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

The Earth is flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,887 times Debate No: 105797
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (64)
Votes (1)



I have recently noticed quite a lot debates concerning the shape of the Earth, and so I was motivated to instigate a similar one, issued to SilverishGoldNova. However, anyone that is interested in taking the position of Pro may notify me in the comments or via private message.
I contend that the Earth is not flat. I do not think there is a need to define something in particular.
1. Please, do not forfeit.
2. No insults or ad hominem.
3. No use of external links solely as arguments, but only as sources.
4. The burden of proof will be equally shared between the two sides.
5. Have fun!
Pro may post their initial arguments in R1, along with their acceptance. It is highly recommended that no arguments that have not been fully addressed in previous rounds will be posted in R5.
On to Pro!


I accept this debate. I will change up my arguments a bit.

Contention #1. The Chicago Skyline

It is one of the most compelling arguments which convinced me into a flat Earth [1]. According to the globe Earth model, this should be impossible, and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon. However, this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true [2].

Contention #2. No evidence of curvature.

We are widely told we can see curvature at a height of around 35K Feet, the typical range where airplanes typically fly at. There have been reports of seeing curvature outside of an airplane window, but this has been debunked many times before. The curved glass of an airplane window will distort curvature [3]. We also have images showing no curvature from 80K feet, 121K feet, and 317K Feet [4] [5].

Many images allegedly showing curvature from similar heights have been shown to simply be hoaxes, or were blatantly recorded using a fish eye lense. Heres a humoruous example [6]. We have also caught NASA admitting to faking images. "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17". If you read further, we also have them saying that they stitched a "flat map" collected with satelite data onto a ball. Interesting [7]. Not only this, but there are videos throughouly debunking the 2 images they just don't wanna admit are fake, as throughougly as my debunking of the rest of "photographic evidence" [8] [9].

Contention #3. Flight Patterns

There are many flight patterns that, while they make absolutely no sense on a spherical Earth, make sense on a flat Earth. First off, looking at Antarctica, we know none of these flight patterns exist [10]. We know these are impossible on a flat Earth (especially if you have seen a flat Earth map) [11], but are possible on a globe Earth and infact, would result in shorter flight times. We are often told these flights do not exist because it is too cold. However, we are also told we have sent probes to outer space, which is MUCH more frigid. It is more of an excuse than an explanation.

[12] [13] Then look at this. On a ball earth, during a flight to Johannesburg to Perth, it should be a straight shot over the ocean and we should be able to land for refueling in Mauritus or Madagascar. But instead, most flights will stop in Dubai, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. It should also be a straight shot over the atlantic to go to Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, but many flights instead make a re-feuling in London, which would be impossible on a spherical Earth.

Contention #4. Standing water never curves

The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant spinning sphere tilting and hurling through space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. There would be a massive bulge of water in the oceans because of the curvature of the earth. If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different! But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of luids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. Frankly, all you need to do to persuade me into a globe Earth is to prove standing water can curve [14].

Contention #5. The arctic midnight sun.

My final argument for this round is the arctic midnight sun. This article explains it better than I could [15].

















Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. I shall proceed with my rebuttals and arguments.

1. Chicago skyline:
The aforementioned being visible from a distance the Earth's curvature obviously would not allow is a result of atmospheric refraction due to air pressure differences. In certain cases it is possible that the light's path becomes curved more than the Earth's curvature [1]. Hence, the phenomenon is absolutely possible to happen on a spherical Earth. [2]

2. As I had no time to watch the two videos cited, I would like to respond to this statement later, so that I can give a more sophisticated reply. My schedule was changed unbeknownst to me, so I'm a little pressed for time.

3. i. You addressed the cause of this peculiar flight pattern yourself. Not only the severe cold, though, but the extreme weather conditions too are contributory factors, such as strong wind, hailstorms et cetera, something that does not happen in space, as far as I am aware. If it was up to me, I would not risk the passengers' lives like that.
It should also be noted that objects launched into space do not have airplane engines, but are given motion through different means [3].
ii. Concerning the second pattern, I can tell that the reason behind its peculiarity is the long distance the airplane would have to cover above the ocean otherwise, which is not favourable for various reasons, such as the bad weather conditions mentioned before near Antarctica, the need to refuel and passengers wanting to fly from Dubai to Perth.
As for the first one, despite my wanting to research it a little bit more, I suspect that the pattern is so because of the need of passengers wanting to fly from Johannesburg to London and from London to Sao Paolo. These patterns would exist separately otherwise, but I do not find a reason because of which one airplane cannot follow both.

