frame

Formal Debate: The Earth is flat

Opening Argument

edited November 2017 in Earth Science
So DebateIsland recently released a new platform of debating called "Formal-ish". I will be arguing that the Earth is flat. This debate will be available for contenders for a day. @Erfisflat @Evidence

Please don't join if your name begins with "Han-" or "Cove--", (and for the latter, we both know you only care about denying theism) because I know you're both trolls

Opening Arguments:

I will now state my opening arguments.

Argument 1. NASA admitting to faking images, debunking the "independent alternatives"

A common "proof" for a globe that I see is "NASA images". For the Earth to be flat, obviously, NASA images have to be faked. And NASA images have been debunked in many ways. 



Image result for NASA images make up your mind

Notice here the major discrepancy? We notice the continents shrinking, growing, changing color, etc.

And copied and pasted clouds

Image result for you live on a cgi digital painting

We also have NASA directly admitting to faking images. Read my debate here: 

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1283/nasa-admitting-to-faking-images

Now, if the Earth were TRUELY spherical, why would NASA need to fake these images?

I have noticed that whenever globe-Earthers are called out for NASA images, they always turn to the "Independent alternatives" red herring, usually pointing out stuff like the 2012 red bull freefall or, far, FAR more commonly, "curvature" from airplanes

http://debateisland.com/discussion/1293/red-bull-stratos-freefall-debunked As for red bull, I've already debunked that before. 

Image result for Curved glass artificially curves straight lines The explanation for airplane curvature is that curved glass can artifically curve straight lines, similar to a fish eye lense 
Related image


Argument 2. The Chicago Skyline

(Credit to @Erfisflat

One of the most compelling arguments that convinced me into a flat Earth was @Erfisflat 's Chicago skyline argument.



According to the globe model, this should be impossible and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon but 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.


Image result for inferior mirage vs superior mirage



3. No evidence of curvature.

We are widely told we can see curvature at 35,000 feet. However..


Lets first look at this video, which shows flatness from 34,000 to 38,000 feet:


(It is claimed we can see curvature at around this height, specifically at 35,000 feet, but yet we see none).

No curvature at 121,000 feet:


No Curvature at 317,000 feet:




As already mentioned it is claimed we can see curvature around 35,000 feet, but we see none at 38,000, 121,000, or 317,000 feet.

4. Flight patterns

There are many flight patterns that make no sense on a sphere, but they do on a flat earth. First off lets look at antarctica. As we know, these routes do not exist: 


We are told that we do not go on these routes because it is too cold, and that the planes instruments would freeze, but we are also told that we have gone to places much more frigid than anything expirenced on Earth. So, why shouldn't planes be able to take shorter routes over Antarctica? The "explanation" about planes instruments freezing is more of an excuse than an explanation.



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. 

5. Proving the Geocentric sun.













While I understand this does step away from the flat Earth a bit, I am including this here to stop the flood of "tim zoncs"

If you have any responses to this, please post it here. If you give up on the globe, post that here.

6. Extras


(the latter gives other proofs of a flat earth)
northsouthkoreanamemcnamenatbaronsmelefErfisflataarongEvidence
  1. Is the Earth flat?

    16 votes
    1. Yes
      31.25%
    2. No
      68.75%
 

Debra AI Prediction

For
Predicted To Win
56%
Likely
44%
Unlikely

Details +


Points For:

64


Points Against:

27



Votes: 10

Rounds: 1

Time Per Round: 24 Hours Per Round

Round 1

Voting


Arguments

  • Round 1 | Position: For
    edited November 2017
    Hmm, no takers? You can only post 1 argument during the whole debate, so just keep editing your posts. I will do the same. We should also send messages back and forth.

    1.1: @Evidence Indeed. Now we just need to wait for takers. 

    1:2: @NorthSouthKorea I presume you haven't put much time into researching the flat Earth. The flat Earth has a dome and ice wall which prevents people from falling off the edge.  
    (the latter gives other proofs of a flat earth)
    1:3: @Natbarons I already addressed your arguments. Way before you posted them. And in this debate
     
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    Beautifully done @SilverishGoldNova ; ..I love the "Here comes the sun" video, real good proof there.

    "The most undeniable proof, .. "   video, .. the quarter experiment angle of the camera to the flatness of the table seems off to me, do we have a better video of that?
    The other one is the sun getting smaller video, I never witnessed this?
    Other than that, what's there to debate? The Earth is flat, and we been lied to for all them years.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    I don’t believe that the Earth is flat.

    1) If the Earth is Flat, airplanes, ships, etc. would fall off the Earth or not be able to go around the Earth.

    2) The Earth’s rotation may be different or the Earth wouldn’t rotate with a flat Earth.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 199 Pts
    edited November 2017
    I guess I'll come over on this debate, but as a 3rd party who'll point out arguments that ignore something. (I personally don't believe the Earth is flat, and never will. But I might mainly argue against Round Earth arguments that seem empty.)

    @northsouthkorea The flat earth theory is actually not what you might think; it's more in depth than a mere disk.

    Think of the Flat Earth more like a snow globe, with a dome. Instead of rotating, the Flat Earth model suggests the sun and moon hover over the Earth, and circle around, which creates day and night.

