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

The earth is spherical in shape.

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
deltasmeltsuck 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: 1/11/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 106616
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




A similar debate was already posted and accepted, but I don't think it's going to have the depth I was looking for. Repost.

Please read the rules.


I'm looking for a serious debate on this topic, so trolls need not apply. We'll be shooting for an evidence-based inquiry into the shape of our planet. In the past, I've seen that it can be trying to find the time (or in this case, space) to present all possible arguments on the issue, so we're going to be doing a "best two" format here. See below.


1. This is a "Best Two", traditional format. "Best Two" indicates that both sides will be presenting at most two arguments for their position. (Ideally, the "best two" arguments for your position.) When your position is critiqued it is sometimes necessary to bring in more evidence or explain a related phenomenon. This is fine -- just ensure that your entire argument can be largely separated into no more than two points.

2. Burden of Proof is shared. Regardless of how "silly" this topic is interpreted by most people, both the claim "The world is flat," and the claim "The world is round," are positive claims and so both sides have a burden to prove their claims. Voters are instructed to choose the winner based upon whichever debater presents a more compelling set of arguments (or argument).

3. Semantics arguments need not apply. While arguments based on semantics are important in some areas, particularly philosophy, this is a science-based discussion and arguments which rest entirely upon "defining ones way to victory" are not allowed here. It is difficult to define exactly what one of these arguments looks like, but when you see one, you know what it is.

4. 10k character limit. A debater should post a minimum of 4,000 characters in rounds 2-4. The purpose of this is to ensure that both debaters are actively involved in the conversation.

--Round Structure--

R1: Intro / Con Opening Arguments
R2-4: Normal Debate
R5: Wrap It Up.

The only important thing to note here is that Con will be leading with their opening arguments in their acceptance. No reason to waste space or time with a purely introductory round.

--Last Minute Clarifications--

Even though I said that no semantics based arguments should be made, I will clarify this anyway. When I say "The earth is a sphere," I mean "The planet on which we live is spheroid in shape."

Thanks in advance to my opponent. Let's have fun!


Kyrie Irving said the earth is flat and he went to Duke University, so he must be correct.
Debate Round No. 1



I feel as though the debate was presented with a very clear emphasis on the expectation of quality arguments. The opponent has, by all accounts, failed in this and assumably is trolling.

That said, I will respond to his argument this round. Should he fail to meet the rules set out by the debate in the following rounds, he can consider this a forfeit. What's worse, he can live with the knowledge that he just wasted my time, his time, the voters' time, and at least 4 different parties' bandwidth.

Following that, I'll post my own argument.

Opponent's Argument

The opponent claims that Kyrie Irving, a man who went to Duke, says the earth is flat. He concludes that he [Kyrie Irving] must be correct, implying directly that the world is flat.

We first note that this is an Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy. [2] In this case, the fallacy exists because Kyrie Irving is not an expert on geology, geography, physics, cosmology, or literally anything even vaguely related to science. He's a basketball player, so one might argue that he has some basic understanding of kinesiology. Even still, that's unrelated to any science that considers the shape of the Earth.

Additionally, in 2016 Kyrie decided to put his Duke degree "on hold" [3] and there have been no reports since indicating that he ever graduated. We must conclude that Kyrie Irving doesn't even hold a college degree.

To conclude, Kyrie Irving isn't an expert because he went to Duke and he doesn't hold a college degree. There is no world in which his scientific opinion is so relevant that we should accept it at face value, without so much as his reason even being presented by the opponent.

Fun Fact:

Kyrie's actual argument is this, by the way:

"For what I've known for as many years and what I've been taught is that the Earth is round, but I mean, if you really think about it from a landscape of the way we travel, the way we move and the fact that can you really think of us rotating around the sun and all planets aligned, rotating in specific dates being perpendicular with what's going on with these planets and stuff like this ... It doesn't come back. There is no concrete information except for the information they're giving us." [4]

Kyrie's reasons for believing that the Earth is flat seems to be (a) he is unable to understand how orbits work and (b) he has only been told that there is a curvature, but he hasn't seen it himself.

Orbital mechanics are not an easy topic when considered in detail, but the basic idea is pretty simple. Beyond that, one's inability to understand something does not preclude the ability for that something to be true. Also, the fact that one hasn't seen something doesn't mean that that something doesn't exist. One assumes that Kyrie also doesn't believe in air, the other side of the moon, Antarctica, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, or food stamps.

My Arguments

Argument 1: Satellite Imagery

This argument is one of the most important arguments when talking about the shape of the earth and, as such, it is often ignored. The argument is simple: There is a significant amount of satellite imagery of the earth, many of which demonstrate curvature. For instance, in this [1] gallery we see many images which clearly demonstrate the curvature of the earth. When one composites these images together, one sees that the Earth is spherical in shape.

Multiple satellites have accomplished this from various positions in space, indicating that the Earth is "flat and circular" (when seen from the proper viewpoint), but instead is spherical. A look at any one of the composite images of earth or the few non-composite images of the whole earth shows that the earth isn't extremely elliptical, but instead *appears* to be a sphere.

More can be said about this if needed. I imagine this won't be as talked about in a debate that isn't "round earth" v. "flat earth".

I'm not going to present a second argument here and will only do so if needed. If I determine it is needed, it will be in the second or third round.


The opponent's argument doesn't stand up. If he fails to post 4,000 characters in the following round (as the rules demand) he has forfeited the debate and we can be done with this. Thanks for reading.


[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
[4] -
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
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tyrunnn 3 years ago
yeah you virtually fucked that guy with your clever words
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.

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