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

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  
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: 1/14/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,949 times Debate No: 98924
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)




I will be challenging, perhaps, one of the better known proponents of the flat earth theory from DDO: Edlvsjd.

NOTE TO EDLVSJD: rule one is changed to a different rule, since I am, instead, using a google doc for argument 1. As you wanted(I think) I am posting my first arguments in round 1.
Rules of debate
1) Google Docs are not a violation of conduct, but character limit is still 10,000, so that voters don't have a book to read.
2) The last two rounds should be used for rebuttals against your opponents arguments or as defense againsttheir rebuttals.
3) The first round of debate should just be main arguments. For example, if you are the second person to post an argument, it should not be used to directly rebut anything your opponent said in their first argument, that is for later rounds. In this case, my opponent should not respond directly to my arguments in their first round
4) The second round may be either rebuttals to your opponent's main arguments, or you can bring up more new arguments, or both.
5) Be respectful of each other, no ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults.
Violation of any of the above rules means that voters should vote for the one who did not violate, or who violated to a lesser degree, these rules for the point in conduct.

Violation of the above rules means that voters should vote for the one who did not violate these rules in the category for "conduct".

Here are my arguments, I'm using a google doc mostly because I don't know how to post images on here, and I have images to show. I believe at least a couple of my arguments are completely new arguments, that my opponent has not encountered on here yet(as I've been looking at each of their previous flat earth debates) such as the Coriolis effect, the orientation of the moon, and how telescopes should work with a flat earth model.


Since my opponent has already familiarized himself with my debates and has an expected and accepted disadvantage (this is all i debate about), I'll just recycle and argument or two, and add as I see fit in round one.

Contention One: Gyroscopes

Definition from Wikipedia: A gyroscope, not to be confused with gyrocompass, is a spinning wheel mounted on a gimbal so that the wheel's axis is free to orient itself in any way. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours. (1)

Anyone who has ever owned a gyroscope can verify that they do verify that they do very curious things, even seemingly defying "gravity" sometimes. This experiment show both that the earth is NOT rotating, and can't be a ball. Gyroscopes have been spun up for hours at a time, and not even the slightest of rotations can be observed. (2) Attitude indicators operate by use of a basic gyroscope. (3) If the earth were a ball, spinning, wobbling, going around the sun, which is bolting around our galaxy, that is rocketing around the universe at a combined rate of about 1,000 miles per second, they would be virtually useless, especially on transcontinental flights. Some higher end smart phones are equipped with a built in gyroscope. If yours has one, download any decent pitch indicator, and leave it on your night stand when you go to bed. Wake up in the morning and see for yourself that the phone has not moved or changed it's angle the entire time. Since your average person can get a good gyro and produce these same results, this is another (objective) empirically experimental proof that the earth is flat, and it isn't spinning.

Contention two: No Curvature

Preface: 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. This formula is actually quite accurate and easy to use, first discovered by a flat earther in the 1800's. From Dr. Samuel Rowbotham:
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,(square the mile) as shown in the following diagram:

The formula for calculating how much curvature is M^2X8=the amount of curvature in inches, where M is the mileage.

Joshua Nowicki has been photographing the Chicago skyline for a few years now. As the crow files, this is 57 miles, which should yield 2,166 feet of drop. (57X57X8/12=2,166') This would be impossible if he were doing so on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. (4) Modern science tells us that this is a mirage, but again, anyone who's actually seen a mirage, superior or otherwise, will agree that mirages are just "reflections" most of the time they are greatly distorted, and always upside down. Granted, visibility factors such as atmospheric blocking and waves and swells on lake Michigan sometimes do not grant this sight always, but the skyline is seen on a regular basis. (5,6,7) This isn't the only instance of people being able to see further than they should, in fact, people are recently testing the globe, and the flatness of water to see landmarks that should be well over the curvature of the earth, and every time this test is done, no curvature can be found. This can be done easily if there is a fairly large body of water near you. All you need is a decent camera and the earth curvature calculator(8). This is yet another (objective) empirical proof that the earth is flat.

Contention three: The radio broadcast of 1915 (9)

The radio broadcast of 1915 would be impossible on a globe. Having no relay towers then, and seeing how radio waves do not travel in curved lines around a ball, my opponent must explain how this is possible. At 3,800 miles, there should be a 1,823.232 mile hump of water between the two, not to mention the distance to Honolulu.

Debate Round No. 1


Once more, I'll post my argument in a google doc. The character count is 6,529, so I went way under the 10,000 limit. In this I offer two more evidences of a globular earth, and I rebut each of my opponent's contentions:


Thanks again for the debate. These debates are growing a little redundant, but we can continue, when my opponent stated he had familiarized himself with some of the evidence for the FET, or read a few of my debates, but he hasn't given me conclusive proof that the earth is a ball. I will address all of his concerns, and I hope is a critical thinker, and is not as gullible as most people, we will see. I'm glad he started the research, and I hope it continues. This quote always comes to mind when I find a somewhat intelligent appearing person to have this conversation with about the resolution.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

On with the rebuttals, I'll start in round one, and continue from there, providing room.

The orientation of the moon is different between the southern and northern hemispheres

This is an easy one, and it was rebutted in a few debates already. The moon is not 250,000 miles away in the FET. Imagine a room, you on one wall, your buddy on the other, and an arrow on the ceiling, pointing at your buddy. He will see the arrow right side up, and you will, of course, see the arrow upside down, pointing at him. Does this mean that the room is anything but flat? Moving on.

The coriolis effect(force)

" The coriolis effect can also be tested by comparing which way toilets flush in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere."

False. My opponent has fell victim to an old wives tale, or an easily debunked lie. Even his scientists disagree with his assertion.(1) Drains rotate water based on the direction and force of the water as it enters the bowl and the shape of the bowl. Even natural drains(2) go in different directions, inches, and even many feet from each other. Hurricanes are a different story, but the reason this happens makes more sense on a flat plane than a spinning ball, let me give a short explanation, for more information, check Mr Thrive and Survive on you tube(3) for the best explanation I've seen so far. He goes into great detail, with illustrations, and is a former meteorologist.