4. It is apparent that you lack understanding of gravity. In a spherical model, the water is all pulled towards the centre. The image cited picks one reference frame and deems it as absolute, claiming it is the "top" and the rest is "lower" than the top. But, in a sphere, no point is higher than the other, as there is no absolute reference frame.
On your statement in regards to the Earth's speed, I should point out that the Earth's motion is inertial. As there is no absolute reference frame, an object with a fixed speed undergoes the same effects as that with null velocity. A successful example that demonstrates the aforementioned is that of a moving car. Is the car moving relative to the motionless (for the example) Earth, or is the Earth moving and the car motionless? Both options are correct, and are valid depending on the observer's reference frame.
As for the water staying on the sphere, the answer is as simple as "gravity".

5. The midnight sun phenomenon can be explained by the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis; simply, at some points of the rotation, the "upper" side of the sphere - namely, the pole - constantly faces the sun even though a whole rotation has happened.

Before elaborating on my arguments, I would like to ask the following questions:
i. How does the flat earth model explain gravity?
ii. How can you explain the Coriolis effect and Foucault's pendulum proving the rotation?


Re: Focaults Pendulum and Corolis

- Corolis proves flat Earth

Eric Dubay seems to always have me covered... huh.

His channel was recently deleted because of something he said about the holocaust... Heres a reupload.

1. Defending the Chicago Skyline

My opponent claims the phenomenon is due to refraction. His sources? Other people claiming it. Insufficent evidence, please try harder.

2. Defending the no evidence of curvature

Still, you would atleast have some time to look at the 80K-317K feet pictures right?

3. Defending the arctic flight patterns

My opponent claims that the reason for these flight patterns is because of weather patterns, further stating "strong winds, hailstorms, etc". His argument is essentially that, because of the extreme weather in Antarctica, planes cannot take these paths. So, Antarctica maintains the same weather all-year round? Lets use, as an example, the weather near the Amundsen-Scott Station. As of writing this, it is almost 3:30 AM there and the temperature is -18 F with snow flurries and gentle winds.

This is why you cannot use whether as an argument for anything really.

4. Defending the other flight patterns

My opponent extends the same whether argument and then claims the reason for these patterns is because people "want" these patterns. I doubt my opponent fully understands my argument.

5. Defending the lack of curved standing water

Once again, I doubt my opponent fully understands my argument. My argument was that standing water cannot curved as water naturally finds and maintains his level, not that water would fly off the globe. However, I will explain how gravity works on the flat Earth. On the flat Earth, objects fall if they are more dense than the air, and rise if they are less dense.

6. Defending the midnight sun

The axis argument was pre-refuted in the same article.

"In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also "wobbles," in a complex combination of patterns known as, "planetary nutation," the "Chandler wobble," and "axial precession" which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense."
Debate Round No. 2


Let's see. Firstly, I need to remind you that no side is allowed to use mere webpages and videos as arguments without elaborating, as stated in the rule number 3; "No use of external links solely as arguments, but only as sources". I allowed it on the arctic midnight sun argument, justified with the claim that the article explains the phenomenon better than you could, but I am going to ignore further arguments composed solely of external sources.
Anyway, I will reply to the two videos cited.

1. Coriolis effect
i. The video assumed that the Sun and the moon can affect the seas as massive magnets, with the former charged positively and the latter charged negatively. Would you mind explaining how exactly can that be so? That is surely one extraordinary claim.
ii. The video also dismisses the Coriolis effect happening on a spherical Earth because the currents rotate clockwise on the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise on the southern hemisphere, deeming it illogical. The case is, the maker of the video apparently did not even study the Coriolis effect beforehand, as they are ignorant of the fact that, in a rotating sphere with the rotation axis going through the poles, the rotation velocity of the surface is increased near the equator, where the distance, and thus the rotation velocity of the central axis reaches the maximum. That is the impact the equator has on the Coriolis effect, which the video claimed to be null; greater rotation speed implies, of course, impact on the currents' pressure differences.

2. Foucault's pendulum
i. The video deems the pendulum a failed experiment, providing no sources.
ii. The pendulum rotating clockwise, counterclockwise or not at all depends on its location on the hemispheres, as the Coriolis effect postulates. The above do not make the experiment failed, but rather successful.
iii. The pendulum cannot start oscillating by itself, due to its high mass and inertia.
iv. The video suggests that all pendulums worldwide would start oscillating just like Foucault's pendulum if that was the case. On the contrary, the pendulum requires high mass, because otherwise it would be affected by air resistance, friction etc.

3. Chicago Skyline
i. Atmospheric refraction is a phenomenon known to have such effects. If you do not believe me, you may well watch the following video, taken by the same person whose picture you based your argument on. Even the horizon and the buildings in the background can be seen to wobble abnormally [1].
ii. I'm sorry for that, it seems that I copy-pasted the link to another page of the same website. I was typing on my mobile phone, so perhaps I changed the page without noticing. The one I intended to cite has done and presented research to back up their claims [2].
iii. Here is an interesting discussion on the topic [3].

4. No evidence of the curvature
First of all, I would like to point out that not having pictures of the Earth's curvature does not suggest anything about the shape of the latter.
I found the video against the blue marble quite intriguing. Despite that, I am not going to address the blue marble for now, while the moon landing is, in my opinion, material for a separate debate in which I have no interest right now.
Instead, I will argue against the claim "there is no evidence if the Earth's curvature" with the following pictures and video; [4,5,6]. Through these, the curvature is clearly demonstrated.

5. Flights over Antarctica
On the contrary, weather is a significant factor. The establishment of flight routes with passengers above a place with such probability of bad weather condition is certainly not a wise thing to do. Indeed, the weather may not always be severe, but that does not mean it never is [7]. It is only rational to not risk the passengers' lives.
Furthermore, I would like to mention that there have been recorded flights over Antarctica [8,9].

6. Flight patterns
The reason flights patterns exist is because people want them. It is common sense that the patterns would be created according to the passengers' will. If people statistically want to fly from Johannesburg to London and from London to Sao Paolo, then so will the flight patterns be. That simple.

6. Gravity
Due to gravity, the water is pulled towards the centre of the sphere. Your experience of water maintaining its level stems from the fact that you have only observed the effects of gravity from the flat-like surface's viewpoint. The answer is, the Earth is too big for you to see the water not maintaining its level.
As for your explanation of gravity, it simply is illogical:
i. Density itself cannot produce the effects of gravity, as it generates no actual force. It is merely a counting system of how massive an object is in a certain volume.
ii. Buoyancy is a result of gravity. If there was no gravity to pull the water and air molecules, the aforementioned would not cause the effect called "buoyancy".
As for the video, please address your points.

7. Midnight sun
Yet, you did not debunk my claim, as nor does the article. It merely mentions it.

[5]. (explanation for the above)
[8]. (see the last paragraphs of "biography")


1. Corolis Effect

Nullschool recently removed the AE Map from their website. Hmm I wonder why.

However, here is a reupload giving a demonstration.

2. Chicago Skyline Clip

I've... seen the same video twice.

The explanation is for all to see: It seems like a mirage is pulling the water up in the day due to the heat of the water creating a mirage effect, and that obscures the building when the sun's out, but as you can see, when it goes away, it lowers and more of the building is exposed.

4. Space Shuttle

Good try, but if you watch the full video (at around 15 minutes), you will see it uses a fish eye lense.

5. Lake Pontchartrain

This is quite simply an optical illusion. This video explains it well

6. Antarctica Weather

Winds are sometimes strong. Thats your argument?

