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

The Earth is irrefutably 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
cakerman has forfeited round #5.
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: 10/8/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 104344
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I will be contending that the earth is indeed a sphere, and my opponent will be against that notion. First round can be used for opening statements


Though while the earth is realistically perceived as of spherical shape (not a perfect sphere), this rests on certain normative assumptions about the objective world which can be refuted and which I will be refuting in subsequent rounds.

What you have implicitly set out for me to do is twofold: 1) to argue that our planet Earth is not of spherical shape, and 2) to argue that it is in fact flat. As such, I will need to clarify over what is sufficient to calling something 'flat': if, say, we could conceive the world of being on a programme on a computer disk, could we then say that it is flat because it's real form is flat? Or, would the qualitative experience we have of the world as not flat overrule this possibility? This again is not my contention, but merely an illustration over a need to particularly define the adjective, 'flat', and that which it describes precisely (which I'll charitably let you do).
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for asking for clarification, your goal is to prove that the common flat-earther model of Earth is accurate

Related image

If the photo decides it will show up, something along those lines is the model you should be proving true. I have discovered that most flat-earthers believe in the geocentric model as well, and while it is not part of the debate if you are a *true* flat-earther I will debate any of those notions.

Your main objective is to basically disprove a round-earth and prove a flat-earth model

in case the site doesn't add my photo


Why our planet Earth could be flat:
P1 Our universe is possibly a simulation.
P2 The hardware that generates simulations is usually flat.
P3 The Earth is part of the universe.
C The Earth possibly flat.

P1 Our universe is possibly a simulation.
(Bostrom 2003):

P2 The hardware that generates simulations is usually flat.
Photographs, computers, paintings, discs, and fiction... all these mediums can be said to hold a form of simulated world yet are simultaneously flat in nature. If (P1) is true, accounting for the connection of non-localised particles regardless of space, then it is likely that space is illusory and all the substantive content of the universe is contained on one piece of hardware. Ergo, the universe and the world alike are possibly retained on a flat medium.

P3 The Earth is part of the universe.
Apodictic--needing no further justification.
Debate Round No. 2


Not exactly what I meant but alright.

Point A: Lack of evidence

There is no irrefutable proof to prove that mankind exists in a simulation, nor is there any evidence to suggest that the technologies they would use would be flat (I.E a spherical shaped super computer)


What? You wanted someone to argue medieval Catholicism? That's absurd -- why would you want that?

Rebuttal Point 1:
As science uses the inductive model (including in determining the shape of the planet), there's no irrefutable proofs about anything. There's only degrees of likelihood relative to models of verification we have construed. Ergo, if all we are seeking is irrefutable proof, this too dismisses the possibility that (1) the Earth is irrefutably spherical--it's only unimaginably likely to be so.

Point 2:
Simulation Theory doesn't have to entail cosmic designers, a 'they', and additionally a condensed space would be the most likely hardware given the breakdown of spaitality (e.g. in non-localisation). And, even if the form of such technology might not be flat, the specific hardware the Earth resides on would likely be--like on a cosmic circuit-board within the technology. Unless you can conceive of another type of hardware that could retain information in this way....
Debate Round No. 3


First and Only Point:

If we, as human beings, are indeed living in a computer-generated simulation, who is to say if the people who rendered this simulation would have modeled the earth as a spheroid or a flat plane, which resets our debate back to its very beginnings.

Is the earth itself flat?

Regardless as to whether or not we live in a simulation, and if the hardware used to power it is flat, we do not know if the Earth would be rendered as a sphere, so, we are forced to debate medieval Catholicism. At least, the flat-earth part of it.


You miss the point: the argument is that the universe is a simulation, and therefore Earth isn't designed like some flat ornate table of spherical space but a tiny part of a cosmic machine that in its specific format (due to its small size) would have to be flat relative to the shape of the entire machine. For instance, a table at the macro level is flat: on the micro level however, not so. At the macro level, compared to the rest of the universal machine, Earth would be a simple flat component of it, not a strange 3D shape.

Another example: at the macro level, a disc look flats yet on closer examination is full of indents giving it a non-flat shape on the micro level.

As such, one does not have to divert to feudal understandings (giving you something easier to debate against) to argue for a flat earth, but give you the harder question of whether the Simulation Hypothesis is true or false (making your hoped response of: 'You idiot! The scientific method!' redundant).
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Red_Lavender 2 years ago
I would also like to say that this argument doesn't really state any scientific facts... but instead theories. The whole simulation thing is a theory. Where are my facts? I believe the world is round because we have scientific proof. But, If there is proof that the world is flat, sell it to me. I would really like to understand why and how the world is flat.
Posted by cakerman 2 years ago
frick, my forfeiture was unintentional
Posted by Gerg22120 2 years ago
If this was true than the kk extinction event would have wiped out the world or break it in half because if we have a flat earth then the density would be really thin and when the asteroid hit the earth would have spit into two halves causing the human race to never have existed and all of this would not be how we know it.
Posted by cakerman 2 years ago
Replace sphere in round one with spheroid
Posted by Deathwolf 2 years ago
Maybe we should advertise this debate here:
Posted by NDECD1441 2 years ago
Flat earths... I happen to know someone who would love this motion. Geocentricist would be proud.
Posted by Hawkers4lyfe 2 years ago
I agree with you that the world is round, and I really hope you win!! Good luck!! I've seen your debate about abortion, and you're a really good debater.
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.