    Also, they claim airplanes curve to make it seem like the Earth is round. If you want my vote, you'll need to research a bit about this topic before posting, bring evidence that proves this wrong, and show us which side is right.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    natbaronsnatbarons 88 Pts
    edited November 2017
    The Earth is not flat. Their are images from NASA and other organizations, etc. possibly which show that the Earth is round. Also, countries and companies and investing a large amount of money possibly due to space being real and the Earth’s shape
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    edited November 2017
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 9 Points

    Total Points (Against): 4 Points

    Explanation:  I had posted numerous arguments in favor of a flat Earth. Unfortunately the disagreeing side never posted any arguments or rebuttals to that. They both posted the NASA arguments, which were refuted many times by me including in this debate. North brought up the edge argument, which was shutdown (by someone who didn't even technically agree with the flat Earth and me). They also posted no sources. Conduct and Spelling/Grammar were relatively equal, so both get the same
     
  • Vote
    melefmelef 53 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Persuasive Argument (For): 2 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 1 Points
    Conduct (For): 1 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 1 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 2 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 1 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 1 Points

    Total Points (For): 5 Points

    Total Points (Against): 6 Points

    Explanation: Both sides provided some what persuasive arguments. For provided some what good sources and evidence, mostly or all some what credible videos while Against provided some or no sources and/or evidence. Conduct and spelling grammar were good for both sides, but there was some what better conduct from against.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    feafea 76 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 0 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 0 Points

    Total Points (For): 5 Points

    Total Points (Against): 0 Points

    Explanation: Silver provided many great arguments and sources. Against provided basically no sources and gave no effort into arguing. They both clung to the NASA photos argument which was refuted very early on by SilverishGoldNova, with Korea also bringing up the edge argument, and Silver responded with great videos with great evidence to prove the dome and ice wall.

    In conclusion, Silver had provided many great arguments, and Korea/Nat made absolutely no effort to maintain their position. Great debate, and best wishes to you all!
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    FascismFascism 247 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 9 Points

    Total Points (Against): 4 Points

    Explanation: Every point the opposition made was refuted, and not defended adequately. All of them were already proven wrong, and no further measures were taken to bring these topics properly into the argument. They were simply mentioned with no defensive refutations. 

    There was extensive evidence on the proposition, which was not refuted. The opposition only had one piece of evidence, which was refuted. 

    Both sides did not have any behavioural issues. 

    The spelling and grammar on both sides did not result in incomprehensible arguments. 
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 1 Points
    Conduct (For): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 0 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 1 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 0 Points

    Total Points (For): 4 Points

    Total Points (Against): 1 Points

    Explanation: There were only 2 people who did come in for Round Earth arguments, but they lacked any real substance, only saying "This is true", without any links, and only using 2 sentences. Because only Flat Earth had substance, I'm forced to award full Argument points.

    Only Flat Earth's side had any sources, but one point was nothing but videos (letting them do arguments, thus I skipped), and some photos lacked a background, making them seem fake. These weren't contested, so I'm awarding 1 point for Sources.

    The poster of this debate purposefully excludes users who he says commit fallacies. I don't know what happened when they first met, nor do I care enough to go check, but I just feel like Round Earth should get 1 Conduct point.

    Neither side spoke gibberish or had extensive spelling errors, so neither side will get points on that front.

    Total Points:

    Flat Earth: 4
    Round Earth: 1

    [PS, I still reject Flat Earth. Please don't put me in any memes or bring me to any more of these Flat Earth debates.]
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 1 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 7 Points

    Total Points (Against): 3 Points

    Explanation: Explanation: I have been away for a long time. Just busy with... life. From gulliable glober to flat Earth (Im in the PM)

    Arguments and Sources: There were 2 people who argued in opposition. Unfortenantely for them there arguments were pre-refuted. Along with the one piece of evidence they showed.

    The only arguments they had were NASA images and the edge. NASA imagery was the one piece of evidence they had, and it was pre-refuted by @SilverishGoldNova .

    Their other argument was the edge, which was also pre-refuted. So both of their arguments were pre-refuted. They didn't even try to defend their position, essentially. 

    Silver used extensive evidence, which they didn't try to refute, and the one piece of evidence they provided was pre-refuted. 

    Conduct: Silver stated that he purposefully disregards the arguments of people who he thinks will commit fallacies. Otherwise conduct was relatively equal.

    Spelling and Grammar were relatively equal. I'll give both sides points
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflat
  • Vote
    namemcnamenamemcname 63 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 0 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 0 Points

    Total Points (For): 5 Points

    Total Points (Against): 0 Points

    Explanation: I don't think the Earth is flat. But I do think that Against made absolutely no attempt at arguing or refuting @SilverishGoldNova 's points. Both of Korea and Nat's arguments were pre-addressed by him, the same goes with the one piece of evidence they provided. Meanwhile Silver provided extensive evidence which was never refuted. I would refute it now but debate time is over.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 0 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 0 Points

    Total Points (For): 5 Points

    Total Points (Against): 0 Points

    Explanation: ^
    SilverishGoldNova
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 9 Points

    Total Points (Against): 4 Points

    Explanation: All in all another blowout for the flat earthers with a surprising devil's advocate(?) refutation from @PowerPikachu21!
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 2 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 1 Points
    Conduct (For): 1 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 1 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 6 Points

    Total Points (Against): 5 Points

    Explanation: As others stated, I am not supportive of flat earth theory, but award the points to them in this debate.

    they did lose some points with me on conduct for mentioning other users upfront. The sources provided were comprehensive, but many were not from reliable sources.  Still better though than cons side which offered no sources at all.
    the arguments were better by pro, since the other side didn't really refute the arguments well.

    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflatEvidence
    WhyTrump - a good question
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch