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

The Earth is Flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,287 times Debate No: 88210
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




I, con, hold that the Earth is not flat.

Burden of Proof is shared.
Pro begins his arguments in the first round, and waives the final round.

Good luck!


I'm mostly convinced that the earth is flat and stationary. I've been researching the subject for a few months now, and I've come across more proof of a flat earth than a spherical earth. In this debate I will discuss some of these proofs. I know con feels the need to explain what we have all been taught all of our lives, and I know that the still unproven theory of gravity will arise, because if gravity didn't exist, the world couldn't be a globe. I am however prepared to disprove gravity as many have done before me. Gravity is make believe. Yes, I know… I am very impressed with your ability to hold up a pen and drop it to the ground to show me “proof” that gravity exists. However, you are simply showing one of the natural properties of weight, wherein items that weigh more than the substance around them fall and if they weight less than the substance around them, they rise.

A balloon filled with hydrogen, which is the lightest of the gases and lighter than nitrogen, oxygen and the rest of the elements that make up air, will rise if released. A balloon with helium will do the same because it is also lighter than the air around it but will rise up slightly slower. If however you have a baseball and release it, it will fall to the ground, not because of gravity as you were taught but because the baseball weighs more than the air around it. Gravity is simply a magical word used for an all encompassing force that does whatever is needed of it and in most cases it is used to prove a ball earth. Take a look at this paragraph from wikipedia and tell me if you really think gravity is capable of these most amazing attributes.

As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of sub-atomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter. On the other hand, gravity is the dominant force at the macroscopic scale, that is the cause of the formation, shape, and trajectory and orbit of astronomical bodies, including those of asteroids, comets, planets, stars, and galaxies. It is responsible for causing the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun; for causing the Moon to orbit the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; for solar system, galaxy, stellar formation and evolution; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the universe.

If you are a thinking individual and know when your leg is being pulled, you will have course see this as nothing but nonsense in word form. Gravity does not exist and is simply a tool used to convince people that they live on a ball. I must ask, is my opponent familiar with the flat earth theory? We can save a lot of time if so, and my opponent could disprove it instead of asking the questions involved in my theory. If not, here is a quick Q&A rundown of the theory. (1)Realize however, the flat earth theory is young still, and much more research must be done, so we don't have all the answers. Also, many shills have been implemented in this movement, so a lot of disinformation is out there to make the theory seem silly, so again, not all information is 100% correct, but the shape of the earth is now undisputed in the flat earth community.


1: Empirical evidence.
More and more amateurs are launching balloons and rockets with cameras now. While most of these are equipped with go pro cameras, some are not. Go pro cameras have a wide field of view lens attached, and through this lens, straight lines appear to be curved. This one (1) has both a regular camera, and a fisheye lens attached. You can differentiate between the two by looking for lines that should be straight, but are curved, and seeing those lines morph when the camera is not centered on the horizon. Here are some fisheye cameras (5,6,7) (5 actually has a regular camera inside the capsule as seen in the beginning before Felix exits it, and you can plainly see a flat Horizon at eye level) and here are some without(2,3,4). As you can see, at any altitude, the horizon is always flat and at eye level, which is impossible on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference. So you can see, with your own eyes, that the earth is flat.


2. Go fast rocket launch(8)
This launch broke some records for being the highest and fasted amatuer rocket ever launched. Although they used the fisheye type lens, the proof is at the rocket's peak, as it topples over, beginning it's descent. You can make out a small moon in the distance. This is proof in two ways, as you ascend, the moon should either remain the same size, because it's so far away, or grow. Not only that, the moon should not even be visible at all! In the description, they provide the time and date of the launch, but as you will see, this time is impossible. For one, an accompanying video(9) shows short shadows, and a high sun. Too high for 7:30 am. Two, the GPS tracker has 11:40 on it, which is 4 hours after the time they claim the launch occured. It is reasonable to say the launch happened between the hours of 9am and 11am, probably much closer to the latter. This type of event is very exciting, and they must have hurried to obtain the cameras mounted on the fuselage. So, using this new time, and the date specified, we can go here,(10,11) and see the moon is over Australia, and impossible to see from above Nevada, where the launch occured.

3. According to the globular model, the horizon of a 6' human should be approximately 3 miles away. At this point, ships should start going over the hump in water (which sounds ridiculous seeing that no body of water has ever rested in humped form). However many major landmarks(12) have been sighted at distances which would be impossible on a globe with the measurements given. Most of the time, refraction, or mirages(15) are the given explanation to this, but mirages are always distorted, or even upside down(13), so the lie detector test determines that is a lie.

4. Antarctica
Antarctica is, in my model, not a continent. It is a ring of ice that surrounds the Flat Earth preventing anything from escaping such as water and, up until the last century, people(15) At that point, (60's) the Antarctic treaty was put into effect(16), barring any civilians from exploring that region. What lies beyond can therefore only be speculated, unless you ask admiral Byrd(17). It is for this reason I am not prepared to give any proof of an edge or as some (Nicholas Tesla and the Bible are among the most prominent) speculate, a dome.

If you're not familiar with the lies that NASA Feed Us, feel free to check out this debate(18). If you feel the need to rebutt anything that it's in there, feel free to. On the other hand NASA is truthful on occasion, for example this document from 1988 states that the Earth is flat and Motionless in its summary.(19)

6. When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks, Pro, for accepting this debate!

Now note that the affirming team gave us strong evidence to consider the hypothesis that the Earth is not a spherical object. But I consider this irrelevant to the resolution- we are arguing whether the Earth is flat, not whether the Earth is a disk. So I will lay out my arguments first before my rebuttals.

