Instigator / Pro
40
1461
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#40

The earth is a not a spheroid

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
15
Better sources
10
16
Better legibility
9
9
Better conduct
9
4

After 9 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Type1
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
44
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description

Natural science, which is rightfully the foundation of science, is the observation, measurement, and testing of the natural world around us. Valid science involves scalable, empirical, measurable and testable experiments and observations. Using this as a pretext, please prove that the earth is a ball beyond all doubt. I will argue that the earth is not a spheroid.

Round 1
Pro
#1
The spherical earth is considered as fact by institutions, scientists, and about 2/3 of the plane's inhabitants. This widespread "fact" that debatably nobody has empirically observed contradicts another fact that nearly everyone has empirically observed, that the surface of water is flat and level when unmanipulated. If 66% of the earth's surface consists of water, and that water is always measurably flat, it follows that the earth is not a spheroid. Unless the opponent has conclusive evidence against this fact that is.
Con
#2
The reason why the oceans appear to be "flat" is because from our perspective, we are too close to the earth and too small to notice any curvature. A common analogy for this is the ant on the balloon, which I'm sure you've heard before, wherein the ant can traverse a curved surface without noticing any curvature because it is simply too small relative to the balloon to notice that it is walking across a round object.
Here is a video of analysis which indicates that there is indeed curvature of the ocean's surface.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The ant on a ball is a valid analogy, when the ant is on the surface, but if that ant was raised, he would see a horizon that slowly drops and start to curve. Yet all unedited amatuer balloon footage show an eye level and flat horizon, even at over 100,000 feet. (1)

Saying that the earth is too big to see the curve is an attempt to make the ball earth model unfalsifiable, because of perceived lack of scalability. When in fact the curve should be very measurable. My opponent doesn't seem to know how much curvature there should be.

The ant, were he of comparable intelligence to the average human, and were on a ball comparable to the earth, would be aware of the convexity of the surface. The opponent omits any measurements in his argument, outside of posting a 40 minute video with no explanation outside of “here is the elusive curve”, paraphrasing of course.

After a few minutes investigation, the YouTuber that made the analysis admits he made a critical error in his analysis and moves to dismiss it with the statement: “back to the drawing board!”.(2)

The original video actually proves the earth is flat, for an ironic twist!

Con
#4
NASA has a live video feed from the ISS which shows the earth, and they are clearly not using a fish eye lens because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles.

Saying that the earth is too big to see the curve is not an attempt to make the globe unfalsifiable, because you really couldn't detect the curvature with your bare senses if the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size.

Here is an approximation of the earth's curvature but the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere so this is not 100% accurate (the curvature varies in different regions because the earth is flatter towards the poles and bulges at the equator)

Round 3
Pro
#5
"1@@NASA has a live video feed from the ISS which shows the earth, and they are clearly not using a fish eye lens because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles.

The opponent drops his argument from the video that failed to show curved water, understandably, and now gives us another video, not of the earth as a ball, but alleged curvature from the ISS. He claims that "because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles" it cantc be a fisheye lens. Upon viewing the link, it is clear that the video is filmed with a fisheye lens, because fisheye lenses curve straight lines. Literally within seconds, I saw a solar panel that was curved, amongst other things that should be straight. Don't just take my word for it, see for yourself. Here is the screenshot I took about three seconds after I clicked the link.

"Saying that the earth is too big to see the curve is not an attempt to make the globe unfalsifiable, because you really couldn't detect the curvature with your bare senses if the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size. "

Again we see no numbers or math, just an appeal to popularity fallacy. The video of the earth from over 100,000 feet was also ignored.

"Here is an approximation of the earth's curvature but the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere so this is not 100% accurate (the curvature varies in different regions because the earth is flatter towards the poles and bulges at the equator)

And the argument is capped off with a "the earth is an oblate spheroid because Wiki and Quora say so", paraphrasing of course. No evidence, just an appeal to false authority fallacy.

Con
#6
He claims that "because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles" it cantc be a fisheye lens. Upon viewing the link, it is clear that the video is filmed with a fisheye lens
Then why isn't the curvature of the earth distorted in the image you provided?

Again we see no numbers or math, just an appeal to popularity fallacy.
That wasn't an appeal to popularity fallacy. IF the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size, you wouldn't notice any curvature from the ground with just your senses.

The video of the earth from over 100,000 feet was also ignored.
If you look closely, you can actually see the curvature but it's hard to notice with the camera tumbling through the vacuum of space from just above the atmosphere.

Also, what do you think surrounds the earth? Many flat earthers believe in some type of firmament or dome.

And the argument is capped off with a "the earth is an oblate spheroid because Wiki and Quora say so", paraphrasing of course. No evidence, just an appeal to false authority fallacy.
Once again, I am not appealing to anything. I am establishing how much curvature there should be and the shape of the earth according to mainstream science because you said I don't seem to know how much curvature there should be.

Round 4
Pro
#7

He claims that "because you can see the lack of perturbation when they look at the earth from different angles" it cantc be a fisheye lens. Upon viewing the link, it is clear that the video is filmed with a fisheye lens
Then why isn't the curvature of the earth distorted in the image you provided?

It is. It is distorted so that the flat horizon line appears curved. This was the original point. NASA uses fisheye lenses in their cameras, so that we almost never see a flat horizon. Again, in the original video that I posted of a high altitude balloon that got over 110,000 feet, there are two cameras, a wide angle lens (fisheye) and a standard camera, even then, all lenses are curved glass, so, depending on the location of the line relative to the center of the camera, you may experience distortion. Then you have various trick photography like green screens, where NASA takes high altitude drone footage background and put it on a backdrop with a model ISS in the foreground.

Again we see no numbers or math, just an appeal to popularity fallacy.
That wasn't an appeal to popularity fallacy. IF the earth was it's widely accepted shape and size, you wouldn't notice any curvature from the ground with just your senses.

The claim is given no supporting evidence, and is an opinion. Alternatively, when looking across miles of water, say, 60 miles, objects should be hidden behind the alleged curve of the earth.

The video of the earth from over 100,000 feet was also ignored.
If you look closely, you can actually see the curvature but it's hard to notice with the camera tumbling through the vacuum of space from just above the atmosphere.

No, sorry, as I pointed out, if you saw a curved earth it was from the fisheye camera, which was mounted opposite the extended pole from the standard camera.

Also, what do you think surrounds the earth? Many flat earthers believe in some type of firmament or dome.

Yes, I believe there is a dome covering the earth, some call it the firmament. There is extensive evidence that suggests this including many observations.

And the argument is capped off with a "the earth is an oblate spheroid because Wiki and Quora say so", paraphrasing of course. No evidence, just an appeal to false authority fallacy.
Once again, I am not appealing to anything. I am establishing how much curvature there should be and the shape of the earth according to mainstream science because you said I don't seem to know how much curvature there should be.

So how much curve should there be in just 3 miles? 57? What about 273 miles?

Con
#8
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
#9
Forward all points to the next round. I hope the contender is well. God bless.
Con
#10
Forfeited