frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

Flat Earth vs Spherical Earth

Opening Argument

Position: For
edited February 14 in Earth Science
First Argument: Acceptance
Second Argument: Arguments
After That: Rebuttals, Counter-Rebuttals, ETC

No ad hominem or trolling
  1. Is the Earth flat?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      22.22%
    2. No
      77.78%
  2. Are we all just worthless monkeys on a spinning ball rocketing around the sun at 66,000 mph?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      44.44%
    2. No
      55.56%
  3. Specifically a sun rocketing around a galaxy, which is going around nothingness faster than light?

    9 votes
    1. Yes
      44.44%
    2. No
      55.56%
"I have left my Christian Religion, and realized what all Organized Religions have in common: "to replace our One and only Possible Creator God with their own version of god".- Evidence, on this website

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

If you are an adult, there is no reason for you to keep believing in things like Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Cleveland Browns, The Arizona Coyotes, The Big Bang, Evolution, or the Sphere Earth Theory


Debra AI Prediction

Against
Predicted To Win
67%
Likely
33%
Unlikely

Details +


1 Days  16 Hours  6 Minutes  46 Seconds  
Until Voting


Debate Type: Lincoln-Douglas Debate


Opponent: WilliamSchulz

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round

Affirmative Constructive

Cross Examination - Affirmative

Negative Constructive

Cross Examination - Negative

First Affirmative Rebuttal

The Negative Rebuttal

The Second Affirmative Rebuttal


Arguments

  • Affirmative Constructive | Position: For
    Round 1 is for acceptance only.
    "I have left my Christian Religion, and realized what all Organized Religions have in common: "to replace our One and only Possible Creator God with their own version of god".- Evidence, on this website

    http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

    If you are an adult, there is no reason for you to keep believing in things like Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Cleveland Browns, The Arizona Coyotes, The Big Bang, Evolution, or the Sphere Earth Theory
  • Cross Examination - Affirmative | Position: Against
    I accept this debate, best of luck.
  • Negative Constructive | Position: Against
    Okay, to begin the spherical Earth, it is important to note that the Earth is not completely spherical, There are some bulging points, namely near the Equator. In this debate, I will show how the Earth is round by addressing key points and correcting misconceptions.

    Here is an image of why the Earth is not completely spherical:

    Image result for round earth images

    However, this can not be taken as fact that the Earth is flat. Here are a list of arguments why the Earth is not Flat:

    1. The Moon and Its Cycles.

    Flat Earth believers will try to show that the sun and moon rotate, but have no conclusive evidence to show for the moon's cycles. When the moon waxes and wanes, the moon is a result of the moon's motion as well. Scientists have never seen the dark side of the moon, and this is because on the date when the dark side shows, we are in a new moon phase. 

    Image result for moon revolving around earth

    It is important to know that this occurs because the moon is on an axis and therefore the moon's revolutions can occur. Because the moon is in the shape of a crescent and a round shape, in addition to the moon's shadow, the Earth must be spherical.

    Second, with the moon, we have what are known as lunar and solar eclipses. The sun is exactly in position with the moon, and when the moon blocks the sun for a single instant, an eclipse will occur. This is impossible under flat earth measures, as the moon and sun orbit as such. 

    Image result for flat earth revolution

    In no way does this show how an eclipse or moon patterns can occur, yet in a spherical pattern, this can occur due to rotation and the fact that Earth is on an axis. 

    Image result for eclipse pattern rotation

    Alignment has to be perfect, so this only occurs usually once or twice a year per lunar and solar, and with many different types, such as hybrid, partial, and full, it is in conclusion that because of the nature of the eclipse and that it is not full every time, the earth has to be spherical in order for eclipses to differ in time and amount.

    2. Star Constellations:

    If the Earth is flat, then why don't we see every star constellation. Well, star constellations change over time, we can see Orion's belt in the winter and Ursula in the summer. Because of rotation and location to the equator, we see different constellations as a result of our place. Here is an image to show this. 
    Stargazing on a flat Earth

    stargazing on a round Earth

    3. Elevation

    If we had elevation on a flat Earth, we would be able to see everything from a greater height. However, this is untrue, from a lower elevation, we can not see as much as a person at a higher elevation. On a flat Earth, we should be able to see everything regardless of height, but on a round Earth, perspective makes more sense. 

    point of view on a flat Earth

    point of view on a round Earth

    4. The Horizon

    I know this is a major issue for people, but as noted in previous debates, in certain locations, man can perform tasks in order to see above 30 miles by ascending a mountain, going on top of a skyscraper, or in a plateau region. As previously mentioned with elevation, we can see more because we are higher up than a person down below. One common argument is that objects on the horizon are not covered, making the Earth flat. However, we must take refraction out of the question, and show that any images has some degree of curvature. From 3 miles, we can only see 1.5 feet of curvature, incredibly hard to detect. Next, why would objects disappear over the horizon, like the sun, and boats. 

