The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The world 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2015 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 899 times Debate No: 82466
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Pro will contend for the resolution.
Con against the resolution.

This is a fact-based resolution.

Claim 1: Ground is flat outside my window.
Warrant: My own eyes.
Impact: If one part of the world is flat, it is only logical that the rest is also flat.

Claim 2: Parking lot adjacent to the supermarket is flat.
Warrant: My own five senses.
Impact: See claim 1.

Claim 3: There is a humongous waterfall at the end of the ocean.
Warrant: I saw it in a movie.
Impact: If its in a movie it must be true. The humongous waterfall proves the world is flat.

Claim 4: Searching on the internet reveals pictures of a ship sailing over the edge of the world.
Warrant: Link [1].
Impact: If its on the internet it must be true. Thus the Earth is flat.

Links
1. https://duckduckgo.com...
Cobalt

Con

I'll take this debate again, because I just love proving that the world isn't flat. I will be assuming that first round is acceptance + argumentation, since the opponent led with arguments.

I will organize this by starting with my response to each of my opponent's claims, then providing my case as to why the Earth isn't flat -- but instead round.

Opponent Claim 1

The opponent claims that upon looking outside his window, the ground appears flat. He further generalizes that if this part of the earth seems flat, the rest of the Earth must also be flat.

Since my opponent attempted to set up his arguments in a logical fashion, I will respond with the logical fallacy the opponent makes, if such a fallacy exists in a clearly stated form. For this claim, the opponent commits the "Fallacy of Composition", which is worded as such: The false assumption that the whole has some characteristic because a part of the whole has said characteristic.

It is clear the Fallacy of Composition is being used here, as the opponent uses a small subset of the surface of the Earth and assumes the entire surface of the Earth retains the characteristics of said subset.

Allow me to present some counter arguments. If the opponent's house were located on top a hill, the opponent would look out his window and see the Earth sloping downward. By his argument, he might well assume the Earth is round. If the opponent's house were located next to a mountain, he might look out his window and see the Earth is sloping upward. By his argument, he might assume that the earth is round, but that we are on the inside of the earth. (Imagine a ring structure in which we are located on the interior. Lastly, there is the case the opponent mentioned, in which he is on a plain (geographical term) and sees only flat land. He might well assume that the Earth is flat.

The issue with the argument, given these counter examples, is that all such places exist on the Earth as we know it. There are hills, there are mountains and there are plains. As such, local observations of relative height are not adequate in determining the global shape of the planet.

Opponent Claim 2

This argument is essentially the same as the first claim. It's based upon local observation. One might remember that man made structures can take any shape. Man can create a bowl like structure, meant for the pleasure of skaters and rollerbladers. Man can create a hill or wall like structure, meant for stopping tidal surges in cities prone to this. Man can create flat structures, meant for the parking of cars next to the local supermarket. Besides the flaws this argument has in common with his first claim, there is the additional flaw of assuming that manmade structures must necessarily follow the natural curvature of the Earth, which is apparently false.

Opponent Claim 3

I am only now realizing that this may be a partial troll debate, since I accepted before reading the opponent's arguments. My opponent claims that he saw a waterfall at the edge of the Earth, proving the idea that the Earth is flat. There are two flaws with this.

The first is that movies can utilizes computer generated special effects that cause certain movie attributes to seemingly behave in non-physically possible ways. [See every science fiction movie, ever.]

The second is that if there was a waterfall at the edge of the earth, it would be quite large. Imagine the Earth is flat and that it looks like a coin. Anywhere along the perimeter of the coin that the oceans touch, there would necessarily be a waterfall. Since some 75% of the Earth consists of Oceans, we might assume that 75% of the perimeter of the coin would have waterfalls.

The issue comes with the fact that such a scenario would quickly empty the oceans. Just as if you spill water on a flat surface, it will drip off the edges -- so would the oceans drip of the edges of the world if it were flat. We know that ocean levels are currently rising (due to melting ice), so it is clear that the world cannot be flat, since we aren't losing water.

Opponent Claim 4

This argument is the exact same as the previous, except it regards pictures, rather than movie clips. My refutation to the previous claim also covers this. It's worth mentioning it's even easier to convincingly edit a picture than to convincingly edit a movie.

