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

Earth: Flat (pro) vs. Spherical (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
RC-9282 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 6,068 times Debate No: 100660
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (246)
Votes (0)




Since the last debate was a bust, this is a copy paste job. To prevent any more noobs accepting, and forfeiting, by that i mean people that haven't even researched their own model enough to give a valid reason they think they live on a spinning ball, let alone any other models or theories enough to argue against them, I'll screen this one. If you'd like to accept please state so in the comments section.

Pro will argue for a flat earth, con will argue the spherical side. To avoid semantics involved with the topic, and go over some differences in types of evidence we'll likely discuss, I'll offer some definitions.

1.the plane(t) on which we live; the world

For this word we use the general, overall version, specifically for this debate, not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. We all know there are mountains and hills that are far from flat.

Ball or spherically shaped, specifically for this debate, a ball this is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Empirical Data:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

Formal sciences are disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics. These require no empirical data, and come secondary to such.

I would also like to point out the differences in subjective evidence and objective data:


1. Burden of proof is shared, my opponent must provide conclusive, empirical, and subjective evidence for the two differences in our model, curvature, and axial rotation, and I must do the same for the opposing side of the dichotomy.
2. No semantics.
3. No ad hominem, my opponent seems to love insults, seeing as how I have a high tolerance for insults, Ad hominem is against the rules, meaning you can not use insult in or before an argument, or to replace an argument, once a rebuttal has been successful, some mud slinging should be in order and is allowed, if he chooses this, he should expect the same in return, all in good taste of course.
4. No forfeits otherwise, this will result in automatic loss and concession.

round structure:
round one should be either an acceptance only round, or con may state his opening arguments in this round, if he chooses the latter, he should forfeit the last round. round two should be used for opening arguments or, if my opponent opens first, my opening arguments, and his rebuttals to those arguments, and, if he chooses, more arguments, but no new arguments in round 3 if he opens first. the final round will be final rebuts and conclusions, unless he opens first, which he will forfeit by typing forfeit in that round.


I assume round 1 is acceptance. This would be most logical and equitable as Pro would be at a disadvantage should I post and argument this round. I have read the rules and accept.

Thank you, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Preface: Examining evidence

In this dichotomy, the preponderance of evidence for a flat earth far outweighs what little evidence that the ball earth theory touts, most of those are anecdotal, theoretical, inconclusive, or largely unrelated. When examining evidence, determining which stance is the true one requires that evidence to pass these tests, or it is a speculative assumption. We ultimately would take the choice with the least assumptions. I will show how all of my opponent's arguments are at least one or more of these, while providing empirical, experimental, and or logical evidences that point to a flat, motionless earth.

Point 1. Distances sighted.

The curvature allowed for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference is easily calculable, but the lesson was curiously never taught in school, despite being indoctrinated about the globe since kindergarten. For the first mile, there should be a declination of 8 inches. Wikipedia will tell you this much, but since we don't live on a slope, the next mile will drop further than just 8 more inches. After the first mile, you must square the mile to get the accurate drop for the proposed ball. This formula is a simplified version, and has been verified in CAD programs. Example 10 miles (10x10=100x8=800/12=66.6 feet of curvature (I know right) Now that we know how much curvature that must occur in order for the earth to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, we can falsify this supposed curvature.
Since telescope, binoculars, and telephoto lenses are readily available, it's no wonder they won't teach us how to falsify this basic tenant of the round earth theory. Anyone who lives close to a body of water can perform the simple task of verifying whether or not that body was relatively flat. Case in point. Joshua Nowicki has been photographing Chicago from across Lake Michigan for some time now, this is a span of over 60 miles. When we plug this mileage into our curvature formula, we get (60x60)8"=28,800"/12=2,400 feet. Meaning the earth should go down hill so to speak 2,400 feet. The tallest building in Chicago is 1,400 feet, so we should not be seeing any of Chicago, yet there it is, in it's entirety.(1) This photograph is not rare, and the sight is a regular for the locals.

People are doing this simple experiment all over the world and the results are the same, no curvature, anywhere. This matches up with common sense daily observations of the physics of water, which is to find and maintain a flat, level surface. By the way, (2) this is a superior mirage, and inferior mirage, and they are always (3) inverted mirror like reflections of an object. Common sense will tell anyone that this couldn't possibly be a mirage. (4) Also, any time this simple test has been performed, no curvature has ever been found.(5) These are empirical, direct observations that refutes a basic tenant of my opponent's argument, if you examine that evidence objectively, the ball part.

(5) curvature tests:

Point 2 Experimental evidence you live on a flat plane

Take a piece of sheet metal and hold one side up to your eyes and the other end flat out at a light source some distance away. You will be able to get an image very much like this, if you hold the metal flat enough(6), however, bend it over, and you won't even see a reflection, because it is hidden behind curvature. Reflections of lights on balls produces a specular highlight, that always faces the source. Anyone with a christmas tree can confirm this. (7) The sun would be hitting 90d in relation to the observer and the center of the earth at sunset, about 4,000 miles below your feet in the flat earth model, the sun is out of reach for me to find out exactly what, where, and how the sun is, but it has never appeared to be below my feet, or 93 Brazilian miles away (7). It is a moving light in the sky, anything else i would have to speculate, and we are debating the earth, not (the) heaven(s), which is another debate altogether.


Point 3. Not one real picture of earth from space.