Why this makes no sense on a spinning ball:
The northern and hemispheres are both moving in the same direction at the same rate, so why does the direction of air travel across an imaginary line change? Spin a basket ball in smoke, the same effects will NOT be observed. Furthermore, if the earth is spinning underneath clouds sometimes weighing a ton or more, and bullets in the air for mere seconds as modern scientism claims, there should be no reason that I cant get a hot air balloon and fly a little north or south while waiting for Paris or the like to come to me at 1,000 miles per hour.

Flat earth explanation:
The close, small sun and moon are some sort of electromagnetic phenomenon, pushing the water in the atmosphere away from it as it travels over the equator. It's really quite beautiful.(4)

Ships disappearing over the horizon

Ships never go over any curvature. This phenomenon is due to a varying combination of the limits of the human eye, perspective, and atmospheric refraction. On clear days, with little refraction, one can pull a ship backwards over the curvature with just a pair of binos, a decent zoom camera, or a good telescope, though the telescope still has a limit. Take a look at this analysis.(5)

Note: Swells will obviously come into play in some instances, like choppy, windy days, especially when the observer is at a lower altitude.

How telescopes should work in a flat earth model

As I've said, even telescopes have limits, it doesn't actually place the observer closer to the object, it only magnifies it, still using the human eye, and it's limitations. The air close to the earth is very thick, full of dust, fog, smog, heat, dew, clouds, chemtrails, etc. etc. Any weather app will give you your projected visibility for your area, perform the observations for yourself, if the required curvature for a 25,000 miles circ. ball has been found, I haven't seen it.

Perspective causes things to get small, very fast. Watch a plane take off, within seconds after takeoff, an observer's hand when stretched out could cover and hide the entire Boeing 747. At cruising altitude, about 7 miles up, the entire plane has been reduced to a mere speck, only noticeable if they're spraying.

The problem with time zones:

Yes, if you haven't figured it out yet, the sun in the real world, the flat earth model, is NOT 93,000,000 miles away. Nor is it the center of anything. What my opponent means by this statement:

The only way to have the time zones work as they do in reality in the above flat earth model, is if the sun is going around in a circle parallel to the earth’s tropics and equator(or the circles you see in the above picture), and not perpendicular to them. If that is the case, that means the earth is not the center of the solar system, which my opponent believes, as I think I read that in one of their previous debates. I might be wrong that they believe that, but if I am, they can let me know.

How exactly does a small close sun going around over an infinite plane suggest anything other than a geocentric universe?

Eratosthenes’ experiment and disproving the sun is close to earth

This claim is essentially based on a disagreement of the distance to the sun. I'm familiar with the whole errortosthenes experiment. My opponent offers a mathematical explanation that seem to be plausible, on paper. I prefer actual experimentation and experiments and common sense.

Crepuscular Rays are observational, conclusive evidence that the sun is close. Simple experimentation can prove this.(7) The (growing)sun and sunspot directly under the sun in the Dog cam balloon launch supports a close sun.(8)

Video of the curvature of the earth:

The video that con presents is clearly a fish eye lens. If you honestly didn't find a refutation for this simple means to trick the gullible, Ill give a quick explanation, from photography lens specialists. Pause the video at 0:10 to see too much curvature.

"Because wide angle lenses take in such a wide field of view, they tend to distort the apparent physical relationships between objects. This result is most noticeable when you look at lines that should be relatively straight but are instead bent."

Though I may have misunderstood the rules:
4) The second round may be either rebuttals to your opponent's main arguments, or you can bring up more new arguments, or both.

means that I can may not address round two rebuttals. So Ill end here, and await my opponent's defense.


Debate Round No. 2


I won't use a google doc this time, as I have no pictures to post. I shall defend each of my main arguments against the rebuttals my opponent offered:
The orientation of the Moon
My opponent claims the moon is much closer, but the scientific evidence doesn't suggest this, and I don't know of any evidence suggesting the moon is that much closer to the earth, so this, hopefully, will be something my opponent can offer in the next round.
I will, however, present evidence that the moon is about 384,000 kilometers away. I admit, this may not be something just anyone can do, but physicists have bounced a laser off of retro-reflectors placed on the moon, and found that the laser takes 2.5 seconds to return to the earth.[13] I don't see any reason why they would lie about this either. To claim that the moon is much closer, you either must be claiming scientists are lying or they are incompetent, and I don't believe they are incompetent, that would need to be proven. At any rate, given it takes 2.5 seconds for light to travel back and forth from the moon to earth, and light travels at a speed of 299,793 kilometers per second[14], multipy that by 2.5 and you get 749,482 kilometers to travel to and back to the moon. Divide that by two, and you get 374,741, which is not that far off from the 384,000 estimate. That's likely off because we rounded down for the amount of time it takes light to travel to and from the moon, it's probably 2.56 seconds or something.