7. Flight patterns

My original argument was "Then look at this. On a ball earth, during a flight to Johannesburg to Perth, it should be a straight shot over the ocean and we should be able to land for refueling in Mauritus or Madagascar. But instead, most flights will stop in Dubai, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. It should also be a straight shot over the atlantic to go to Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, but many flights instead make a re-feuling in London, which would be impossible on a spherical Earth. "

Somehow my opponent has twisted that into a discussion about how people want to go there.

7. Gravitty

Either way, its a theory. Just like gravity. Gravity is a theory, created to support an assumption (globe Earth).

8. Midnight sun

Lets go over what the article says. One more time.

"Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also "wobbles," in a complex combination of patterns known as, "planetary nutation," the "Chandler wobble," and "axial precession" which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense."

Read very closely...
Debate Round No. 3


1. Coriolis effect
A flat Earth currents map and a claim that it makes sense is not evidence. Again; while, as I showed, the spherical Earth model can perfectly explain the Coriolis effect, the flat Earth model requires, according to my opponent, the Sun and the moon acting as gargantuan magnets, each with a different charge. This hypothesis lacks reason, assuming that the aforementioned is possible, without elaborating further.

2. Foucault's pendulum
I see that my opponent has not responded concerning Foucault's pendulum. Should I consider it a point in favour of the spherical Earth, or is my opponent planning on replying on round 4?

3. Chicago Skyline
My opponent accept mirages as an explanation for the sea's image changing heights abnormally, and yet not for the Skyline's image being visible from a distance that it, under normal circumstances, should not. They do accept that the light's path can be curved due to atmospheric refraction, but deny that the same phenomenon can occur on the light emitted by the Skyline. This is plainly logically fallacious. If atmospheric refraction can cause a mirage that lowers the sea's level about one centimetre on my screen, it can make the Chicago Skyline visible too (notice how, on 0.12 - 0.14 the Willis tower can also be seen to wobble abnormally [1]), as the research I previously cited along with the video confirms [2].

4. Evidence of the curvature
i. Space shuttle
The video my opponent cites, although with the latter being correct about the image possibly being distorted through artificial means, is not the same as the one I linked to in round 3 [3]. My opponent has yet to dismiss my argument.
I would also like to add that the image of the video [3] being distorted like the one my opponent proposed is not possible, as the gasses constantly emitted from the rocket and the rocket itself would too be visibly distorted. Hence, my opponent's thesis is dismissed.
ii. Curved power lines
I accept the video's explanation for the picture of the curved power lines as adequate.

5. Flights over Antarctica
Yes, my argument is that the weather in Antarctica is quite often inappropriate for scheduled flights.
It seems that my opponent ignored the point I made concerning recorded flights over Antarctica [4,5].

6. Flight patterns
My opponent assumes that in a flight pattern, the schedule is arranged according to the most straight possible way that leads to the final destination. I do not twist the discussion, but rather remind them that their premises are false, as a significant factor for arranging flight patterns is what the average of the passengers want.
I would also like to see my opponent's sources for the two flight patterns presented, if possible.

7. Gravity
My opponent's initial argument was the water's curvature being impossible, with the aforementioned always maintaining its level. I explained that the latter is an illusion, stemming from our experience of the Earth's flat surface, despite its actual enormous size, while the water can curve around a sphere due to the gravitational pull. I assume that my explanation is sufficient.
My opponent claims that gravity is, quoting them, "a theory, created to support an assumption (globe Earth)". This statement is false. Gravity is not a theory, it is a law of physics, namely an actual and observed force that pulls matter towards the Earth. This is an undeniable fact. Acceleration always requires a force, as all observation so far suggests. Hence acceleration towards the Earth (experiment: pick up a rock, let it fall) too requires a force, which is named gravity. Density cannot produce a force, especially towards a fixed direction, for the reasons I stated in round 3. Buoyancy too requires a force, which pulls the air/water particles towards a direction.
In the spherical model, the observational data can be perfectly applied. My question is, how can the flat Earth model explain that force?

8. Midnight Sun
I would like my opponent to address their argument. I stated that "the midnight sun phenomenon can be explained by the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis". How do they refute that?