    Image result for sun over the horizon
    Image result for boat over the horizon

    This is certainly not because of swells, as some flat earthers will claim, swells can not cover 60 feet in the ocean. That is the equivalent of a 4 story building, which is not how the ocean functions. Rather, objects over the horizon will begin to disappear, most notably the sun, as it goes across the globe and into another part of the world. This is precisely why we have the international date line, because the sun's movement across a spherical earth must work as shown. 

    5. The Discovery of Other planets:

    "The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics—specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances—our planet is the same.

    In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show that other planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they take this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.

    In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it. He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet—a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept, as it challenged a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.

    A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (our sun would have to behave quite differently to accommodate the flat-earth theory) and what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets' orbits and the effects of gravity). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it."

    Source: https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round#page-12 ;

    6. Gravity


    Some people try to disprove gravity, but gravity attracts objects to a larger object. On a flat earth, this would be impossible, as gravity would not be in the center of any mass to pull on. For a spherical earth, gravity pulls objects to a unified source, the core of the Earth. Because of this, when we jump, we are pulled down, not from our own weight, but because gravity has a pulling effect on our bodies. In space, there is no gravity, which allows for freedom of movement, but on Earth, we have a force that keeps us from Super manning off the edge of a building and flying. 

    Image result for gravity on a round earth


    All objects have weight, and therefore, the Earth and the Sun must be attracted to a black hole or a star with greater gravity than our planet. (Comes from Einstein BTW)


    7. History of Space:


    In order to prevent any debates about images from space, let us instead focus on the history of space. Not only did we land a man on the moon with images to prove this, but Russia sent the first man into space and orbit before successfully returning. Flat Earth believers will try to show that because of the parabola visible on takeoff, there must be a barrier, but this is untrue. We can not see into space, but the parabola rips into space and allows us a brief glance at flight into space. 

    Image result for man on the moon


    One might try to disprove the shadows, or note the lighting, or the flag position. Remember, the moon still has gravity, and we do have moon rocks in NASA's collections. The flag is waving because the moon's gravity still has an effect on it that can not be prevented. 


    Image result for first man into space

    Read the article on the right about the Soviet officer, it should be quite helpful.

    Feel free to rebut some of this information, I hope that these seven proofs have shown the roundness of the Earth. 

    GooberrySilverishGoldNovaPogue
  • The Negative Rebuttal | Position: For
    edited February 16
    Thanks. In this debate, I will attempt to prove that we don't live on a spinning ball which is spinning at 1,000 mph, rocketing around the sun at 66,000 mph, which is blasting around a galaxy at faster than light which is inturn blasting around a magical great attractor faster than light.

    But instead a flat Earth. 

    I will post my arguments, my opponent will then post theres, and then from there we will go to rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, etc etc.

    1. Gyroscopes

    Lets just put this simply. Gyroscopes are one of the easiest proofs that we live on a flat Earth, and not a spinning rocketing ball.



    Lets get onto the next argument.

    2. Skylines and Islands (Curvature demonstrations)


    I only expect a response for the curvature tests. That is it. But, read the whole book if you are interested in this subject.

    Anyone who has seen a mirage can verify that the Chicago Skyline phenomenon is NOT due to a mirage, btw.


    3. No evidence of curvature

    Now that we have already shown that there is no curvature via long distance observations, I think it's time to clear some things up.

    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. We also have images showing no curvature from 121K feet, and 317K Feet.



    Many images allegedly showing curvature from similar heights have been shown to simply be hoaxes, or were blatantly recorded using a fish eye lense. 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. 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".

    Edit: @WilliamSchulz I forgot to add my videos. I apologize.





    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

    And there we have it, some simple, undeniable proofs we live on a flat Earth. Any questions? I await your response and I will get to your arguments ASAP.
    LibertineStatesWilliamSchulzErfisflatGooberry
    "I have left my Christian Religion, and realized what all Organized Religions have in common: "to replace our One and only Possible Creator God with their own version of god".- Evidence, on this website

    http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

    If you are an adult, there is no reason for you to keep believing in things like Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Cleveland Browns, The Arizona Coyotes, The Big Bang, Evolution, or the Sphere Earth Theory
  • First Affirmative Rebuttal | Position: For
    It seems that everytime I post something, It gets flagged as a fallacy by some random glober. I'm probably gonna get the 500 fallacies badge.