----------------------------------------
Why the Earth is Round

First, we can look at photographic evidence. Many photographs of the Earth have been taken from satellites orbiting the planet. Regardless of which angle a photo is taken from, the Earth appears to be a circle. If the Earth were flat and circular, photographs of Earth from space would appear circular from only one angle. From others, it would appear to be an ellipse or simply a thin line, if taken from the side view. Clearly these photos would not be possible if the Earth were not spherical.

Next, we can notice that if the Earth were flat, there would be a distinct edge (where one might fall off.) However, Man has created maps of the world that do not indicate a 'falling off', or edge. There are very few unmapped places left, implying that an edge likely does not exist. Additionally, all parts of the globe have been seen from satellite imagery and an edge has not been found. Given the size the edge must necessarily be if it exists, the fact that we haven't found one implies its non-existence.

Additionally, we can look at the force of gravity and understand why planets are round. As a planet forms, it draws matter toward it. Additionally, the forming planet is rotating. This causes rough edges to be rounded out by new matter being drawn toward the planet. A flat planet cannot form through any scientific means. Additionally, if one did somehow exist (maybe a god created it), it would quickly collapse into a round shape, again due to gravity and rotation.

We can observe that the earth often casts shadows on the moon. These shadows always take the form of an oval shape, no matter what specific orientation the Earth is currently at. This implies that the Earth is round. If it were flat, the shadows on the moon would take a radically different shape dependent upon the orientation of the Earth as it relates to the moon (and sun).

Another observation supporting the idea that the Earth is round was made long ago. People noticed that as ships left a port, they would appear to sink into the ocean as they got further and further away. This was due to the fact that the earth is round, causing the ship to slowly become hidden by the Earth itself. In a flat world, one would be able to get a telescope and watch a ship sail into the ocean infinitely. This is not the case.

Lastly, I'll point out that planes have circumnavigated the globe before. What this means is that they have started at point A, travelled along the circumference of the Earth, and ended up back at point A. This would not have been possible if the world were flat, as the plane would reach a point where the Earth suddenly ended. This did not happen, again showing the Earth to be round.

Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

First Pro will define flat. Flat "1.
a. Having a smooth, even surface: a flat field. See Synonyms at level.
b. Having a relatively broad level surface in relation to thickness or depth: a flat box.
2.
a. Being in horizontal position; lying down: flat on his back.
b. Being without slope or curvature: a flat line on a chart." [2].

Sounds silly, but I got in a debate in real life about what the definition of flat was. Specifically if a pancake was flat. The other person contended that a pancake is a 3-d object and thus cannot be flat.

Claim: The Earth is a 3-d object in the sense that it has length, width, and height.
Warrant: If the Earth was 2-d we would simply fall right through the Earth.
Warrant: Jump up and down, if the Earth was 2-d when we landed we would continue going downwards right through the Earth ad infinitum.
Warrant: Think of a piece of paper, it seems 2-d at first. Yet, if you stack a bunch of different pieces of paper on top of themselves you can now see that paper has height.
Impact: 3-d objects can have the quality of flat, therefore the world can be both flat and 3-d. The world is 3-d.

Claim: A Cube has squares on all sides.
Warrant: "Its faces are all squares" [2].

Claim: A square is flat.
Warrant: "A Square is a flat shape" [3].

Claim: A cube is flat.
Warrant: Previous two claims.
Impact: The world is a cube, which is flat.

Now to refute Con's arguments.

"The issue comes with the fact that such a scenario would quickly empty the oceans. Just as if you spill water on a flat surface, it will drip off the edges -- so would the oceans drip of the edges of the world if it were flat. We know that ocean levels are currently rising (due to melting ice), so it is clear that the world cannot be flat, since we aren't losing water. " Con

The world is cubical in shape. Because a 3-d object has mass gravity would keep the water from being lost. This case would only be true in the case of 2-d object. Instead, there is a massive waterfall, the water falls somewhat then, gravity pulls the water back. The water never falls far from the surface of the planet.

"First, we can look at photographic evidence." Con

Con earlier states "It's worth mentioning it's even easier to convincingly edit a picture than to convincingly edit a movie. " Con

Its unfair to call Pro's pictures fake, while maintaining that Con's are legit.