So, since it's been repeatedly tested that the moon is usually about 384,000 kilometers away, this means the only way for the orientation of the moon to be different between the two hemispheres is for the earth to not be flat.
The coriolis effect:
Yes, I realized after I posted it, that what I said about the toilets wasn't factual(but I couldn't do anything after I said it, well I suppose I could have edited it out since I used a google doc, but figured that would be unfair to you since you can't edit your things after you post them) anyways, my geography professor told us that, and I admit I didn't bother to look this one up since I've had that geography class. So, I agree to dismissing this point and that this was a bad point on my part, but the point still stands that hurricanes go clockwise in the northern Hemisphere and counter clock-wise in the southern hemisphere.
Either way, I don't see why I would need to provide reason for why the direction of deflection is different between the hemispheres. There is likely a scientific explanation for that(in fact, I slightly recall learning about it in my geography class), which either of us could easily look up. If you demand that I do so, I can in the next round, I don't feel particularly up to looking this one up right now; you could even do it yourself if you wanted to. The reason why this point doesn't matter, is because in a flat, motionless earth, it doesn't make any sense for the coriolis effect to exist at all. It's kind of a red herring to point out that the deflection differs in the southern and northern hemispheres, because under your model, there should be no deflection whatsoever. Also, remember that technically my stance is "con" to the flat earth, not necessarily that I am promoting a globular earth(though I did mention that the evidence I presented before was evidence for a globular earth, I should realize that my official stance is "con" against a flat earth, and just use this evidence as evidence against a flat earth, rather than trying to prove it is globular). The coriolis effect is still evidence against a flat earth: it may also be evidence against a globular earth, but all I'm doing is arguing against a flat earth. So unless you can provide a logical, scientific reason for the coriolis effect to exist on a flat, motionless earth, this point still stands.
Ships disapearing over the horizon
I find it ironic that you bring up atmospheric refraction here, but failed to see that was what was going on in that picture of Chicago you posted. Oh well, as for your video analysis, it doesn't prove that you can indefinitely "pull a ship over the horizon", as it doesn't show that happening in the video. Why am I to believe that the video I posted didn't zoom in far enough or had atmospheric refraction? In theory, as you said, as long as you zoom in far enough, you should always be able to see a ship on a flat earth model. However, I've never heard of anyone being able to zoom in, say, from North America, all the way to a ship near the shores of Asia(provided there is no atmospheric refraction or anything else that would prevent you from seeing the ship, other than possible curvature).
How telescopes should work in a flat earth model
Well, you don't have to use the human eye, one could use a computer to catch the image of Antarctica. Certainly someone would have paid enough attention to weather and when and if it would be possible to see antarctica with a telescope and tried it by now. Also, as I said, when you use a telescope, which anyone can do, and you point it parrelel to the ground, you eventually won't see any ground, as you're pointing tangential to the earth, if it was a sphere. I have a telescope, and have done this myself. I can't offer any proof only because I never recorded any of the times I did this, and it's a little unreasonable to expect me to go somewhere I could do this and do it for this debate. This is something you either need to try yourself, or just accept my word for it. Or, maybe you can find a video of someone doing this. My searching on youtube and other sites doesn't come up with this, probably because I don't know what to search for. Simply typing "telescope pointed parralel to ground to space" doesn't cut it.
The problem with time zones
Well, I provided evidence in the next section of the sun being far away. So, I'll just skip most of what you said here and address any problems you have with that evidence, since that evidence would apply here too.
Though, there is one thing to say: there's no way for the sun to be going in a circle parallel to the earth's equator, while simultaneously saying that the earth is the center of the universe. The sun would be revolving around a point in space, above earth. It wouldn't be revolving around earth. Again, if it was on a flat earth model, revolving around earth, you'd have the problem I mentioned earlier.

Eratosthenes’ experiment and disproving the sun is close to earth
Re: Crepescular rays: You do realize that railroad tracks, going off in a distance, also appear to converge, even though they are perfectly parrelel, correct? The same applies to the sun's rays. This was such an easy explanation, I don't know why you didn't think of it. It all has to do with perspective. If, for example, you were to follow the sun's rays, you would see they all go in parralel lines, and do not converge, much like railroad tracks when you follow them. For more reading and explanation of crepescular rays, you can do so here [15]
So, this isn't a reason to question the math behind why we know the sun is that far away. Frankly, I don't see how you can question math(if it was done properly). Unless you have evidence that the math was done improperly, I don't see why we should doubt it.
To trust that your interpretation of what you "see" and how the sun light rays appear to converge at a closer distance than they are in reality, is like trusting your sight when it comes to a myriad of optical illusions, such as Ames' room [16]. There are many reasons to question what your eyes tell you, but I know of no reason to question properly done math. Math is concrete and never wrong, unless done incorrectly with human error. But again, you'd need to prove that the math was done or applied incorrectly.
Video of the curvature of the earth:
I concede this portion, but all of my previous points still stand.


Thanks for another round, and thanks to any voters reading. I'll finally rebut my opponent's round two arguments, and rebut his rebuttals.


"Basically, what happens is that the gyroscope"s angular momentum vector changes depending where on earth you stand: when you look at the angle in between the gyroscope"s angular momentum vector and the earth"s, it is always the latitude where the gyroscope is located."

Not really sure what my opponent means by this exactly. My opponent offers a study to attempt to seemingly back his claim that gyros do in fact rotate against the earth's spin, I think... but then he claims that the gyroscope must be of superior quality to be able to detect the earths spin. While at the same time, quoting a random person on a blog claiming :

" Foucault demonstrated the turning of the earth under his pendulum in Paris quite convincingly over a long enough time and the gyro's apparent precession were the same in rate and direction. "

Foucault actually invented the gyroscope. It consisted of a children's top mounted on gimbals. To say that the quality of gyros has DECREASED since 1851 is an asinine statement. I'm not sure exactly what my opponent's angle is with this refutation, but I see two logical fallacies now. The appeal to authority is apparent in his claim that the gyros that can respond to the earths rotation are not available to the public, and since he offers no valid experiment showing this to happen at all, we should dismiss his claim: "A good quality gyroscope would process due to earth"s rotation"

The second fallacy is special pleading.

My opponent completely ignored the attitude indicators argument. If a plane were flying against the spin of the earth, the gyro would roll back that much more.

No curvature

"That picture is a picture of a mirage"

My opponent is accepting the mainstream explanation of this water not curving as it should if the earth were a spinning ball. He, like the rest of the world, has not been taught much about mirages, obviously. This joint university study states that mirages are ALWAYS INVERTED.

"Don't confuse image inversion (i.e., something appearing upside down " the common property of all mirages) with the thermal inversion (an atmospheric structure) that produces mock mirages and superior mirages."

" During different times of the day, you won"t be able to see the Chicago skyline from that point. "

Yes, this was discussed in the opening round. During different times of the day you can't see across a 2-3 mile wide lake. This is again due to atmosphere, which is heavy over water.

As I've stated, the skyline IS seen on a regular basis,

and this not the only example of this, there are literally dozens of these tests to find the earths curvature all over YouTube, none finding any curvature. More on this later. This should be a smoking gun for anyone who abides by the scientific method.

1915 radio

My opponent assumes propagation was used to bounce the signal off of the ionosphere. The discovery of bouncing waves around the globe was first accredited to amateur radio users in 1920. The technique was just being perfected in terms of which frequencies to use and how well they performed at different times of day. Also, in the article, the transmission was simultaneously received in a different direction a different distance away, this is a red flag, since these angles would be different.

Another article on the 1915 broadcasts states:

"The human voice was carried 4,500 miles with nothing but the vibrations of the air as a conductor. "

Orientation of the moon

Con contests that the moon is not close, and reinstated his assertion that it is still proof of a globular earth. Same thought experiment on a larger scale will produce the same results. This only proves that the moon is between the 2 observers. Which holds true for both models.