    It kinda feels like those clowns at d.org who claimed everything I posted was automatically fake news.

    Thank you for your arguments. I will go ahead and respond to your arguments and I await your response to mine.

    I can see that you have gotten all of these arguments from Popsci.com. I have responded to that article multiple times.

    The easiest one to refute is your last one. Lets start from there.

    1. How exactly does a news story claiming we have launched a human into space prove the globe Earth? Do we have any photographs from there, things like that? Until then this argument is irrelevant.

    2. This argument is really just a hasty generalization fallacy. While it may be true that those other objects according to those accounts you mentioned, claiming that the Earth cannot be flat because Jupiter's moons appeared spherical during observations is like claiming that the square in the middle of my profile picture is actually a circle because it is surrounded by 8 other circles.

    No flat Earther I am aware of even believes that space is real, but rather, the stars are a part of a "firmament".

    3. Star constellations

    My opponent claims that all constellations should be visible if the Earth were flat. He seems to have no understanding of perspective. Objects overhead are high, as they move away from us they appear to drop. Just as the railroad tracks appear to move into one another, the tops of the telephone poles appear to get lower. eventually the pole blends in with the horizon. The same thing happens with star constellations. Got it?


    4. The Horizon

    "From 3 miles, we can only see 1.5 feet of curvature". Right. And I provided tests from hundreds of miles, which means we should definently notice the curvature.

    And yes, it is certainly not due to ocean swells, it is due to perspective.

    If you pay close attention, you can notice this.

    - Very interesting. We can see the boats when we zoom back in. 

    This shows this is actually simple flat Earth proof.

    5. Gravity

    Gravity does not exist. Rather, density and buoyancy are independent forces which cause this to happen. For example, if we are to drop something like, for example, a book, it will fall as it is more dense than the air in which surrounds it. If we drop a balloon, it will rise, because the helium in the balloon is less dense. Got it?


    6. Moon phases and eclipses.

    The explaination for eclipses is simple, there is an object that is unseen by human eyes called Rahu.


    Moon phases have nothing to do with reflection of sunlight. Infact, it has been proven through experiment the moon emits its own light.


    7. Seeing farther from higher.

    There is a guy who has done a full debunk on the popsci article, I have watched the entire series, and I recommend you watch it too, or atleast, this video.
     
    ErfisflatGooberryPogue
    "I have left my Christian Religion, and realized what all Organized Religions have in common: "to replace our One and only Possible Creator God with their own version of god".- Evidence, on this website

    http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

    If you are an adult, there is no reason for you to keep believing in things like Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Cleveland Browns, The Arizona Coyotes, The Big Bang, Evolution, or the Sphere Earth Theory
  • The Negative Rebuttal | Position: Against
    Hello and thank you for your arguments! I am sorry that people are spam fallacy(ing) you, it is something that I find distasteful as well. In the meantime, while I got my round earth arguments from the site, I used my own words save in one instance and created my own at the end. Let's begin, this could take a while.

    "Thanks. In this debate, I will attempt to prove that we don't live on a spinning ball which is spinning at 1,000 mph, rocketing around the sun at 66,000 mph, which is blasting around a galaxy at faster than light which is inturn blasting around a magical great attractor faster than light."

    Even if we did perchance live on a flat Earth, we would still be rocketing around the sun at 66,000 miles per hour and around a galaxy. This changes nothing here. 

    The Gyroscope Argument: 

    I saw the video, and it did seem convincing, but there was no experiment shown with the spherical Earth, just an assumption that the degree of rotation would shift by 15 degrees. However, this gyroscope does concede a critical point, that Earth at least has a diagonal axis running through the middle of it. In order to maintain position, the gyroscope has to remain tilted, similar to our spherical Earth. Why is this important? This changes the way we see curvature, not on a round Earth that is not tilted, but one that is on an axis and slightly shifted, totally changing calculations, which I will use later to negate your calculations. 

    Atlantean Conspiracy:

    Unfortunately, I can not go through every argument, but I will name a few key ones that stand out.

    (If anyone wants to view > (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html)

    Argument 60:

     "Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center."

