The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
BrendanD19
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The earth is flat

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...
Edlvsjd
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/8/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 87864
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

The earth is flat. I have researched the subject for 6 months now, and there are more proofs on the side of a flat earth then I can find on a spherical one. The debate format shall be as follows. Round one is acceptance. In round 2, I state my argument, and con can either use this round for rebuttal or state arguments against the flat earth. Round 3 is for rerebuttals, and further arguments, if possible. Round 4 is strictly for rebuttals and round 5 should be used for conclusions but no new arguments in the last round. Please respect your opponents many sources and media may be used in your argument till that source is proven unreliable or the media is shown to be faked or false. Good luck, I hope to provide insight as well as receive it. I do ask that anyone accepting this debate please have a look at least at the flat earth theory before accepting and arguing against it as it has become redundant arguing the same 10 or so proves that the earth is a sphere. It is not required but makes for a better debate for the both of us. I also ask that theoretical math equations be excluded from the arguments, as they will confuse voters, though not to be confused with basic math as in Pythagoras theorem, and the like.
BrendanD19

Con

I will take this debate, I have already read the usual arguments for flat earth made by the Flat Earth Society.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Pro

Debate Round No. 1





I'm sure you'll agree the globe heliocentric model has been drilled into your head since as far as you can remember. Pictures of the globe have been presented to you in textbooks, television programs(ever wonder why they call it television programming?) and on the covers of dictionaries and encyclopedias. This is the very definition of indoctrination. You or I have never seen the earth in it's entirety, neither has your teacher. In fact, only a handful of people claim to have been far enough away to see this. I ask you, can pictures be doctored? Can humans lie? It is not my aim to convince you that you have been deceived, I do however, want to encourage you to do the research yourself, and bring about a few questions you probably never knew you had. In this debate, I will talk about coincidences and things that don't make sense about the story given to us. I also want you to know that the establishment has already thought of a lot of this, and provided reasonable, though questionable explanation or lies for most of these questions, it is ultimately up to you, and our voters to decide whether to trust your own senses, or believe what government sources tell us who have a crappy track record of truthfulness so far.
http://www.debate.org...
I want to state a few proofs that the earth is not a globe. I'll start with some obvious ones that you probably never even thought of, then advance to more definite, undeniable ones. First consider this, why were we never taught the curvature of the earth? We see the flatness everywhere. Go to the beach, look to the horizon, flat. They tell you it's because of the earth's monstrous size that we can't see any curvature, often using comparisons like a germ on a bowling ball. But what they don't tell you is that the curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference SHOULD in fact have a very noticeable curve. As I'm sure you have or will do now, a Google search provides a reasonably small amount of curvature for a mile, but further investigation provides a diagram not unlike the one below. The second mile will square, and will square every mile thereafter. So, the ground or sea 2 miles away will be 32" downhill from you. At 3 miles, a full six feet of curvature would hide another human.



From Hawaii to the California coast for example, at roughly 2,500 miles, would have a hump of water over 700 miles high. Have you ever seen water rest in a humped form? Have you ever, while looking at a sunset, and the horizon being miles away, thought that the sun were beneath your feet? This is what they are teaching us. The basic physics of water is to find and maintain a flat, level surface. This is common sense. The horizon always appears flat, and at eye level, no matter the altitude. If you rise up from any size ball, the horizon would drop, and you would soon be looking down more and more as you rose in altitude. I'm sure you are familiar with fisheye lenses, if not, take some time and look it up. Most high altitude balloon and rocket launches use this type of lens. I'm short, it will curve any line that's not centered. You will know you are looking through a fish eye lens when the horizon is centered, and way above the center, when it makes the earth curve outward. Horizon in top half of the screen is a sphere, centered, it's flat, bottom half, it's a concave earth. This morphing effect is a telltale sign of a fish eye lens. No one pays attention anymore, because we are so brainwashed from indoctrination, and do not even consider an alternative. This video is shot using a regular camera, and a fisheye camera, I'll let you use this information to figure out which is which.
https://youtu.be...



The go fast rocket launch broke a few records 4 being the highest and fastest amateur rocket ever launched. it was done from the Nevada desert between 8:00 a.m. and 11 AM. At the time I research this, they did not provide a time for the launch as you can see they do now in the description of the video. I feel they have lied about this, there is another video that accompanies it in which they go behind the scenes a little bit explain what happened before and after the launch even showing a GPS navigation system on the dash when they go to retrieve the camera that was on the balloon. Now if you zoom in on the video to the GPS the time is 11:40 in the other video they say they are doing this in the morning and you can clearly see the Sun is a lot higher in the sky than what 7:30 would make it. Why would they wait so long after the launch to retrieve the camera? Shadows would be much longer than those seen in the prelaunch video. I approximated time between 9 and 11 o'clock AM. If we take this information and go to time and date.com we can see that the moon should in fact be over Australia and well below the horizon at the time of the launch.
https://youtu.be...
https://youtu.be...
http://www.timeanddate.com...
http://www.timeanddate.com...

Gyroscopes would not act the way they do or would even be considered reliable on planes if the earth were spinning at 1000 miles per hour. Gyroscope stay consistent with the same axis regardless of its container rotation, defying even the mighty gravity, just as bees so(though in different ways). If the earth were spinning at a thousand miles per hour on rotation 90 degrees every 6 hours, the gyroscope would follow its rotation in reverse. After 6 hours of a gyroscope spinning, it would be at a 90 degree angle from where it started, after 12 hours, it will have rotated a full 180 degrees as the Earth rotates the opposite direction 180 degrees. That's not even taking into account the sun's motion around the galaxy, and it's motion around the universe. The gyroscope should flay wildly in every direction. 670,000,000 miles per hour indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.