Since the distance to the moon is irrelevant to this experiment, and would require another debate altogether, I won't spend too much time on this, but I will mention some evidence of a close moon.

Clouds seen behind the moon.
Several instances are being recorded where clouds appear to go behind the moon. Yes I realize that the moon can shine through clouds, especially thin clouds. However some instances show very thick, dark clouds doing this.

Cloud illumination.
As seen in my profile pic, a close light source illuminates things locally. Observations on nights where the clouds are high, or closer to the moon show this local illumination on clouds.

Tycho crater.

A crater named after a famous geocentric astronomer is about 51 miles in diameter is clearly discernible from earth, yet photographs from the moon looking at the earth show very little details, let alone any 50 mile structures. Use Google earth and situate the camera above Long Island, which is about twice as long as the crater is big. Now slowly zoom out with the camera. Long Island will disappear long before you reach the 250,000 mile mark. Go look at the pictures of earth supposedly taken from the moon, see if you can make out the Great Lakes.


"I agree to dismissing this point and that this was a bad point on my part, but the point still stands that hurricanes go clockwise in the northern Hemisphere and counter clock-wise in the southern hemisphere."

My opponent agrees that we were subjected to a bit of indoctrination which we can prove wrong now. Though he still believes that hurricanes spin different ways because of the Earth's axial rotation. He has yet to give a logical explanation for why this happens, and anyone with any knowledge whatsoever in aerodynamics, will agree that this simply does not happen. I wish him good luck in finding a better explanation for this to happen than what I gave, because as far as I can see this proof of his stands refuted, and I consider this to be a proof more of a flat Earth than a spherical spinning ball. Our observations match the fact that the air is moving over the Earth independently and has no indication that the Earth is moving at all. I see logical fallacies:

" I don't see why I would need to provide..." "There is likely a scientific explanation for that" " I slightly recall learning... "you could look it up..." and even his own:" It's kind of a red herring to point out that the deflection differs in the southern and northern hemispheres..." Though I may have turned the proof around on him, he in fact, brought up the coriolis effect. My explanation in the last round is in my opinion a more logical reason for this to happen, despite my opponent's rejection. My opponent ignores the argument about the earth spinning under ANYTHING else like balloons, or planes.

Ships over the horizon

I didn't fail to see that refraction was happening. I did fail to see how it proves that ships go over the horizon. Since my opponent is not arguing for a spherical earth, (is he a hollow earther?) this evidence is a red herring. We also see from these videos that light is bent up, instead of down, as if we were seeing over curvature. He fails to notice that at 0% zoom, the ship has completely disappeared due to PERSPECTIVE, zooming in brings the ship back into view from the top down, and small swells periodically hide the lower most portions of the ship.


My opponent still doesn't understand perspective or atmospheric blocking, which doesn't surprise me, not a lot of time was spend on either in science class. On a flat earth, someone from ground level will never, ever see forever, even with a decent telescope or camera, everything either shrinks to nothing, or gets blocked by water in the air, or refracted, these are empirical observations. In every instance the required curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference is tested, it is not found. What is found is plenty of refraction, perspective and atmospheric blockage, or a combination of any. There are plenty.

The problem with time zones

Yes the sun would be revolving around a point IN THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERE in the flat earth model. So technically geocentric is not the correct term, but this is mere semantics and will be ignored. The point is, we're not rocketing (understatement) around the universe at 1,000 miles per second as modern science tells us at birth.

"You do realize that railroad tracks..."

Yes, this is perspective, which I have a very firm grasp on, not that I've researched it for over a year. Railroad tracks are receding parallel lines. CrepUscular rays are seen at their proper angle, unless they are receding away from the observer. The obvious differences can be seen here.

"Math is concrete and never wrong, unless done incorrectly with human error."

What math was done that isn't subject to human error? Can humans miss some vital factor, possibly undetectable? Computers are designed and programmed by humans. To rely on theories and equations to explain the world around you and ignore your senses and logical critical thinking is asinine.
Debate Round No. 3



"Not really sure what my opponent means by this exactly."

Well, it means the gyroscope's angular momentum vector is dependent on earth's latitude. It changes to be perpindicular to it at all times, and when you compare the gyroscope's position at which it is spinning, it changes according to where on earth you are, and this indicates an earth that is spherical. When you measure the change of the gyroscope's angular momentum vector, it generally changes by the curvature of the earth. That is also what the study I offered indicates. Was that clearer?

"To say that the quality of gyros has DECREASED since 1851 is an asinine statement."

I didn't claim that though, so I don't see why you brought this up. This is likely a strawman argument. A straw man is "a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."[18] Find me where I specifically said that the quality of gyroscopes have decreased since 1851. I just said that the common gyroscope is not good enough quality(the very first gyroscope also wouldn't have been good enough quality, even more so since it was worse quality). Typically the military has better quality items at their disposal than the common person. For example: GPS. They have GPS that is strong enough to be able to go within inches of the desired destination, or else missiles wouldn't be able to go through windows, as they can. All you have to do to test this theory is buy a GPS and put a destination into it. You'll see that it will tell you "you have reached your destination" when you actually haven't quite yet and it's still maybe another 50 feet away. The government and scientists always have higher quality things at its disposal than the rest of us. That's a fact.

"but I see two logical fallacies now..."

Claiming that good quality things are not available to the public isn't an appeal to authority. For one, an appeal to authority has to be claiming something is true because an authority(and this part is important) who is not an expert in the field is claiming it. If it's an expert in the field claiming it, and you're claiming the claim is true because they say it, it's not an appeal to authority. You can read what an appeal to authority is on wikipedia[17]. Claiming that the experts in the field are the only ones with good enough gyroscopes is not an appeal to authority.

As for claiming it is special pleading, I also don't think it is. For one, you'd have to have shown something I claimed to be true was false and then I would have had to change what I was claiming. This was your first argument that I was rebutting, I wasn't defending my own argument. I didn't make a claim about gyroscopes until now, so it's not moving the goalposts or special pleading because I would have needed to change what I was claiming, when I wasn't claiming anything about gyroscopes before. Again, you can look at my first round of argument. Gyroscopes are completely devoid of my arguments there.

I also didn't ignore the altitude indicators argument. I already pointed out that gyroscopes would precess due to earth's spinning, and provided a scientific study on the matter. The gyro does "roll back" or precess.