9. I also wish to ask two more questions.
i. The flat Earth model postulates that the Sun and the moon are moving in circular orbits above the flat Earth. How can my opponent explain the force that keeps the orbits circular? It is common sense that, in a circular orbit, a force that pulls/pushes towards the centre is necessary, as otherwise the object's inertia would direct its motion towards a straight line.
ii. The distance from the Earth and the size of the Sun of the flat Earth model obviously cannot allow for the Sun emitting light because of continuous nuclear fusion, as predicted by the spherical Earth model. How does the Sun emit light, assuming a flat Earth?

[4]. (see the last paragraphs of "biography")


1. Corolis Effect:

I guess my opponent is asking me to further elaborate. 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.

2. Foucalts Pendulum:

I accept it as valid evidence after re-reviewing the video.

3. Chicago Skyline

How exactly is it logically fallacious? Also, if we're going to play the fallacy game, then by not explaining what I say, instead dismissing it at fallacious, you're commiting the Appeal to Fallacy fallacy.

Oh wait, the same FE Insanity blog. You can see an air gradient even in your photo. The white line of air followed by a light blue batch of air which blocks the lower half of the sky line. At no point does the skyline "magically bend back to the observer". If that was true we would see those light bends in all 3 dimensions including in crepuscular rays that travel 100s of miles through air and horizontally when we can see 100s of miles of horizon there isn't any bend of light at all.

4. Evidence of Curvature

1. Space Shuttle

My argument was that video cherry picked footage. He starts off with a dismission of my claims, then claims that in the video he showed, the video cannot be distorted due to the gases.

Once again, the argument is that the video you provided cherry picked footage.

And, even if they were differnet videos, it is still undeniable evidence that the Earth is flat and NASA and friends manipulate imagery of it. Which was my original argument.

Pause it in between and its flat.

2. Pontchartrain

My opponent cannot counter the rebuttal to Lake Pontchartrain. GG

5. Antarctica

And, were they smacked down by weather? No. Again, if we're going to use weather as an argument, then I guess flying should be banned.

6. Gravity

So, can you provide proof that gravity is the correct answer? My theory and gravity are both explanations, but they're both theories. Atleast I have A little bit of proof for mine.

7. Midnight sun

NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever, and there is no proof these motions exist.

8. Questions

I will work on your questions in the next round!
Debate Round No. 4


1. Coriolis effect
That, I understand. What I am asking my opponent to explain is the Sun and the moon being "some sort of an electromagnetic phenomenon". Massive and everlasting electromagnetic phenomena orbiting above a flat Earth cannot be justified by "chance", while, this being a scientific discussion, I hope that the explanation is not of religious or philosophical nature.
The heliocentric - spherical Earth model, on the other hand, has been shown to be perfectly consistent with observation regarding the Coriolis effect.

2. Foucault's pendulum
That is great. I hope that my other arguments will persuade my opponent as well.

3. I explained how my opponent's statement was fallacious, but I will do so once more: in the video, two peculiar phenomena can be observed; the sea level changing by remarkable distances and the Chicago Skyline being visible where it should not, because of the Earth's curvature. Whereas both phenomena can be explained by atmospheric refraction, my opponent chooses to explain only the former this way, and claims that the latter is seen to be so due to the Earth being flat.
I was asked to explain the Chicago Skyline being visible from such a distance, and I did; my answer is atmospheric refraction, which I find sufficient. The video was my proof that the aforementioned can produce such incredible effects, that my opponent requested.

I am not quite sure what point did my opponent attempt to make through their second paragraph, but I believe I have adequately addressed the topic above.

4. Evidence of the curvature
i. Indeed, that was a video which I cherry picked among the innumerable ones on the internet. Does that discredit my argument? I think not. I will explain what made me pick this specific video:
Apparently, it is apparently a video that demonstrates the Earth's curvature. Usually, such evidence is dismissed by supporters of the flat Earth hypothesis, claiming that the, curvature is caused via artificial distortion lens. In this case, though, lens distortion is impossible, as there can be seen gasses flowing off the rocket in every direction in straight lines, for which a distorted image would not allow. Hence the irrefutable evidence of the Earth's curvature.