If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.


The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!
https://youtu.be...


















BrendanD19

Con

After reading your asinine argument, I must say that I see absolutely no enterprise in continuing this debate. All of your arguments are entirely ludicrous and make absolutely no sense. You first, and main contention relies on the idea that the horizon continues indefinably, however it has been known since ancient times that things will disappear over the horizon. When given a reference point, we can see that this idea of an indefinite horizon is false. Your argument about a "hump of water" is utterly ridiculous and
In order for your arguments to be true, we must reject scientific principles, logic and fact.
In order to believe this we must reject the notion that man has been to space, however there are a number of ways to prove that man has in fact been to space, most notably the fact that we have moon rocks on earth, and the fact that there are satellites in space.
We also must reject heliocentrism, and thus basic astronomy and physics.
The entire premise of the Pro is that we have been brainwashed and science is part of a conspiracy, however he does not have any reason as to WHY we have been brainwashed. If it is to no end, why would it happen?
This alone has been a waste of my time, and energy, and I shall go no further with this lunacy.
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Pro

It seems that con has abandoned the debate already resorting to the usual response one gets from someone with cognitive dissonance. I offered several sound proofs and instead of trying to effectively rebut any argument con calls the whole thing stupid. How did I waste your time? You accepted the open debate, and conceded that debate on the shape of the Earth. Were you thinking easy w? Now that you might have had to think a bit, you're out? Bop has shifted to you now? I extend all points and point out that bop has not been rebutted except by saying NASA brought us some rocks. Lol!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://abcnews.go.com...
Since it seems you can't formulate a rebuttal, and bop stands, I'll put it in simple form that even children can understand. If you need to ask a reason, you're really asleep.

















BrendanD19

Con

1) Several of your memes only prove my case, as you clearly know nothing about the apollo missons if you think all three astronauts were on the lander
2) I would invite you to come to the cosmosphere here in Kansas, where you can learn about space travel and see a legitimate moon rock for yourself

I will not even bother responding in the future as this is the most asinine logic I have seen in my life.
Debate Round No. 3
Edlvsjd

Pro

I'm other words, you can't rebutt my argument so You concede. I live in Huntsville lol, you and your rocks lol. Rocks make the world a sphere?Asanine indeed. Vote pro.
BrendanD19

Con

I am not going to even dignify that nonsense.
I am only responding to make the alerts go away.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
Stonehe4rt
To the Theist, well I suppose the Moon and Sun are still in the sky whether it would be round or not, and the Moon and Sun would revolve in the sky, hence making timezones. This also can explain why Full Moons can be during the day.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Alanna.Kologey// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro's facts are crazy and illogical. The earth is most certainly not flat.

[*Reason for removal*] The vote is insufficient, failing to analyze any of the arguments made in the debate and speaking about it only in the most general terms. It also seems that this decision was made partially out of bias as the voter states their views as part of the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
Better yet watch a documovie
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
Basically it's about as close and big as the moon
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
Add flat earth to the end of any query
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
Google.com
Posted by Thiest_1998 8 months ago
Thiest_1998
If the earth is flat how can it be day time on one side of the earth and night time on the other?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Well some people claim refraction and all, but I was just trying to say that there is a lot more evidence that can be debated and that you guys should both just agree that the Horizion is not the curve.
Posted by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
Edlvsjd
If you can see a ship well after it "goes over the horizon" with a telescope, how is that not the nail on the coffin?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Let's not name call, but honestly you can watch something "go over the Horizion" with your normal eyes then look with a telescope and still see it. This is a basic fact. It is just something both sides will need to acknowledge and then debate because it isn't the nail in the coffin to say the Earth is flat or round, it's just a simple fact.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 8 months ago
donald.keller
EdlvsjdBrendanD19
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides virtually no arguments for his side. After all of Pro's arguments, Con's only response is "After reading your asinine argument, I must say that I see absolutely no enterprise in continuing this debate." Saying that Pro's arguments can only be accepted at the cost of logic and science isn't a sufficient response. You must post the science behind your side, and show how Pro's science isn't factual. Con essentially drops every argument Pro made in R2, and continued the debate with rude, disrespectful comments about his opponent's intelligence.
Vote Placed by Petfish 8 months ago
Petfish
EdlvsjdBrendanD19
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited sources; con did not. Conduct is roughly equal because con used arguments ad lapidem while Pro filled up his debates with silly pictures. Pro gave us certain arguments that would seem to affirm the resolution. Con dismissed these arguments, saying that we would have to dismiss the basis of astronomy and physics. Con also said that we've known things about the curvature for thousands of years. However, since con provided no sources, we are left to wonder whether these arguments are true. We also see that Con's arguments are red herrings; he claims that we have moon rocks, and that there are satellites up in space. But con did not show how this is impossible, given a flat earth. Pro's arguments seem to relate more to the resolution. He showed that airplane trails make more sense given a flat earth, he showed that we couldn't have a curvature, and he also showed that the Midnight sun would disprove a spining earth. These arguments were not sucessfully rebutted.