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

The Earth Isn't 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Trey383 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: 2/10/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 485 times Debate No: 107854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Earth isn't flat


I offer my greetings to Trey383, my respectable opponent, as well as the greater community. In this debate, I will be attempting to counter Trey383's assertion that the Earth isn't flat; that is, I will be arguing that the Earth is, indeed, flat.

I believe it wise to open any serious debate with a rundown of definitions, so that we, as debaters, as well as the voting audience, will be on the same page rhetorically. Therefore, as Trey383 has kindly allowed me to establish our definitions, I will be using the following, which have been sourced from the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, found here:

EARTH (N): The sphere of mortal life as distinguished from spheres of spirit life.
FLAT (Adj): Lacking in animation, zest, or vigor.

To summarize and paraphrase using the definitions listed above, I will be taking the position that the essence of mortal existence is largely dull and lacking in vigor. By virtue of his position, Trey383 will be arguing to the contrary.

Let us begin.

One of the defining characteristics of mortal existence is the necessary attachment to the physical universe, as opposed to any spiritual realms that may or may not exist. The characteristics of the physical universe have been examined with great and painstaking detail by scientists in the past few centuries. Few discoveries have made such an impact on the zeitgeist of the Western world as the truly marvelous eternities of outer space. With its host of planets, stars, and as-of-yet unsolved mysteries, one often thinks of space as full of "vigor" and "animation" indeed.

However, such a mindset is based wholly on the workings of the availability heuristic; that is, one thinks of space as full of wonderment and celestial bodies simply because examples of such are frequently presented in mass media. This is done for the sake of stimulating public interest in space research and exploration, and I certainly am not opposed to such endeavors.

However, the public often fails to remember that between all celestial bodies, between every magnificent star and cataclysmic gamma ray burst, are vast amounts of utter nothingness. In fact, the large majority of outer space is indeed empty space. I now present three examples. Please refer to the numerical citations; sources are listed below the contents of this round's argument.

1. The Earth and the moon are often depicted very close together due to their relative closeness compared to the rest of the solar system. However, the space between the two actually totals an average of 238,855 miles; this is enough space to fit thirty additional Earths. [1]

2. The Earth and the sun are even farther apart. The sun lies about 93 million miles from the Earth. [2] Using the "thirty Earths" calculation above, we can mathematically extrapolate that approximately 12,308 Earths can fit between the Earth and the sun.

3. The distance between the Earth and the sun is referred to as an astronomical unit, or AU. In other words, the sun is one AU away from the Earth. The nearest non-sun star from the Earth is over 271,000 AU away. [3] To grasp the sheer magnitude of this, we can extrapolate from the above calculations that an astounding 3,165,476,963 Earths can fit in the space between. To put it into words, this is well over three billion Earths.

I believe these examples illustrate nicely the amount of empty space found between celestial bodies. Surrounding the beautiful heavenly objects we see in pictures are unimaginable distances containing nothing at all. To use mathematical language, the ratio of objects in space (that is, things that would grant it "vigor" and "animation") to empty nothingness is incredibly small.

To summarize:

1. Trey383 asserts that the physical plane of existence is full of vigor and animation.
2. Any objects that could feasibly justify this assertion are surrounded by vast distances of nothingness.
3. The more nothingness there is in the universe compared to non-nothingness, the less animated and vigorous the universe is.
4. Therefore, because nothingness is far more common than non-nothingness, the universe is neither animated nor vigorous to an appreciable level, and Trey383's assertion is false.

I conclude this round by once again thanking Trey383 for this opportunity for spirited debate. Just because the Earth is flat doesn't mean we must be!

Debate Round No. 1


Damn, that is a depressing viewpoint saying, from what I understand, the majority of the universe isn't "full of movement and activity" or "intensity of action or effect" which is true and I agree to which is pointless to argue against since less than 0.1% of the universe is actually occupied by "celestial bodies" But you're assuming I don't agree with that. I don't understand where you are going with this, so please continue your argument.
(The facts in your 3 paragraphs are of the Globe Earth theory stating the Earth, the sun and the moon are farther away than believed in the flat earth theory, please explain your stance on those facts as well. Do you, as a flat-Earther believe that the sun and the moon are actually that far away)

please excuse the grammar and typing errors it's past midnite here


I wish to extend my gratitude to Trey383 for his timely response.

First of all, I believe I should dispel a misconception that Trey383 seems to have about my position in this debate. He implies that I don't adhere to "Globe Earth Theory," and proceeds to label me as a "flat-Earther." If I am understanding him correctly, he thinks I believe the Earth is not round. This is not the case. But in fact, the shape of the Earth is entirely irrelevant to the present debate. As I established in Round 1, we are debating whether or not the physical plane of existence is characterized by animation and vigor. The fact that the Earth is round has no bearing on this, and I humbly request that Trey383 either justify bringing up this non-sequitur and connect it to the debate, or drop the matter entirely and address the issue at hand.

At Trey383's request, I will now attempt to re-summarize my argument as it stands in the hope of a successful clarification. My argument proceeds thusly:

1. Trey383 asserts that the physical plane of existence is characterized by animation and vigor.
2. I have demonstrated it to be true that the vast majority of the physical plane contains only inert nothingness.
3. Because most of the physical plane is nothingness, it is not accurate to claim it is characterized by animation and vigor.

I invite Trey383 at this time to put forward a counterargument and justify his claim regarding the nature of the physical universe.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 years ago
Let's be objective, going Con on this would be no less incredibly stupid either. Nevertheless, innumerable people, now in the twenty first century, appear to boldly hold this belief.
Posted by Amphia 2 years ago
Going con on this would be incredibly difficult :)
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.