Probably the most regurgitated "proof" for a spinning ball is "photographic evidence". But how do you know it's not Photoshop? Every picture put forth by NASA has either been admitted Photoshop, where graphics artists stitch together scans of earth(9), which could easily be done on a flat earth with a u2 spy plane, or be proved fake. I challenge my opponent to produce any picture of a ball earth for examination, all of them have discrepancies. NASA uses fisheye lenses to curve the horizon in their videos and pictures, where you see a fixed, eye level horizon. Proof of this is in Felix Baumgartner's Red Bull sponsored record breaking sky dive. If you watch carefully, many times the horizon is way overly curved, like the land is covering 1/4 of the entire ball, or even concave. The true horizon is only visible when Felix Baumgartner is preparing for the jump.(10) Honestly, we could have allocated a cool million on a NASA -grade camera, trained it on the earth and mounted it on the moon available at no cost to the taxpayers, who have thus far invested about 1trillion dollars, adjusting for inflation, for such things as this, but hey, we got Tang and Velcro. Here we have a logical proof the the earth is not a ball, as this should have been done long ago. By the way, Felix landed in the opposite direction he would have if the earth were spinning around under him at 1,000 mph. Which brings us to another basic tenant of the most widely believed religion in the world, movement.

Point 4.Gyroscopes

A preponderance of evidence shows anyone with half a brain and use of their basic senses that when you are still, you aren't moving an inch. People were equipped with motion sensors in their ears. Go on any ride, slow or fast, you will always be able to sense movement (still forgetting about changing directions at breakneck speeds) especially when they are moving with the direction of travel verses away from it. If evolution and a spinning earth were true, there would be no such thing as motion sickness. Think about it.
This motion has never been proved in any experiment trying to do so. Aireys failure found none, Michelson Morley found none, and The Sagnac experiments confirmed this. Science claims that these experiments were searching for the existence of the aether, it was in fact done to determine the movements of the earth in respect to the Aether, both popular ideas at the time. Though the more radical ideas took precedence in that day, unless you could dazzle your audience, scientists made very little money, and the aether was ruled out instead of the ridiculous idea that we were spinning. This is why Einstein said " Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."(11) The Sagnac Interferometer came along and confirmed the existence of the aether(12), which they back engineered to also fit along with TOR. Any person can get a decent gyroscope and test for any sort of movement themselves. A digital pitch indicator laid at rest also confirms this. A decent phone has a gyroscope in it, and a pitch indicator app will also show no change in direction in relation to space. So we have another empirical observation of a few experiments we can perform to conclude the earth isn't spinning.

(12) The Michelson-Morley Experiment:

Point 5. Space is illogical

Earth is supposedly a pressurized ball adjacent to a vacuum, with no barrier. This has never been observed. For instance, a vacuum light bulb has a glass barrier, seperating it from the exterior, a non vacuum. Compressed air comes in a can, Etc. If my opponent can provide a practical, scalable example of a pressurized medium existing adjacent to a vacuum, or, in any case, two opposing pressure systems ie. a vacuum and a high pressure system, it will be the first time.

So there is no evidence of any curvature, and there is no evidence of any spinning, two basic tenants of the heliocentric model that started out as assumptions and remain so to this day. Assumptions are ok to test out a theory, but this model has piled assumptions on top of assumptions on top of these two assumptions, sooner or later you must prove those initial assumptions. Hopefully, my opponent can end this debate, and give that conclusive proof I'm looking for.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
246 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 years ago
Turns out, there won't be a remake, the opponent has closed his account. Guess I scared him away.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 years ago
Oh, and don't trust celebrities like Shaq coming out like he did in the interview, he's a known freemason, and he came out the wrong way, with shitty reasons for believing it. Every true flat earther has a Damn good reason forbeing a flat earther, not driving across country... he brought up no names from the flat earth community. He's likely a controlled opponent. I can see him doing a show with fellow freemason de asse Tyson "schooling" him on tv, dispelling the notion of a flat earth when Shaq goes "ya, it was just a publicity stunt" hahaha.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 years ago
I'll accept your debate motiheal, I'm currently in the forums, when I get caught up there, I'll accept it.
Posted by RC-9282 3 years ago
I just want the comment section to know I simply was annihilated by lack of time. I would have made all of these arguments and more. @ed and I are planning a revival of this debate. Stay tuned.
Posted by motiheal 3 years ago
1. Where is the edge?
2. If the "seeing Chicago" math is true, then on a flat Earth the only limit to this idea is magnification. Why can we not see the UK from the eastern shore of the USA?
3. If spheric Earth is a vast conspiracy, and all the pictures from space are fake, at what altitude and development of aircraft-spacecraft did this begin (since we have photos from all progressive altitudes, including balloon experiments)? What is your idea of when the conspiracy began? Does this include the Chinese who have recently landed on the Moon?
4. If Earth is flat then what shape is the edge? (See question 1.)
How about we begin with these?
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 years ago
Hard to tell the difference? If the earth' s spin and evolution were true, both are taught as fact to children, motion sickness would be nonexistent.
Posted by RC-9282 3 years ago
Is this a WTF moment or an agreement?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
"A preponderance of evidence shows anyone with half a brain and use of their basic senses that when you are still, you aren't moving an inch."
Posted by motiheal 3 years ago
Can I get to debate? I could win easily; new to this site. I would debate in favor of sphere Earth.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 years ago
This is a remake, I'll do it asap. Opponent will forfeit this round, will post link here when made
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.