    Yes, the horizon will always be parallel, but this does not mean the Earth is flat, the way we see the horizon, it is impossible to see the horizon itself dip down because that would require that we see over the horizon. Maybe an image will help.
    Image result for trying to see over the horizon images

    If we could see over the horizon, that would be great, but we can't. Because the horizon minimally dips away from us, we would have little way of telling than sending an object over the horizon, which I have proved in the constructive with boats and the sun. It would be trying to see over a curve, you can see before the curve, but it is impossible to see the dip-down, as noted by my height argument in Const. 1.

    Also, I have an interesting strategy that helps me find flat curvature amounts. If you check the debate Is Earth a Ball, Erf posted a picture of the NYC skyline 48 miles away and said that we would need to see 1536 feel of curvature. How did he get this? Let me show, and then I will show how I got your 66.6.

    Take 48 miles and wrongly multiplying it by water refraction of 1.33. Next, multiply it by 48 miles again to create a plane of vision. Then divide by 2, since flat earth believers use triangles and our perception on one object is that of a triangle. Then, account for any elevation changes and bam! 

    Calculations. 48*1.33*48/2 > 1532.16! Assuming that the person was at sea level, this is the closest calculation possible to 1536. 

    Your Amount: Luckily, your number is more sophisticated, and multiplies by a more modest 1.026, which is air refraction, but still can be found on elevation circumstances.

    Calculations: 10*1.026*10/2 > 51.3 feet of C
    Calculations: 20*1.026*20/2 > 205.3 feet of C

    From this, it is easy to say that if the Earth believer is tracing a line between 10-20 miles and curvature is 66.6, this makes an easy problem. The miles he is working with is 11.395 miles, use my calculations to see for yourself. 

    The issue here is that you use a parallel board, and not a plane, which negates the plane part of the argument! Thus, the same calculation, without the plane.

    Calculations: 11.395*1.026/2 > A much more modest 5.84 feet of visible curvature. From now on, since we view the horizon in a line, this will be my go to, and not the plane argument add on from the flat earth. 

    Thus this is the response to your curvature tests, but there is one more I will attack:

    Argument 69:

    "The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth."

    Once more, we are not seeing in triangles, or a plane. there is no 170 feet of curvature necessary, though this number is more modest than most that I have seen.

    Calculations: 60*1.026/2 > 30.78 feel of curvature. 

    Now apply elevation, it is not impossible for you to see below the horizon with higher elevation, and I will use the same image to show this.

    point of view on a round Earth

    The higher up one is, the more one can see more than a person at sea level! Thus, that 30 feet probably negates, since Manhattan's elevation is 22 feet. 30-22 > 8 feet is the possible margin of error, but because of elevation, this means nothing.

    Argument 70:
    "From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature."

    Here is the one instance I accuse you of false imagery, because I researched the location of the mountain, and despite originally confused with the distance, I saw the second city just a bit apart. The monument is really far away from Philly, but close enough to NYC to see buildings. However, lets look at your image.


    There is one answer, here is a map location of the park: Green Brook Township, NJ 08812

    Now, to see NYC, the viewer must face right, and see NYC, and there appears to be a city nearby. This would be impossible seeing Philly, because Philly is IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! South-West, as a matter of fact. This image is not one of Philly, it is of NYC's neighboring city in New Jersey across the bay called Jersey City. That or somebody C/P Philadelphia into the image, but that would be lame. Debunked.

    Moving on :)

    You say that you have images not showing Earth's curvature, a 317K feet image when is in space! Yeah, space begins at 50 miles, or about 264,000 feet, at least in the US. While the world sets it at 380K, because of differing measurements (metric system), this at least shows that if you use NASA images, then we take the 264,000 amount, thus proving the existence of space and the validity of images from NASA.

    For the curvature tests from these heights, you would still have to be higher, because even at 60 miles up, Earth is 25,000 miles, seeing curvature would still be minimalist, if at all. Here is one such image from the moon.
    Image result for earth from the moon images

    Just so you know, I got this image from NASA, not a photo shopped picture. I don't even think they HAD Photoshop in 1969, in addition, film screens were black and white back then, so they couldn't have possibly been filming it, otherwise, we would have conclusive evidence. Rather, they are using a camera to snap a colored picture, which was around at the time, thus proving the moon landings. And yeah, you can see a star in the left hand side. Because we view Earth upward, and this picture is downward, and because the moon doesn't have a magnetic, gravitational, or atmospheric layer, seeing stars is harder, plus the image is pointing down.