No curvature

Here's a quote from that page my opponent linked to:

" Though the basic idea — that the mirage is something like a “reflection” produced a steep thermal inversion whose top is above the observer "

If I'm reading this correctly, it means the top of the image would appear above the observer, which is what you see in that Chicago skylines video and picture. The top of the buildings are above the observer.

Also, if I am reading that incorrectly, then there is another explanation for this phenomena of seeing the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere state park. If Joshua was atop of a hill or elevation was otherwise higher at the spot where the picture was taken in Grand Mere State park than in Chicago, it would be very possible to see buildings even on a globular earth. Take a look at this Earth curve calculator.[19] For a distance of 57 miles, and eye level is at 5.8 feet(I chose this amount because a human would easily have their eyes at that height), 1948 feet should be invisible to you. However, if we were to change it to, say, 300 feet because you are higher up in elevation by that amount in comparison to how high chicago is, then the amount that should be invisible to you becomes 854 feet. [19] Chicago's tallest building, Willis tower, is 1450 feet, so it would be clearly visible among several other buildings in Chicago. So, we need to know at what elevation Joshua Nowicki took this photograph of the Chicago skyline in order to be able to conclude anything from it. Since you can't see the shoreline in that picture, it can be concluded that he is elevated higher. For, if he was taking that picture at a level equal to the shore line, you would be able to see the beach/shore.

1915 Radio

“Also, in the article, the transmission was simultaneously received in a different direction a different distance away, this is a red flag, since these angles would be different.”

Well, I can’t seem to read the article, as it comes up with an error when I follow that link. I figured it was a problem with how a semicolon got placed at the end, and instead typed the link out by hand without the semicolon, but it still got nowhere. I would need to read the article before I can make a comment on this.

"The human voice was carried 4,500 miles with nothing but the vibrations of the air as a conductor. "

Anyone could just be claiming that. This isn’t a scientific article on the matter, so it could be subject to error. Plus, I’m not sure how this excludes the radio waves bouncing off of the ionosphere argument. Additionally, I offered a plausible explanation for this. Just because they didn’t know about radio waves bouncing off of the ionosphere at that time, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Orientation of the Moon

“Same thought experiment on a larger scale will produce the same results. This only proves that the moon is between the 2 observers. Which holds true for both models.”

I’m not sure how my opponent thinks this refutes the evidence I provided for the moon being far away. This doesn’t seem to do anything with the lasers being bounced off of the moon, so this seems to be a non sequitur.

As for the video my opponent offered, that light doesn’t even look like the moon in that video. Anyone can watch that and tell that is definitely not the moon. I know of no instance where clouds have actually moved behind the moon. This is absurd, for if that was true, then we should be able to fly the to moon with an airplane since planes can go above most clouds. I know of no one who has flown to the moon with an airplane.

“A crater named after a famous geocentric astronomer is about 51 miles in diameter is clearly discernible from earth”

Yet, you provided no evidence it is, such as a photograph of the moon. In fact, if you want to accept those balls of light in those previous videos as the moon, you can’t even see any craters on it. That’s why those balls of light weren’t the moon, because you can see craters on the moon from earth. Whether you can specifically see tycho crater is yet to be proven, however. We can see larger craters though.

I also find it dishonest of my opponent to trust google earth, when google earth shows the earth to be spherical, so they must obviously believe this is a fabrication. I contend that since my opponent would object to google earth’s shape for the earth, that they can’t use google earth as evidence of anything without being a hypocrite. After all, if they can’t be trusted for the shape of the earth, why would they be trusted for what you can see at the distance the moon is? Either google earth is right for all of the portrayal of the earth, or it’s not right for any of it. You can’t pick and choose the parts of google earth to accept. This is cherry-picking.

So, it seems my point that the orientation of the moon being different between the hemispheres still stands since I’ve proven the moon is as far as science says it is, and my opponent didn’t refute this.


I already provided evidence for the coriolis effect, see round 1. It’s a fact anyone can look up that hurricanes, wind patterns, and ocean currents have a clockwise deflection in the northern hemisphere and a counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. You’ve not offered any explanation or refutation of this, so don’t claim you have. All you’ve done was point out that my claim of toilets flushing was incorrect, but the rest of the point still stands. I already pointed out that the coriolis effect shouldn’t exist on a flat earth model and that you had no explanation for it.

Now, as for why the deflection differs in the two hemispheres, thinking about it, it’s because your perspective differs in the two hemispheres, assuming the earth is a globe. In the northern hemisphere, your head would be facing in an upward direction and in the southern hemisphere, in a downward direction. Things go to the left in the southern hemisphere because of this reason, and to the right in the north because of this as well.

Now, the question becomes, why does the coriolis effect exist if we live on a motionless flat earth?


Well, I forgot that I said in comments I would defend a globular earth, so I am going to stick to that now since I agreed to that from the beginning. Sorry, I forgot that I said that in comments. It wasn’t stated in the debates, but I’ll still argue for a globular earth. Either way, the ship shouldn’t disappear if there is no atmospheric refraction going on, you have an instrument to zoom in on the ship, etc.







I'll just give a quick recap on what has been discussed so far, and give any rebuttals as I go.


My opponent seems to be confused. I offer a video experiment showing how gyroscopes do not move at all, much less as he claims they should. He also never responded to the idea that not only are we spinning, we fly around the sun while doing so, while the sun bolts around our galaxy, and that galaxy rockets around the universe at a combined speed of almost 1,000 miles per second. Unless that universe were 2 dimensional, and all of these orbits would be in the same direction so as the earth NEVER changes orientation, my opponent agrees that gyroscopes would precess in all matter of directions rendering it useless, both on planes and in everyday life. He then ignores his own fallacy of quoting a random blogger claiming that Focault demonstrated "the gyro's apparent precession were the same in rate and direction" and later denies having done so. Foucault Pendulums are in major institutions and serve as a popular attraction the world over. If gyroscopes actually did this, as the "study" claims, someone, somewhere would have recorded this precession. My opponent ignores this fact and stands by his study. He denies his special pleading, saying that he in fact has never claimed anything about gyroscopes, so his rebuttal of " The gyro does "roll back" or precess." not only is unfounded, but denied by himself. The fact that I've offered proof that gyroscopes don't precess, and he offers only a study saying they should, further strengthens my point. He moves the goalposts to an infinite point by saying that the public does not have acces to the instrumentation to verify this, and offers no empirical proof that they do so. This should be easy to do.