I would also like to point out that videos and pictures taken via distortion lens existing certainly does not prove the flat Earth model right, but rather shows that one has to cherry pick the photographs and videos they use as evidence, just like I did.

ii. Rather interestingly, I came up with a counter argument. Let's see:
a. (Curves: [1]; I will later refer to these as CU/CD - Concave Up/Concave Down)
Examining the video my opponent cited [2], pausing at 7.22 and 7.33, one can conclude that the block towers form a CU (increasing) curve at the former and CD (decreasing) curve at the latter.
b. Therefore, assuming a flat Earth, the power lines too would form a CU when viewed from the one side and CD from the other.
c. In these two videos [3,4] the power lines are seen to form a CD viewed from both sides. Therefore, what is causing the curve is the Earth's curvature itself, and not them not being in a completely straight line.

5. Flights over Antarctica
i. It seems that my opponent misunderstands the point I attempted to make through the two cited flights over Antarctica. Let me rephrase; how is it possible for a straight flight across Antarctica to happen on a flat earth with Antarctica around it?
ii. Yet again, the weather in Antarctica is not always severe, thus allowing a few research flights that have long before been organised, but not scheduled flights which, should they come to be, will most likely be usually cancelled due to weather conditions.

6. I notice that my opponent has not replied in regards to their initial "Flight patterns" argument. I assume that my explanation was sufficient.

7. Gravity
I would like my opponent to view the topic from a perspective other than "gravity is just a theory".
I will explain below:
i. When an object falls, we observe acceleration.
ii. Simple Newtonian physics tells us that acceleration always requires a force.
iii. Therefore, there is a force pulling the falling object towards the Earth.
iv. We named that force gravity.
v. As Newton concluded by observing the motion of planets, the gravitational interaction between two bodies equals G (constant) * m1 (the mass of the first body) * m2 (the mass of the second body) / r^2 (the distance between them squared), or F = G* m1*m2 / r^2 (note that Einstein's relativity has corrected several parts of this equation, but the fact that the force is proportional to the bodies' masses remains valid).
vi. The above describes the gravitational interaction between the two bodies, namely the result of the gravitational pull exercised by both bodies. The pull one body, such as the Earth, exercises is not affected by the pulled bodies' mass, but is still affected by the distance between them.
Example: We have two bodies, A and B, with masses mA=m1 and mB=m2, where m1= 2* m2. We let them both fall from a height r. Due to their equal distance from the Earth, they will accelerate at the same rate and reach the ground at the same time (without taking air resistance into account, of course). This experiment has been conducted in artificial vacuum multiple times.
If, on the other hand, we get two objects with, for simplicity, equal mass, mA=mB, but let them fall from different heights, rB= 2* rA, the object A will accelerate faster and reach the ground faster than the object B.
This has been confirmed by observation and is, of course, an experiment anyone can conduct themselves.
My opponent's explanations for gravity, on the contrary, have been dismissed in their previous rounds. It is apparent that the flat Earth model cannot explain adequately the physics law of gravity.

8. Midnight sun
My opponent's argument is based on mere misunderstanding of
and ignorance of specific elementary postulations of physics.
Concerning my opponent's reference to the big bang, I am not going to elaborate on the aforementioned now, for it is a subject irrelevant to this debate. Instead, I reccomend that my opponent researches the topic and the evidence in favour of it.
The reason one is unable to perceive the Earth's motion is the latter not accelerating rapidly and our planet being located into a vacuum.
In order to demonstrate my points, I will use the following analogy. I would like my opponent to imagine a car moving with a fixed speed (=no significant acceleration) in a place with no air resistance (=vacuum), and a person on top of it throwing a ball up in the air and catching it again, with an observer standing on the ground motionless. While the ball is thrown up and down with no difference than as if it was not on a moving car, the latter is moving and the observer sees the ball move along with the car. In the same way the person on top of the car and the ball perceive no motion, they are moving and the observer can confirm that (null air resistance is important for this analogy, I have to remind). In the same way, we are located on the Earth which I moving in great speed in a vacuum, but cannot directly perceive that motion, as any accelerations that happen are not significant in comparison to the average velocity. The proof we have for the Earth's rotation is mainly the Coriolis effect and Foucault's pendulum, while by observing our galaxy's motion relative to our supercluster and our Sun's motion relative to our galaxy we can figure out the Earth's actual velocity.