"Man has created maps of the world that do not indicate a 'falling off', or edge. There are very few unmapped places left, implying that an edge likely does not exist. Additionally, all parts of the globe have been seen from satellite imagery and an edge has not been found. Given the size the edge must necessarily be if it exists, the fact that we haven't found one implies its non-existence." Con

If you look at a map you will often notice the map is not to scale. Humans being a land based creatures have exaggerated the land portions of maps will showing water areas as smaller. The edges could be in the water part. The ocean is huge.

"Additionally, all parts of the globe have been seen from satellite imagery and an edge has not been found." Con

A conspiracy by the elite few to trick the majority. Only a few know how to operate a satellite.

"A flat planet cannot form through any scientific means." Con

Science has its limits. [5]. Humans are only smart enough to know so much. Also, Einstein's theories will be disproved be science eventually. "The results of a recent experiment at CERN, the giant particle accelerator near Geneva, seem to attack one of physics" sacred cows: Albert Einstein"s postulate that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

In the experiment, physicists saw that streams of neutrinos " tiny, ghostly particles which seldom interact with other matter " were traveling just above the speed of light. But this is impossible if Einstein"s theory of relativity is correct. So was Einstein wrong?"[6]. As you can see scientists are getting very close already.

"if one did somehow exist (maybe a god created it), it would quickly collapse into a round shape, again due to gravity and rotation. " Con

It would take a very long time for this to happen. Con fails to demonstrate how gravity and rotation would round the Earth.

"We can observe that the earth often casts shadows on the moon. " Con

Aliens messing with us.

"People noticed that as ships left a port, they would appear to sink into the ocean as they got further and further away." Con

Perhaps the ship was sunk by a natural disaster. Also, the planet doesn't have to be perfectly flat, just relatively flat.

"Lastly, I'll point out that planes have circumnavigated the globe before. What this means is that they have started at point A, travelled along the circumference of the Earth, and ended up back at point A. This would not have been possible if the world were flat, as the plane would reach a point where the Earth suddenly ended. This did not happen, again showing the Earth to be round." Con

A plane could fly all the way around a cube, planes already defy gravity. Thanks for the debate, a lot of fun.

Links
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3. http://gwydir.demon.co.uk...
4. http://www.mathsisfun.com...
5. https://www.goodreads.com...
6. http://www.nytimes.com...
Cobalt

Con

I'm just going to approach the opponent's argument in the order delivered. I will label for clarity.

Definition of Flat

I don't contend my opponent's definition of flat, nor am I attempting to argue that the 3D objects cannot be flat. (While it is technically true that no surface can be perfectly flat due to small imperfections in the surface, this is a technicality that I do not need to use to prove my point.)

Opponent R2 Claims.

The Earth is a 3D object in the sense that it has length, width and height.

I agree that the Earth is 3D and that it in some sense has a length width and height. However, since I'm arguing that the Earth is round, I believe terms along the lines of radius/circumference/etc. are a more valuable way of describing the Earth's shape. This argument is basically just showing that 3D objects can be flat on some/all sides, which is a reasonable claim in the context of this debate.

A cube has squares on all sides.

Yep.

A square is a flat shape.

Yep.

A cube is flat.

Not really. A cube isn't flat in and of itself, since it is a 3D shape. It does, however, have six flat sides. While I am able to accept a claim from the opponent that the Earth is like a plane of whatever shape with some thickness and that we should consider that flat, I am not willing to accept a claim that the Earth is a cube and that the entire cube should be considered flat. It has flat sides, yes -- but it is not wholly flat.

Notice his definition 1b comes into play here -- in which is says that something would be "flat" if it had a relatively broad level surface in relation to thickness or depth. It cites a flat box as an example. A cube, by definition, is as wide as it is tall, so the definition of flat clearly does not apply.

The world is a cube, which is flat.

This does not follow from the previous arguments. While it is possible to imagine the Earth being the shape the opponent describes, this does not mean that the Earth is actually that shape. One could also imagine that the Earth is a sort of flat plate, that the Earth is a pyramid, that the Earth is a sphere, etc. You ability to imagine such a shape does nothing to prove the actual shape of the Earth. That would require evidence.

Opponent's R2 Response to My Arguments

Waterfalls at the end of the Earth, emptying the oceans.

There are two issues with my opponent's response. The first is that he again claims the Earth is a cube, which I have demonstrated is not a flat object, based upon the opponent's own definitions. The second concerns the physics of an ocean on a cube planet. [1] Allow me to explain.