    BTW: Do you notice how half the Earth is covered? Good, because this also proves the moon's rotational patterns!

    Rebutting the Rebuttal!

    1. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with photographs, but keep in mind, this year was 1961, and the ENAIC computer was developed in 1948. Considering that that computer took the size of a room, there is no way anyone could put a video inside the plane, the only videos I can find released by the Russian government are here.



    2. "This argument is really just a hasty generalization fallacy. While it may be true that those other objects according to those accounts you mentioned, claiming that the Earth cannot be flat because Jupiter's moons appeared spherical during observations is like claiming that the square in the middle of my profile picture is actually a circle because it is surrounded by 8 other circles."

    Except we are talking about constellations, not profile images. If Jupiter's moons are spherical, then how can the Earth be flat? As we exist on Earth which is in space, everything must be spherical because as proved with Einstein's images, everything has gravity and mass, which weighs the object down in space. Jupiter's moons are in the same way, spherical because they have mass orbiting around an object with a larger mass. In addition, if we have a semicircle over us according to flat earth believers, then why don't we have a bottom portion?

    Second, what do you think of asteroids that have hit the Earth if there is no space where they came from?

    3. 
    "My opponent claims that all constellations should be visible if the Earth were flat. He seems to have no understanding of perspective. Objects overhead are high, as they move away from us they appear to drop. Just as the railroad tracks appear to move into one another, the tops of the telephone poles appear to get lower. eventually the pole blends in with the horizon. The same thing happens with star constellations. Got it?"

    Definition of Perspective: "the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point."

    Objects can't appear to drop because that is not caused by perspective. Perspective, as shown in the definition, involves how we see something in moment, like Orion's Belt. Perspective of stars does not change over time. That would be like if I took my backpack and laid it on the ground, and suddenly, within three months of laying around, it somehow disappears. No, there has to be a different factor at hand, namely Earth's rotation and a round Earth changing seasons. Second, "when viewed from a particular point supports my theory because Ursula and Orion's Belt are two different seasonal constellations, so they have to be viewed from a particular point, summer or winter! This is not caused by a shift in perspective, this is how we view them when a third factor, as mentioned, causes it to be so!

    4. 
    "From 3 miles, we can only see 1.5 feet of curvature". Right. And I provided tests from hundreds of miles, which means we should definently notice the curvature.

    And yes, it is certainly not due to ocean swells, it is due to perspective."

    This number is a bit higher than 1.5 > 3*1.026/2 > 1.539, but excusing that, take 317,000 feet up and convert to miles > 317,000 / 5280 = 60 miles (.03 for haters). Thus, we have a proportion to solve. (3/1.539 = 60/X > 3X = 92.34 > 30.78 feet of curvature visible. Certainly impressive, but inaccurate, since that only judges the way up to that point, not the radius around it, we'll use a plane because we are judging an entire area of horizon drop, not a single ground to horizon line calculation. Now, solve a second proportion, Gooberry noted that atop a 874 foot skyscraper in Houston, one could see for 32-36 miles (34 averg.). Convert distance here to 317,000 feet. 874/34 = 317,000/X > 874X=10778000 > 12331.8 miles. Impressive, but we have to again divide by 30 feet since that was the original proportion for 3 miles 12331.8 miles/30 > 411.06 miles. This is how many miles we can see, now use my previously found formula to find curvature. (BTW, I did this all by myself and a calculator, no other source! #MathPride)

    Calculations: 411.06*1.026/2 > 210.87 miles of visible curvature, which would be minimalist, considering Earth's 25000 miles curves proportionate to its sphere shape. 

    Also, the boat does not go over the horizon, it merely stays on the horizon.

    5. 
    "Gravity does not exist. Rather, density and buoyancy are independent forces which cause this to happen. For example, if we are to drop something like, for example, a book, it will fall as it is more dense than the air in which surrounds it. If we drop a balloon, it will rise, because the helium in the balloon is less dense. Got it?"

    But then, the independent forces would collide with each other, thus causing random areas of 0-gravity, which is impossible. Gravity acts upon the mass (and density) of an object, which is why denser things fall, and less dense objects rise. Gravity acts proportionate to area of an object and its weight, not buoyancy, which only acts on an objects flotation on water.

    6. The reason the moon emits its own light is because the sun's light bounces off the moon and is visible to people on Earth. Without this, our tidal patterns would ultimately change.

    I know this is a lot, but Good Luck on the final counter rebuttal, and thanks for the debate!






    qipwbdeoPogue
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