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

Flat Earth

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
11thhour has forfeited round #3.
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: 1/7/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 106481
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Do you think that the Earth could be flat and stationary?
Debate Round No. 1


That's fine, but have you ever looked into it?
The supposed curvature of the Earth is only ever seen on a Go-Pro lens, no real pictures. Any boat that disappears over the horizon can easily be zoomed back into full view. The curve should be no problem to prove a globe, but there isn't one to be found. The calculation for curvature, due to the figure of the Earth being approximately 25,000 miles in circumference, is 8" per mile, squared. Lighthouses, boats and buildings, have been seen in full view over distances of which the curve of the Earth should not allow.
The Earth is easily observed as being motionless, as your senses will tell you. The stars and constellations, are in the same place and pattern, year after year, century after century, meaning that the Earth is not moving and that the stars are revolving around us. If our Galaxy is hurtling through space at over 2.5 million miles per hour, then how is it that the stars all stay in the same place?


So, I'll break this off into two sections. Section 1 will be regarding the argument that you can see things further than what you supposedly should be able to, and the Section 2 will be regarding the stars and how they are apparently standing still.

1. You state that boats going over the horizon can be zoomed back into view. This is true, however, that is because we are above the sea level. When we are above the sea level -- the level to which the boat is on -- we are able to see it much further. You can test this at home. Find a stress ball or something of the sort, then stick a thumb tac in it. You will find that if you hold the ball at eye level you will lose sight of the tac very quickly as you begin to rotate it away from you. However, hold the ball 6 inches below eye level and you will be able to see the tac for much longer. This is true with the earth as we are rarely trying to see ships on the horizon with our eyes at sea level. Furthermore, your eye stops seeing at a certain distance which is far closer than when a ship would fall under the horizon, and if you're patient enough with a high enough zoom, you will also see it fall below the horizon with a telescope or binoculars or whatever instrument you are using to zoom in on the boat.

2. This is an incredibly asinine argument. The stars and constellations do move. I urge you to take a long exposure shot of the night sky on a clear night. You will clearly see that they leave streaks across the sky, thus proving that they are moving. If that is not enough proof for you, then watch the sky for about 180 years and you will see that certain stars do indeed move and change places in the sky. A faint star named Barnard's Star moves the fastest through our skies. Still, for it to change its position only by an amount equal to the width of the moon, it would take about 180 years. The motion of stars is quite small at a few or a few tens of kilometers per second. However, they are situated several light years away from us so they appear to sit still. Let's say a star is about 10 light years away from us and is traveling at 10 kilometers per second. In 100 years, the star would have moved about 30 billion kilometers. The distance of the star from us in comparison is around 90 trillion kilometers. So its motion in 100 years is so small compared to its distance that we see the star in relatively the same spot in the sky. However, if one waits for a few hundred thousand years, then one can definitely see the constellations change.

I'd like to ask you what benefit would anyone gain from deceiving 7.6 billion people into thinking that the earth is spherical, and how did they convince so many people of this?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by matthewb18 3 years ago
I completely disagree. You"re not thinking about your "sphere" of influence. Let"s start with your comments regarding objects on the earth. For example, your comment about lighthouses; lighthouses are elevated and as such would be seen at distances where objects on the surface could not due to the curvature of the Earth. As regards to your "zooming in" comment, I would like some evidence of this and some further explanation as to your claim. My understanding, is that you believe that with a powerful enough lens, you can see anything no matter how far it"s traveled on the surface of the Earth. However, after a certain point, due to the curvature of the Earth, all you will see is ocean/trees/plains/mountains depending on your location. Furthermore, one easy way to see the curvature of the earth for oneself is to take a flight in an airplane. While not the most accessible, by being a passenger in a small Cessna for example, you can see first-hand the curvature of the horizon. Moving on to beyond our planet, I have a few examples that mostly anyone can access. Starting with the easiest, find a spot in your home where you can see the Moon at night. Take note of surrounding landmarks. See if there"s a tree for example that points directly up at the moon. Over several weeks, you will notice that the Moon no longer is in line with that landmark you previously chose and has moved, showing the rotation/orbit of the Earth and other celestial bodies. While on the note of the Moon, its cycles are another example of proving Earth to be round. As the month progresses, you notice the shadow of the Earth progressing and receding over the Moon, again showing its circular/spherical shape. There are other ways of proving earth to be spherical such involving other planets and stars, yet they require much more effort, and occasionally can be more costly. However, I hope these few methods I"ve provided can serve to prove my argument for most anyone.
Posted by Flatstanley 3 years ago
Erf es not flat es line
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
An ad hominem is when someone in a debate attacks their opponent instead of the argument they are presenting, not when someone has a meme as a profile picture.
Posted by TheKingInTheNorth 3 years ago
Just wanted to point out that SilverishGoldNova, who warns of ad hominems being used by others, has an ad hominem as his user picture.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
Indeed, the Earth is flat. I can tell you are new so as a word of advice I'd avoid users like Goldtop who won't address your arguments and will instead drown you in a flood of ad hominems, assuming you are a legitimate flat Earther.
This debate has 0 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.