Water always attempts to flow to the lowest point, due to gravity. As such, the oceans would be drawn toward the middle point of each face of the cube (in this cube world thought experiment.) This is because the distance from the core of Cube Earth to the points and edges of the cube is much greater than the distance to the midpoint of each face.

The result of this would be 'bubble oceans' near the center of each face and no water near the edges of the cube. Ie, no waterfalls, since water would not flow over the edge of the cube. Since this whole argument came form the opponent's claim that he "saw a waterfall at the end of the ocean" in a movie (and if we ignore the obvious issues with using a movie as evidence), it is clear that the Earth the opponent saw in this movie could not be a cube shape. Thus, the opponent's Claim 3 from Round 1 defeats his R2 claim that the Earth is a cube.

Also, see my point about how gravitational forces make Earth spherical in shape.

Photographic Evidence

My opponent actually brings up a good point here. I said that pictures were unreliable, as they are easily edited. However, I'd like to bring up the sheer wealth of pictures that have been taken from satellites. It would take a very long time to properly edit them so that each photo aligns with all previous photos taken. Additionally, different countries have taken these photos -- meaning for them to be fake there would need to exist an international conspiracy. There is no evidence that this is the case. Plus, there would not be a motive to edit these pictures in this way.

Rather, it's easy to understand how a casual photo of a waterfall at the edge of the Earth could be manufactured. People are interested in what a waterfall at the edge of the Earth would look like, giving someone a motive to edit the picture to reflect this.

Summary: While it's possible that all sat pictures of the Earth have been edited to hide the actual shape of the Earth, it is so unlikely that it need not be considered.

Maps never reveal an edge.

Maps are often not to scale because the Earth is spherical and because humans like to use rectangular sheets of paper. Changing the scale of the map (and stretching it at points near the poles) is the only way to actually fit the map on a piece of paper.

Additionally, I mentioned that satellites have completely documented all regions of the Earth (in low detail) and there was no evidence of an edge, thus implying that one does not exist. The opponent dismisses this by stating that this is a conspiracy by the elite to trick the majority, but offers no evidence of this. Significant claims require significant evidence.

The scientific reason the Earth is a sphere

The first part of the opponent's argument basically just says that "science has its limits" and that scientists are currently questioning the theory of relativity. Both statements are true, but they are irrelevant to my claim. We currently do understand the effects of gravity, even if we don't understand what causes gravity. The effects of gravity are actually so well understood that they are taught to first year physics students. This is not "edge science".

His next claim is that it would take a very long for gravity to compress Earth into a sphere. This is also true. It's worth noting that the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old, which is more than a very long time. As for the evidence behind my claim: [2]

Shadows on the moon

The opponent says that aliens are responsible, but does not present any evidence suggesting this is true. Significant claims require significant evidence.

Ships leaving the port

It is possible that a ship might sink upon leaving shore, meaning the reason for it appearing to sink into the ocean is that it's literally sinking. However, it was noticed long ago that the same ships that sunk over the horizon also returned, ship intact and thoroughly unsunk.

If the Earth were even only 'relatively flat' this phenomenon would not occur with all ships leaving port, which we know it currently does.

Circumnavigation

Again the opponent brings up the cube idea, which I've thoroughly defeated. Also, planes don't defy gravity. It is well understood how planes remain airborne.

Conclusion

I have defeated the opponent's claims and defended my own. What I find odd is that on some points the opponent makes a reasonable attempt produce an effective argument and at other times makes an obviously ridiculous claim. (See: aliens, conspiracy theory)

I suggest choosing one mode of attack and sticking with it. Either be serious or silly, but not both.

Sources:

(1) - http://www.askamathematician.com...

(2) - http://www.universetoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Geometry was always my weakest math class. The Earth is a cuboid. "A cuboid is a box-shaped object. " [7.]

As for the water and gravity clearly for their for the water to fall over the edge there must be a larger object beneath the Earth. That larger object is what is causing gravity to pull the water off the edge of the cuboid, known as Earth.

Think of a fountain, water is sprayed up and then pumped through again. Seemingly endless. The same goes for the edge of the Earth. A huge pump is pumping the water than falls off the edge. The water falls off the edge of the world, then is collected by a much larger surface than the Earth. A huge pump then pumps the water up into the bottom of the ocean.

The additional water at the bottom of the ocean displaces the water near the edge. The water previously near the edge falls over the edge creating a waterfall thus completing the infinite cycle.

Now a philosopher might ponder what would happen if a ship sailed over the edge. The aliens who built such a pump thought of this. Anyone who survives the fall has his or her memory erased by an arcane machine. Since any witness has his or her memory erased the exact edge of the world is hard to determine. Usually ending up in the Bermuda triangle. [8].

As for gravity rounding the Earth, that is only true if the Earth is moving. The Earth is stationary. The moon and sun orbit the Earth. Also, note the Earth is the center of the universe. Those distant objects labeled stars are quite small if you get close to one.

As for the Earth being billions of years old, that was a clever trick by the dinosaurs. See the dinosaurs scattered some of their bones around and used advanced technology to trick our carbon dating techniques.

Next, the issue of satellites. Satellites rely upon electronics and computer. Recently cats from outer space have hijacked our satellites and have been relaying false data.

As for the shadow over the moon looking like a sphere that is the work of an invisible satellite that creates a shadow, just to fool us.

Finally, the ships sinking and then returning. That simple, that's the work of magical dragons. See dragons sink the ships and then create a phantasmal double of the ship. Tricking people into thinking the ship returns safety. Therefore, more people will sail ships blissfully ignorant to the danger.

Links
7. http://www.mathsisfun.com...
8. http://www.bermuda-attractions.com...
Cobalt

Con

It's fairly clear the opponent took the 'troll' route. That's fine, but I won't get sucked into it, so don't expect to find humor in my response.

Giant pump at bottom of ocean.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Aliens built the giant pump and tamper with our memories.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Dinosaurs and advanced technology.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Earth is stationary, center of solar system/universe.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Cats have hijacked our sats.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Shadow on the moon caused by invisible satellite.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Magical dragons and sinking ships.

No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence.


Conclusion

It's pretty clear that the opponent has essentially forfeitted the debate through presentation of nonsensical arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Con's argument seems to based upon that there is little to no proof to back up Pro's arguments. The problem is that for a long time people didn't believe microorganisms could harm them. Not until the 1800's did the germ theory formally exist.

"The French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, the English surgeon Joseph Lister, and the German physician Robert Koch are given much of the credit for development and acceptance of the theory. In the mid-19th century Pasteur showed" [1].

Just because there isn't much proof for an idea doesn't mean its wrong. Pro is fairly certain science can't even prove reality exists. "Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. " [2].

In summary, as unlikely as Pro statements are, they could be true. Science cannot disprove them. Which then it comes down to which is more likely and which using Occam's Razor is simpler? Yes, Con's arguments are more likely and simpler, yet that doesn't prove they are true. Neither does it prove Con's arguments are false.

1. http://www.britannica.com...
2. http://www.str.org...
Cobalt

Con

I'll run through this quickly.

Pro mentions 17th century germ theory and makes the following conclusion: "Just because there isn't much proof for an idea doesn't mean it's wrong." I'd like to remind the voters and the opponent that Pro is trying to prove that "the world is flat" and I am trying to prove that your case for said thing is invalid. Pro just said he can't prove his own resolution, which is his goal in this debate.

Beyond that, the "nothing can be absolutely proved" idea is technically true, but completely useless. This is not a philosophical debate, it is a scientific debate. As such, we use scientific standards for truth, not philosophical standards. The opponent has not presented any viable evidence that the world is flat, while I have provided evidence, as well as made compelling, logic based arguments. It is clear that scientifically, I have won the debate. Philosophically, it is still true that I have won the debate, since the opponent cannot prove his original proposition.

Lastly, the opponent confuses science's inability to prove that some things don't exist with the issue at hand, which concerns the physical state of something that certainly does exist, the Earth. For proof that the Earth exists, go outside and look down. While I cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, it is a scientific principle that we assume they don't exist, without evidence. "Unreal until proven existent."

We know that the Earth is real, however, so that philosophical issue doesn't even apply. We additionally have evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is in fact round, whih further implies that it is not flat.

Conclusion

The opponent has presented a multitude of arguments, ranging from decent to troll. I dispatched all of these arguments and presented evidence that the Earth is not flat. In Round 4, the opponent attempted to reframe the debate from scientific one to a philosophical one (as well as dropping all previous arguments). I have shown in that case that the opponent has lost as well.

It is generally accepted that new arguments are not allowed in the final round, so it is clear I have won this debate. Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
Stupidape

Pro

Con has made better arguments than expected. Most people just use the satellite photographs. Its interesting that Con knows so much about this subject.