His GPS argument is also fallacious, and largely irrelevant to the conclusion. He is claiming that GPS is capable of aiming a missile through a window... Moving on.

No curvature

My opponent is cherry picking a quote HE thinks supports his stance on mirages, even after I pointed out a note in the article explaining plainly, that THERMAL INVERSION SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH IMAGE INVERSION. My opponent should read the article, and specifically the side note again, because he clearly did not read it correctly. Thermal inversion is just a layer of one extreme temperature on top or under an extreme opposite temperature.

He backs up his defense by claiming that it is NOT a mirage anymore, and the sight was seen because of the observers high elevation. Claiming that somehow, Mr Joshua Nowicki found a 300 foot high dune in a park where the highest dune is 180 feet, add 6 feet to account for the observers height, unless my opponent wants to continue special pleading and say the observer could have been on a 120 foot step ladder. Using that number in the curvature calculator, we see that Chicago should be about 1082' below the curvature of the earth, or 330 meters.
(Pg 32)

From Wikipedia the 5th tallest building in Chicago is about 300 meters high, including the poles on top. So, if we were seeing the tops of two to three of these buildings, my opponent's rebuttal would seem reasonable, but in fact we can make out about 40 buildings, most should be well hidden under the curvature. It is important to remember that though this is the most famous of these occurrences happening, there are countless other examples, some with much further distances being sighted. One need only know how to use Google to see this themselves, or a body of water and a decent camera, binos, or a telescope.

Orientation of the moon
My opponent has now dropped the original argument about the orientation of the moon, and has now put his focus on the distance to the moon, failing to see how it is irrelevant. The fact stands that if a person were facing the moon in the northern hemiplane would be facing a person in the southern hemiplane, south, and a person in the south w/o be facing north. They face each other as in the experiment, and the distance of the object they look at is irrelevant. As he has dropped the original point we can conclude that orientation of the moon in opposite hemispheres is not conclusive proof that the earth is spherical.

Coriolis effect.
My opponent connects that the cause of the hurricanes spinning in different directions is due to an OBSERVER'S DIRECTION OF FACE, and actually has no relation to the earth being a spinning sphere. Another instance where my opponent refutes himself, or drops an argument.

The reason this happens on a flat earth has been stated in a few rounds now, and my opponent apparently is ignoring this. I will quote from round 2:
"Flat earth explanation:
The close, small sun and moon are some sort of electromagnetic phenomenon, pushing the water in the atmosphere away from it as it travels over the equator. It's really quite beautiful"

And a link providing an in depth explanation in the next round:

And though my opponent used this as a proof of a spinning ball, it turns out that it makes no sense on a spinning ball, and the proof fits better on the flat earth model.


My opponent appears again to ignore the fact that zooming in on a ship will cause the ship to reappear from the top down. Any time this phenomenon is filmed, refraction and perspective comes into play at some point, and the ship is not hidden behind curvature. As I've stated before, at low altitudes, swells, which get very high on the ocean, could come between an observer and a boat, giving the illusion of curvature. Here are more examples, my opponent seems to be ignoring any valid refutations, so it will be ultimately up to the voter's discretion.
Debate Round No. 4


Alright, this first part is rebuttals to the parts I couldn't rebut previously, from round 3.

Time Zones
I find it odd that you say atmosphere, since that would imply a sphere, but I’ll ignore that. Alright, if you’re going to claim that the sun is revolving around a point in the Earth’s atmosphere, that would need proof. I won’t just let you claim it is doing that without providing evidence that it is. I also proved that the sun is further away already and you didn't provide reason to reject my claim, you just offered your own evidence that it's closer, but I offered an alternative explanation of the crepuscular rays.

Until you do that, this point about the time zone I made still stands.

Also, I just realized, if you are saying the sun is revolving around the earth in a parralel circle to the equator, then it should still be visible to people on the other side of the earth. Take a look at this flat earth model[23]. If the sun is above, say, South America, it is shining light in all directions and it would be visible to people in Australia(it would just be at a different angle). The only way to account for that is if you claim the sun doesn't shine light in all directions... in which case does that mean you believe the sun is flat too? In addition, if the sun is this close to the earth and is that small, one should not be able to see the sun from other planets. However, as a google image search of "sun from mars" comes up with, you can see it from Mars. Maybe my opponent will reject those pictures, but if they do, hopefully they have a good reason for why this is a lie. People need a reason to lie, what is the motive?

Crepuscular rays:
I find the pictures my opponent offered suspect, as it seems majority of images you look for on google of crepuscular rays don’t show them converging at the same degree as the pictures in my opponent’s argument. See here [20] They don’t converge as soon as the ones in my opponent’s pictures. Nonetheless, I offered an explanation for why crepuscular rays occur, and why they don’t prove the sun is much closer necessarily.

Now, onto the new arguments:

Videos can be altered, and as I said before, higher quality gyroscopes are able to precess. And no, I didn't ignore that "fallacy" I already explained why it wasn't a fallacy. You didn't offer any explanation as to why it is a fallacy, and I showed that it's not a fallacy with what I said previously. Now, the reason why cheap gyroscopes don't move all around due to earth spinning, earth moving around the sun, and our galaxy moving, is because items tend not to change in motion. It's one of the rules of physics. It's why when you throw a ball while moving, the ball will typically come back down close enough to where you can pick it up, even though you were moving. Cheap gyroscopes still act in this manner, and so you can't detect the earth moving through them. However, as my study showed, more advanced gyroscopes can detect the earth moving. My opponent seems to think it's okay to just dismiss scientific studies for some reason, without offering any studies of their own. I contend that my point still stands because it is backed up by scientific evidence, whereas my opponent has offered nothing of the sort as evidence for their claims.

As for GPS, I was a little off originally, but it is confirmed still that military grade GPS systems are still better than the ones you can get from the store. So, my over all point still stands that military and scientists have higher quality items at their disposal. "As of early 2015, high-quality, FAA grade, Standard Positioning Service (SPS) GPS receivers provide horizontal accuracy of better than 3.5 meters"[21] Yet, again, you can test any GPS you get from the store, and they're not within 3.5 meters, more like ten times that. And again, you claim things are fallacious without even arguing for how they are.