9. Questions
That sounds good as well. I believe that I should instigate a part 2 of this debate, so that I and my opponent can further discuss the topic.



1. Electromagnetic sun

This video provvides some experiments which prove it. It not only causes the corolis effect but also tides.

2. Foucalt's pendulum


3. Chicago Skyline

I think my opponent is confused on what my argument was. My argument was that the Earth's curvature would cause the entire city to be underwater. My opponent claimed it was refraction, and linked another video, I responded saying that while the mirage is not caused by refraction, the refraction of the water may cause a mirage effect. Got it?

4. Curvature video

My opponent does not want to accept that he used cherry picked footage, instead claiming there are "many more" images showing curvature. Again, in the full video, the curve is distorted. Period. It's over.

He then turns back to the Pontchartrain argument, which he has already conceeded and I have already disproved. I guess my opponent would like an alternative explanation:

On the flat Earth, ships sinking over the horizon is due to perspective. This is a very easy experiment. Couldn't the same be applied to this circumstance?

5. Antarctica flights

Ok so I guess I will be elaborating much further. My original argument was that on a globe Earth, flights should instead go over Antarctica. My opponent claims this is due to weather concerns, and also seems to believe that I am attempting to say that flights over antarctica are impossible.

First off, in order for my opponents weather argument to be valid, we would have to assume that all of Antarctica is in a constant state of continent-wide blizzard with strong wind. This is also what my opponents argument boils down to.

He admits that it isnt like this everywhere all year round, but then forgets the possibility they could simply move out of the path of the blizzard. Or wind. Whatever.

Secondly, I am not trying to say flights over Antarctica are completely possible.

See? Wow, that was easy.

6. Flight patterns

My argument was that the refueling stops of flights from Johannesberg to Perth and/or London. when placed on a flat Earth map, makes more sense than the globe model, not that people flying from Johannesberg make random stops.

7. Gravity

Right, that is what the theory states. Secondly, I'd like to point out to voters the original argument was standing water cannot curve and it naturally finds and maintains its level.

8. Midnight sun

I... can't really counter that. But there are some questions I have. Since this is the last round, I'd like if my opponent could answer them in the comments.

I. Why is it impossible to record these motions?

The globe Earth model states we are spinning, revolving, wobbling, and spiraling accross an infinite vaccum at almost the speed of light. Can my opponent explain why we are unable to record these motions ourselves?

II. Why can we hear sound?

Due to the way sound works, if the Earth were truely spinning, revolving, wobbling, and spiraling at near light speed, then hearing sound would be impossible.

9. My opponents Question

I. Circular Orbit

Well, in a way I've already explained that in this round

II. How does the sun emit light?

Unfortenantely I was unable to find a solid answer to this question. From what I can tell however, you and some guy on the Flat Earth Shillciety page are the only ones to ask.

III. Eclipses.

Thats easy, eclipses are caused by an object known as rahu that also goes in a circuit above the Earth.
Debate Round No. 5
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Ramshutu// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Conduct pending discussion.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is over a month past the end of the voting period, and therefore votes posted here are no longer moderated.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
It's *Surprising* My mentally challenged flat headed friend.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
But ya know, should I really at all be concerned with you saying I don't debate? You can think whatever you like about my posts, so long as you don't just follow me around everything and try to start a flame war.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
Well, you think anything that disagrees with you is automatically not debate, so, that's not uprising for you to say. You can atleast admit that I didn't just "post a bunch of links" or whatever you like saying in this debate.
Posted by Goldtop 3 years ago
"So either create a constructive argument"

Says the guy who never once created a constructive argument.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
Let me reword it so you can properly understand.

Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
"So either create a constructive argument against my position, or leave. Don't waste my time with strawmans and/or ad hominems."

That was neither.

Your argument was garbage.
Posted by SilverishGoldNova 3 years ago
So either create a constructive argument against my position, or leave. Don't waste my time with strawmans and/or ad hominems.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Conduct pending discussion.

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