Nevertheless Pro contends that the round Earth theory is a conspiracy. What malevolent purposes, Pro cannot determine at this juncture. Pro plans to make a better argument, this isn't over.

Con wants proof, Pro can provide proof for at least some of the claims.

Claim: Dragons exist in present day
Warrant:"Komodo dragons, a type of monitor lizard " which can be aggressive, deadly, and reach 10 feet in length. " [1].
Impact: Komodo dragons could have sunk the ships mentioned in a previous round.

Claim: The idea of dragons is part of many cultures
Warrant: "In the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese culture, dragons played an integral part in the culture since the beginning of recorded history." [2].
Impact: These dragons could be real and may have sunk the ships.

Claim: Aliens exist
Warrant: "The chances of alien life existing on a newly-discovered Earth-like planet are 100 per cent, an astronomer has claimed. " [3].
Impact: These aliens may have been messing with humans for a long time.

Vote Pro, the Earth is flat.

1. http://www.livescience.com...
2. http://www.allaboutcreation.org...
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Cobalt

Con

The opponent, in a last hurrah, has thrown out all accepted standards of "no new arguments in the last round" and gone for the kill. This is acceptable. I will now demonstrate that his arguments are not adequate in demonstrating the flat nature of the Earth.

He first claim is that (komodo) dragons do exist in the status quo and that they may be to blame for the sinking ship phenomenon I mentioned earlier as part of my "round earth" argument.

First, we must realize that there are a total of about 4,500 komodos left. [1] Then we must realize that are over 80,000 commercial ships currently in service, discounting military vessels and private vessels. [2] If, for some reason, komodo dragons did possess this intense thirst for human blood, it woudn't much matter -- as there simply are not enough komodo dragons to account for the sinking of these vessels.

Additionally, this argument largely ignores the fact that many of these vessels end up returning home after their voyage. (As a reminder, my original argument was regarding how ships appear to "sink into the horizon" when leaving port as a direct result of the roundness of the earth.) It is clear komodos cannot be responsible. (Nevermind the fact that komodo dragons simply do not have the jaw strength to tear through a wooden hull, much less a steel hull.)

-------

Next, the opponent refers to the dragons that are part of many cultures then concludes that they could be real. While I don't deny it's technically possible that they are real, living in some forest on some secluded island, the lack of evidence for them does not justify our belief in them.

Let's remember that many cultures have mythological entities as part of their belief system, but this does not mean they are real. Religion is an excellent example. While we may be tempted to believe at least one religion is correct, we know that multiple ones cannot be correct simultaneously. This means a large wealth of cultures belief in a mythical creature that simply does not exist, destroying the idea that if something is supported by cultural mythology, it must be real.

-----------

Lastly, the opponent seeks to show that aliens exist, therefore it's possible that they could be messing with us. I first want to point out that his source is completely intellectually dishonest. No good scientist in his right mind would claim that something exists with 100% certainty without said thing already having been documented as existent.

Beyond that, I don't deny that aliens probably exist. However, the gap between "probably existing somewhere" and "messing with our heads" is one so wide that it cannot be considered without significant evidence -- evidence that has not been presented. The opponent has not given us any reason to suppose that aliens are messing with our heads.

Alternatively, I have presented evidence (that has not been refuted), that pretty clearly explains the apparent roundness as being a result of science, not aliens.

Conclusion

The opponent has presented many arguments as to why the Earth is flat, but I have effectively rebutted all of them. Ultimately, he had no significant evidence actually showing his proposition to be believable, much less true.

I have presented a wealth of evidence which was not refuted that clearly proves the Earth is round. Because this is true, it precludes the possibility of the Earth being flat. As such, one can only vote for Con this round. Thanks for reading.

(1) - http://dragon-komodo.com...;

(2) - https://shippingresearch.wordpress.com...;
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
Interesting arguments. One might note that the simplest and most likely explanation is, well... most likely the correct one.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
Note that the faster-than-light neutrino experiment was shown to have several errors:

http://news.sciencemag.org...
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
Nice argument Con! Don't forget to also mention how the existence of differing timezones proves that the earth is not flat.

Example: It is 7:00 PM in Mongolia when it is 7:00 AM in Denver, Colorado.
No votes have been placed for this debate.