No curvature
I was clearly not sure if that quote was saying what I thought it was, you don't need to be so harsh about this. I didn't state it with complete confidence and I wanted clarification.

Alright, I decided to look up an explanation for this, and there is just too much for me to post here with the character limits, as it would take up the rest of my argument if I did, so I will just link to an explanation for Chicago being visible. It has to do with a number of things, such as the height of the observer, as I brought up before, the thermal inversion, and light refraction, when accounting for all of this, it is possible to see various different amounts of the buildings during different times of the day. The variable that make a huge difference is the light refraction. We know light refraction is occuring because when you look at Willis tower in that picture, it is stretched out to an insane amount. Look at a picture of willis tower closer up, and the picture my opponent offered(if you don't want to look pictures up, source 22 has some). You'll see that it is clearly stretched. Now, here is a source explaining with math and geometry what is going on with that picture[22]. Now, if the earth was flat, you'd be able to see all buildings from Chicago during some time during the day, but I do believe that has never happened before. For example, you should just be able to get a pair of binoculars or another zooming in device, and see more buildings on a flat earth model from where Joshua took this picture. But I know of no evidence suggesting one can.

Orientation of the moon
My opponent failed to apply the orientation of the moon to their proposed flat earth model. Here is a picture of the flat earth model in my source[23]. According to that model, Australia and South America would have the orientation of the moon differently, it would be like as you see between the US and Argentina, except to an even greater degree. If this is hard to imagine, again, let's bring up my opponent's example of an arrow in a room. If you're on one side of the room, and your friend is on the other, the arrow would have a different orientation. The same would be true between Australia and South America, since they are on other sides of the earth. However, as you can read about in my previous round, the orientation is the same between Australia and South America, as well as for the entire Southern Hemisphere(for the most part). This doesn't work under a flat earth model.

Thus, I was focusing on the distance of the moon because this would make it even more likely that you would have different orientations between Australia and South America, because of how far away it is. However, you don't see this.

Coriolis Effect
No, that doesn't explain the spinning of the hurricane to begin with though, all the perspective changes is what direction the hurricane's spin. It doesn't explain why it's spinning to begin with. It's due to the coriolis effect, and it's been proven scientifically many times this is the case. Also, if you look at the previous picture I had for the coriolis effect, you'll see that near the equator, the wind patterns are actually going in the same direction, it changes as you go further from the equator which is due to the clockwise and counter-clockwise deflection.

I was ignoring your explanation because I already proved the distance of the sun and moon. This explanation you offered is completely dependent on that the moon and sun are close to the earth. Since I refuted that(and that's why I focused so much on this, because I knew your explanations of things would be due to the sun and moon being close to the earth) this means you now have no explanation for the coriolis effect, and it still doesn't make sense under a motionless, flat earth model.

You can't just keep zooming in on a ship and make it re-appear indefinitely though, as I said before. It eventually completely escapes your view even with zooming in. Now, you claimed that we never have the right conditions to always be able to see the ship, but I don't buy that. That seems to be a convenient excuse, and I'm sure that at some point, there wouldn't be atmospheric blockage, etc. Even that video of Chicago shows there's not always atmospheric blockage, as sometimes you can see Chicago, and other times you can't.

Why I believe I won
I focused on ideas that anyone can confirm, such as the orientation of the moon being different between the hemispheres. Under a flat earth model, this doesn't make sense. Then I brought up the coriolis effect, which shouldn't exist under a flat earth model at all, my opponent brought up a theory on how the sun and moon would be close and causing this pull, but I refuted the ideas that they are close and proved that they are far away in previous rounds, and my opponent has not directly refuted the evidence provided as of yet. The arguments they brought up regarding to Nowicki's photos have other explanations for them, as provided this round, though maybe my opponent will refute them. While I conceded two things: that I was wrong about the toilet's flush, and the video is fish eye lens, the former didn't effect my main point for the coriolis effect, and the latter doesn't matter as much since I offered many other evidences that the earth is globular. Plus, I offered much more evidence than my opponent did, where they only made three main arguments: gyroscopes, curvature, and 1915 radio, which my opponent still hasn't refuted my points on yet, but maybe they were waiting till this round. I, on the other hand, had 6 evidences.


Time Zones

"I find it odd that you say atmosphere"

You find it odd that i often use commonly known words to describe something that I myself "learned" about in school? What word would you propose I use?

"the sun is revolving around a point in the Earth"s atmosphere... "

I've shown you crepuscular rays, to which your reply was to parrot Wiki's "scientific explanation" for this problem, but he himself knows this is illogical, and holds no water. Realize that if you are going to remain close minded, and at leaast not visualize the concepts before seeing what the scientists say/appeal to authority, you're never going to see the truth. Before you look at this, visualize yourself on an endless plane, close to the north pole, but not dead center, and imagine what it would look like, to see the sun circling overhead.

I would like to point out at this time, that since con used this argument to PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS A BALL. This means, to me, that there can be no other explanation. Yet, I've provided another explanation that is reasonable, OBSERVABLE, and pretty conclusive. My opponent concludes that it is an optical illusion, like in most other things he and science argues, that my eyes are playing tricks on me. This is not a parlor trick. This is basic physics of light. But there are several more reason to believe the sun is close. Granted these are not guaranteed authentic, but i see no signs of editing, and am open to any valid criticism. These are empirical observations, which anyone can see. My opponent's reply is basically: No, it's impossible. My indoctrination pamphlets tell me so, and this should be end all, (and probably is, in his mind) This is just not scientific.

I'm sure there are many more reasons available online, I think the point has been made. Not to mention you completely ignored the Dog cam footage. Since the behavior of the celestial bodies is not relative to the conclusion, and is grounds for another debate entirely, which I would be glad to talk about later, this debate is drawing to a close. I was once a critical thinker where you are now, it goes a lot faster if you learn how to properly use Google to see both points of view by adding "flat earth" on the end of a search.

It seems my opponent wants to discuss a new argument within arguments at this point, the final round, and has turned quizzical. Logical fallacy alert!

