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

The earth is flat not spherical

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
Zarium has forfeited round #2.
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: 7/16/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 93793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I am absolutely positive the earth is relatively flat, rather than a ball or spherical shape. My opponent is sure that NASA is telling the truth, and that the earth is spherical. My opponent and I had this debate when I first entered DDO, and it turned a bit uncomfortable to say the least, leading to a tie. I'm hoping my opponent can prove the ball to me, none have convinced me so far. May the best man win. Any source may be used until said source is proved to be false or unreliable. I will be using some YouTube videos to support my argument, voters may not use this against me. I feel that YouTube can be considered a credible source if the information can be verified. For example if I post a NASA or other space program's video showing their errors, this should be credible evidence that NASA or another space program is not a trustworthy source. However, if i were to post a user made video containing some information that anyone can verify, it can be credible information. Good luck to my opponent.
No semantics con will be arguing against the flat earth theory. This does not mean there are not hills and mountains, it just means it isn't round, or pear shaped, or apple, or oblate, whatever mainstream science claims now.


Hi and thank you Pro.

I agree that relatively, the earth is flat, however my opinion changes as you change the perception of 'relative'. (I look around, it looks pretty flat, but the higher I go, the less 'flat' it is)

I do in fact endorse that the earth is a 'globe' shape - hence it being called the 'globe'.
Utilising definition 2 from the following link :

a spherical or rounded object.
"orange trees clipped into giant globes"
synonyms:sphere, orb, ball, spheroid, round; More

My belief and understanding is that the earth is indeed an object that is being exerted by massive amounts of internal force, which we have named as gravity, Mass will naturally attract to the center of this force (Which is coincidentally caused by a large amount of mass), This mass has no 'back' that we are aware of, thus it will form as any floating mass would, into a 'ball' - the ball is loosely to describe that while it may have massive mountains and gaping crevasses, in the whole scheme of the shape, it is considered round.

My beliefs are not that the globe shape is solely NASA's attribution to the world, simply they have reliable consistancy in their imagery from their satellite positions. I have proofs that scholars, philosophers and "heathens" in the past have come to the same conclusion far before NASA, which is that the globe is 'round' (to use the term loosely).

I otherwise agree to your terms there, and will accept satisfactory Youtube videos - with a few rules of my own.
Videos to be accepted must fall within these terms :
1. Keep it short - I myself, am willing to watch a 3-8 minutes of video on youtube, I hope you understand that voters have even less incentive than I do to validate videos.
2. If the video is longer, as they do - I request you give us a good time to watch from, so we can get your message, without the whole 25min - 1 hour long video's I have seen you post. (Say "from 24:33 to 31;00")

Other than that, I am happy to watch and validate whatever you want to send me :)
Passing back to you to make your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope this time that we can settle the matter, and be convinced either way. I'll jump right into my argument.

C1. Distances sighted
A "mirage" was photographed (1) from Michigan overlooking Lake Michigan of the Chicago skyline, a span of 60 miles, which should be 2,400 ft below the supposed curvature of the earth. When we look at the heights of the buildings in Chicago, we find that The tallest building at 1,450 ft is the Sears tower. We should not be able to see ANY of Chicago from Michigan, just as the weatherman says. Now before you go agreeing with the whole bs mirage thing this idiot blames it on, think to yourself what an actual mirage looks like, always inverted, mirrored, partially opaque, and generally distorted, Google some images of actual mirages. Conditions are perfect indeed. This is not a mirage.
There are many instances of long distances being seen, and this is something that anyone can confirm, and is empirical evidence of a flat earth.

C2. No movement detected
Albert Einstein said: (2)
"...I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment...
The supposed movements of the earth has never been detected. How can the world be a ball flying through space, spinning, wobbling, etc if we can't measure it's movements? Has anyone ever felt as if they were spinning around on a giant ball?

C3. Gyroscopes
For years, pilots have depended on simple, mechanical gyroscopes to produce an artificial horizon. Gyroscopes maintain a constant axis relative to that which it is started to space. This would be impossible if they were travelling over a ball. The more distance covered, the more the gyroscope should roll back. For example,a plane taking off from North America headed to China, when arriving at it's destination, should have an upside down artificial horizon because it has rotated 180 degrees. Besides the fact that modern astronomy says we are spinning, wobbling, and revolving in a spiral motion at preposterous speeds. Would gyroscopes even be reliable? What's more, experiments are being conducted with gyroscopes over long periods of time and no movement was discovered at all. If the earth spins 45 degrees in 3 hours, the gyroscope should roll against this supposed spin. Since electronic gyroscopes are relatively inexpensive, and anyone can perform this experiment, this can be considered proof that the earth does not move, and is hardly an oblate spheroid.


This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
challenge me when you want, we all got sh!t to do
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
there's a forfeit bug
Posted by Zarium 2 years ago
I mean no offense, as you are putting the effort in on your side, i will ensure i reciprocate in the future, i am sorry for this.
Posted by Zarium 2 years ago
I'm sorry.... :(

I thought i had till today to post my argument, I am so sorry for Edlvsjd for this run around - you have been nothing but understanding, and i am surprised i have not encited rage from you yet (or if i have, you have contained it magnificently!).

Most sincere apologies, I will carry on in the next round.
This debate has 6 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.