To begin, let me define flat.

Flat (1)- smooth and even; without marked lumps or indentations.

(2)- lacking interest or emotion; dull and lifeless.[1]

I will try to give good arguments why I think the Earth fulfills neither of these definitions.

Argument 1: Geometric Implications of 3-Dimensional Space.

This is an experiment you can try for yourself- dig a hole! Archaeologists dig up bones and fossils. Sometimes, they dig up important artifacts that a previous civilization left behind.[2] The Earth has mountains and valleys.[3] This would indicate that the Earth actually has lumps and indentations, albeit small on the grand scale. We have good grounds to believe that the Earth is three dimensional, and is therefore not flat (on a geometric scale).

There is a bit of speculation that the shape we live in is actually 4-dimensional. This seems to be an unprovable hypothesis, but it’s food for thought.[4]

Argument 2: The world is full of life.

Another definition of the word ‘flat’ is to be lacking interest or emotion; dull and lifeless. But we can clearly see that the world is full of life, even in places where we least expect it. [5]

We are very emotional people. The psychological thriller by Pixar called ‘Inside Out’ suggested that people can feel up to five emotions. [6]

“Five emotions?” you might ask. “Why, that’s a lot! If that’s the case, the world (which is covered in people) does not lack interest or emotion, and the resolution is negated!”

Well, you would be correct. Except expert psychologists have said Pixar is wrong- we actually can feel more than five emotions!![7]

This might sound like a crazy fringe hypothesis. I mean, I’ve never felt more than one emotion (until I turned twelve). I’m sure scientists all around the world are working like mad trying to figure out what the sixth emotion is.[8] Of course, these ground-breaking facts are right off the press, and so we won’t have all the answers.

Argument 3: The Breasts of the Earth

The Spanish Peaks in Colorado are called “The Breasts of the Earth.”[9]


I would like to thank Con for the many links he provides of the Earth at high magnitudes. I too, was fascinated by the grandeur and size of our Earth. But Con is mistaken when he says,

“So you can see, with your own eyes, that the earth is flat.”

The reason this is wrong is because the videos cannot show the third dimension. In fact, our eyes cannot perceive all three dimensions at once.[10] So this statement is misleading.

My opponent further argues against a spherical-earth model. But I don’t hold to a spherical earth. I hold to a cylindrical-shaped earth.



While I admit that the earth appears to be flat sometimes, you can do experiments (like dig a hole) to prove that the earth has depth. Con argued against an unsupported spherical world, and I entirely agree that the world is not a sphere. However, there are other models you can subscribe to without believing that the Earth is flat.















At least you aren't a globe head.
Debate Round No. 2


No rebuttals?


Rebuttals to what? That there are mountains?
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for debating! BTW, I don't actually hold to a cylindrical Earth. I've never really studied either side critically so I honestly cannot argue either way. I was just debating for semantics.

But it seems like it paid off! Pro has not responded to my arguments, and the resolution is negated! Please vote!
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dr_sepheroth 2 years ago
This is your perspective, the planet is a sphere, if you place the planet in a Two Dimensional Universe then yes the planet is flat, or another way to look at this is by looking in your garden, at dirt. Earth that you use for planting appears two dimensional from altitude but to an ant that same earth may look more like those large rocks in yellowstone national park.

Two Dimensional is mostly an optical illusion of the mind and light affecting how your mind perceives the image you are taking in.

This includes paper as in our Three Dimensional universe paper has depth to it as well.

If you believe the earth is flat and truly believe that I would say your becoming a tad OCD about it, maybe you should consider talking to a councillor.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Lol@ that video
Posted by dude100 2 years ago
all Force = mass * acceleration example kgm/s^2= N weight is a force, a mass accelerating downward at 9.81m/s^2 if you weigh 100kg your weight would be 981N
Posted by dude100 2 years ago
bwahahahahahahahahaha balloons rising has absolutely nothing to do with weight you tard! it has to do with density D=m/v simple mathematics and measurements prove you wrong dummy. Why does a feather float and a ball of lead sink in water? because the feather is less dense then the water. If you put oil in water it rises to the top because the oil is less dense. The fact that you state weight exists is an acceptance of gravity. ALL weight on the planet is measured within relevance to the constant downward acceleration of an object (in other words "Gravity") example 9.81m/s^2 as well as 32ft/s^2. Do you even have an education? were you dropped on your head as a baby? I personally have sailed around the entire planet Traveling in an eastward heading So I know for a fact that the earth is round because I made it all the way back to Florida. Have you done the pendulum experiment? If everything else in the universe that we can see is round, how do you deduce that our planet is not? If you study astrology and you look at the moon and measure the contours every day in different locations all around the world, you'd notice that the moon is in fact round. I don't even know why people would consider this debate, that's absolute nonsense.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
I think it's too far if there is an edge, or it's infinite, and like bubble wrap, with other suns carving out other worlds, like the one mr byrd describes he took a fleet expecting a fight later on.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Not allowed
Posted by Petfish 2 years ago
Somebody needs to get a Go-Pro around Antartica to confirm/unconfirm all our speculation about this.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
I am curious as to your cylinder Earth theory though
No votes have been placed for this debate.