I remember having a ton of questions. I'd be happy to debate you again, after you've done the research, steer clear from the Flat Earth Society though, that is a shill site. Stay in contact, this is only about halfway down the rabbit hole from what I've seen. It would take too much time to answer each question, but I will give the basic, flat earth explanation for each question in a youtube video. A FAQ or two to get you started. Open minded individuals only. Everyone will realize the truth eventually. Scientific consensus changes.

"Videos can be altered...higher quality gyroscopes are able to precess"

Con remains closed about this topic and reasserts his position that gyroscopes precess, just not where the average person with lack of proper equipment, this time dropping the claim he made that this supposedly happened with a children's top in the 1800's. Con himself brought up Focault. Since these motionless gyroscopes videos are common, versus a very very elusive video or some means of testing this, AT ALL, we can safely conclude that gyroscopes prove a flat, motionless earth. I'll give my opponent an instance where this would happen.

This moron plainly demonstrates he is clearly not flying around a ball at 17,000 miles per hour.

At this point, I've shown scientific, logical reason to rule out the idea that we are on a spinning ball. In zero gravity, there is much less friction. I would also like to point out what precess actually is, cheap gyros that are spun up by hand are known to precess because they aren't spun up fast enough.

"My opponent seems to think it's okay to just dismiss scientific studies for some reason"

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true ornot.

I hate to point these out, but...

No curvature

"Alright, I decided to look up an explanation for this..."

Without evenknowing it, my opponent is commiting several fallacies. His first position on this was mirage, when this was found false, he moved the goalposts, and agreed with the obvious, but claimed he was high enough to see over the curvature... when that was proved to be false, he uses someone elses argument that he clearly doesn't understand, or else he would have given a simple explanation. This is clearly an attempt to make this claim unfalsifiable by any means necessary, no matter how many assumptions he has to make or nonsense he has to parrot to do so, hoping the voter will be as confused as he is.

"Now, if the earth was flat, you'd be able to seeallbuildings from Chicago during some time during the day, but I do believe that has never happened before. For example, you should just be able to get a pair of binoculars or another zooming in device, and see more buildings on a flat earth model from where Joshua took this picture. But I know of no evidence suggesting one can."

As i've said, the earth isn't perfectly, mathematically flat. Assuming that there are no swells or waves or swell for 57 miles is illogical. Most people understand perspective and how the ground appears to rise to eye level where a 2-6 foot wave going above the eyes level is perfectly plausable.

There are also experiments being done that show how this is possible with lensing.

Orientation of the moon

"According to that model, Australia and South America would have the orientation of the moon differently "

My opponent is making the assumption that South America should see the Moon differently from austrailia. He assumes, once again the the moon is far away, and can be seen from all over the plane. I'm not even sure if he's making the claim that both continents see the moon at the same time. It seems that these attempts at refutations are basically rooted with one disagreement. Distance to the sun and moon. The firmament, and how it behaves is another debate entirely. Ive provided many pieces of evidence for my claim, which appear to have gone largely ignored, from unbiased sources. My opponent will likely still believe that the sun worshippers have it correct even after this debate. Here's a little more.

And if he still thinks "stars" are someone else's sun, he's going to love this.

Does he think Pluto is a real place? Or Mars? Get yourself a good camera if you can afford it, these are not fakes, and are the equivelant of a very nice telescope for a competitive price.

If my opponent dismisses the claims which depend on the sun and moon being close based entirely on the dozens of proofs I have given for myself, versus a theoretical mathematical equation that depends on what he assumes is a ball of physical terra firma being an astronomical distance away, he can be considered intellectually dishonest.

Coriolis effect

This proof again, is dependent on the distance to the sun and moon. My opponent obviously does not understand that this is not proof of a ball if there is an alternate, or in this case, better, plausible explanation to said proof for the flat earth. He gives one last appeal to authority fallacy here.

"it's been proven scientifically many times"


"You can't just keep zooming in on a ship and make it re-appear indefinitely though"

Agreed, eventually the object will reach the vanishing point of the telescopic device, or be obstructed by refraction or atmospheric blocking.

"you claimed that we never have the right conditions to always be able to see the ship"

You do realize that this enough water in the air at any time to flood it all one inch? Take a look at this one.

"there's not always atmospheric blockage,"

On a flat earth, hundreds of miles will have an immense concentration of water at the eyes level, just above sea level. This is atmospheric blockage. If my opponent is to claim that there are times that there aren't any clouds for thousands of miles, he must provide evidence for this claim.

All in all con seems to completely misunderstand the flat earth model. Perhaps an unbiased voter will understand, or admit to it anyway.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Or actually, I had 5 in round 1, so 7 total lines of evidence
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
StupidApe: I had 6 total lines of evidence. 4 in round 1, and 2 in round 2. I think you forgot to look at the round 1 google doc
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Con used YouTube and biased sources in this particular type of debate.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Capitalistslave used science direct and legimate looking sources, while Edlvsjd used wikipedia and lots of youtubes.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
lol that sh!t woulda been rightfully removed tonight
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
I can't vote, technical issue and it is past the voting period, but here is how I would have voted.

Edlvsjd never did adequately and sufficiently prove a flat Earth. Capitalistslave's argument was too short in round two to really prove a spherical Earth. You need a consilience of evidence to convince me. I would have needed at least four separate lines of evidence, and Capitalistslave only provided two. Since neither party met the burden of proof, I can safely say this debate must be a draw for the argument point.

Conduct seems even and spelling and grammar. Capitalistslave used better sources in my opinion and they were relevant so Capitalistslave would have won the two source points.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
I'll address "the problem with time zones" and everything after that from round 3 by my opponent in the next round. I ran out of characters for this round, and I tried to get rid of any unnecessary things I said, but I found most things I wrote here was necessary, and will address the points my opponent made in those sections next round. So, I'm not ignoring those, I was just too limited on character limit.

Hopefully, my opponent's rebuttals won't require as many characters to offer a defense against for the next round and I'll be able to address those two sections next round.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 weeks ago
Capitalistslave Yes, Burden of proof will be on both of us. I'll defend the ball of course
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
I don't think I can change any settings about the debate after you accepted it(I know that I definitely could have before you accepted it), either that, or I don't know how if you can.

And no, disproving the heliocentric model doesn't meet the resolution, as that doesn't prove the earth is flat.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
In an eliptical orbit: What opposing, growing force opposes gravity in order to pull the orbiting away from the orbited when it is at it's closest point? Gravity is said to increase with proximity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.