eye level with the other end pointed at a light he would see that this can only be caused on a flat surface and anyone can prove this and in my opinion, this empirical evidence still stands.

4. Shifting the burden of proof
As in most debates the burden of proof should rest on both parties. This late round "proof" is hardly empirical to say the least. As this is the last round I feel it would take more time in character too investigate this proof further in order to understand and explain it thoroughly to our voters. In conclusion I for one have not been convinced by my opponent that the Earth is spherical. I realize that my opponent loves the idea that he is living on a gigantic ball, and cannot be convinced otherwise. This is understandable and relates to the indoctrination system. I do hope however that my opponent looks at this topic with a new light from here on and the fact that the Bible is a flat Earth book which many atheists like to throw around to discredit it.
KthulhuHimself

Con

This being the last round and all, I would like to speak somewhat more conclusively, and also thank the instigator for the truly entertaining debate he had provided me with, it was a great one.

1. Flight paths.

In his attempted rebuttal, the instigator says "The plane could make a stop for refuel in New Zealand.", completely ignoring the fact that I was not talking about stops for refueling. I don't think I should address this any further, because my opponent has even partly agreed with my statement.

2. Distances sighted.

Not much to say here; the distortion still only happens when the air cools down, causing the visibility of the skyline to drop, further supporting my model.

3. Reflections on water.

When I said "Heck, your sheet of metal example only works if you bend the sheet not to a flat surface, but to a CONCAVE.", the implication was not that the earth has a major concave, but that my opponent's metal sheet argument was invalid when considering the reflections of the sun on the earth.

This is the third time I have to say this, because the instigator here will continue to ignore it. Waves cause there to be many different angles of reflection, meaning that even if the earth was 10 miles wide, you would still get the path of light.

4. Shifting the burden of proof.

Empirical, definition - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience.

My piece of evidence is empirical, no matter how many times the instigator will deny it. It is based off the observation that the only usable model when navigating long distances is spherical geometry; and off the experience of every single sea-goer ever to leave the shores (for long distances).

He then proceeds to using an ad hominem, how sad... but I still respect his opinions regarding me; and will consider what he has said throughout this debate (though it will probably have no direct effect on my views, because he is still mistaken).

To conclude, properly this time; I will say no more than this:

Let the voters decide whom has won, so we can finish this subject for once and for all.
Debate Round No. 5
205 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Considered ALIENS by other...
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Aliens. Some humans are considered ali no by other people.
Posted by KthulhuHimself 5 months ago
KthulhuHimself
It says: "Think different - Aliens are demons".

I know; I f*cking know.
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Still can't read your profile pic, Edlvsjd...
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
One! Yay! I did it! This is officially the 200th comment!
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Two
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Three
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Four
Posted by MWonderWolf 5 months ago
MWonderWolf
Five more
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cobalt 6 months ago
Cobalt
EdlvsjdKthulhuHimselfTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Hopefully Edlvsjd won't bury it the landslide of comments I know he'll have.
Vote Placed by Hayd 6 months ago
Hayd
EdlvsjdKthulhuHimselfTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V5l9NnJKVJEnYwplt0vgE-a_Tg42cwYIYqG1DZpAie0/edit?usp=sharing