Instigator
Points: 40

The earth is a not a spheroid

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 9 votes the winner is ...
Type1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 44
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
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!






Published:
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
Published:
"[email protected]@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.

Published:
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
Published:

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?




Forfeited
Round 5
Published:
Forward all points to the next round. I hope the contender is well. God bless.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Thank you. It wasn't a big deal but I was just stating something fmpov
#41
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
Fair enough. Your vote is sufficient for me now.
#40
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
An dropping of all arguments result in complete concession, therefore it would cause all of PRO's arg to go extended without any answers going into the final round. My RFD was sufficent fmpov due to practical debate laws, but I resubmit
#39
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Forefeit the debate
Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full forfeit so the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
#38
Added:
1st debate I saw where the party that forfeit probably will win.
#37
Added:
Close debate. I wonder who will win.
#36
Added:
--> @Tejretics
Proof that typos make RFD better
#35
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up. The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this. Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does provide some assessment of Pro's arguments and Con's responses, though it is mainly focused on Pro's arguments. While more explanation may be warranted (especially with regard to Con's positive argumentation), the voter provides sufficient detail to meet the standards by explaining that Con's material relies on trusting NASA data.
==================================================================
#34
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Both sides had extremely biased and/or unreliable sourcing. Voting tied by both sides being equally poor with Pro having a slight edge but such a small percent of their sources were reliable to deserve the vote.
Con forfeits because Pro brought enough reason to suspect what NASA says and why we should blindly trust what someone says when what we see inside Earth defies what we are told to not dare question because a more qualified bunch of shadowy figures in a government agency says we are wrong about it.
Con keeps trying to make it clear that Pro is a conspiracy theorist who has to prove more but it is actually equal BoP on the round earther as the flat earther and Pro never met his BoP beyond giving an extremely strange vision of a flat earth from a supposed satellite which Pro attacks with grace.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate does not meet the definition of a full-forfeit, and so can be moderated. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments in the debate, assess their relative strength, and explain how that strength imbalance led to a determination to award points. These elements are met for the most part. What is missing however, is necessary detail on how the voter assessed the relative strength of Pro's key argument, namely, "Pro brought enough reason to suspect what NASA says." This is not an analysis of Pro's argument itself. For instance, how do Pro's reasons convince the voter to suspect what NASA says?
************************************************************************
#33
Added:
--> @drafterman
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drafterman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con really did not put forth much of an effort in what should have been a slam dunk debate. Also, forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points were insufficiently explained. It is not enough to simply say that Con failed to put in enough effort. Specific arguments and counterarguments must be analyzed and weighed. That is not done here.
************************************************************************
#32
Added:
Challenge me to this debate.
#31
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
How was conduct awarded?
Instigator
#30
Added:
That is an abstractly justified statement.
#29
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Truth is an abstract quality meant to describe something concrete.
Instigator
#28
Added:
Truth is abstract,
#27
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeit in the debate results in all arguments going extended and no answer/rebuttals. I prefer PRO
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Alright guys nice debating.
Here's my voting.
Arguments
Pro is arguing that the earth isn't a spheroid because water surface is flat and this is the only argument for the resolution in the opening round. Con says water surface appears flat because like ant on balloon, walking along balloon seems like walking on flat surface, but balloons are not flat surfaces similar to the water surface of the earth. If the balloon can be mistaken, so can the earth...this analogy made it very easy to understand how Pro's only argument that "water looks flat" is explained by a spherical earth. Pro says "The ant on a ball is a valid analogy, when the ant is on the surface." Pro concedes that Con's analogy is valid, which makes me think that every time I've looked out on a flat ocean vista, I'm just a tiny old critter trying to traverse this water covered balloon of an earth. So Pro says asks why unedited amatuer balloon footage show an eye level and flat horizon, even at over 100,000 feet to which Con replied with the live stream from the ISS from the Official NASA Website which impressingly shows a quite spherical earth.
My vote is hanging on this last point, because if Pro doesn't give me any good reason to doubt NASA, the live video I watched from NASA's actual website seals this up for Con. So Pro has to dig deep and...he plucks out the idea that NASA is using a fish eye lense. Con says that in the live shot they are not using fisheye because of the lack of perturbations from each angle, so I clicked on this link twice to see the ISS at different times of day and Con was correct, what one would usually see from a fisheye lens is a perturbation of the different angles and you simply don't see that on this live feed when you actually look at different angles at different times. The earth is clearly a massive sphere being captured by the ISS camera. As for Pro's "100,000 feet" footage, when Con said "if you look closely, you can actually see the curvature," he was right...it took me like three close watches, but the curve is definitely there, and this was Pro's own source. Even though Con forfeited two rounds, which is why they're being hit with conduct, they managed to convince me with their sources and valid analogies that what Pro was telling me about water doesn't refute a spherical earth at all, and Con showed Pro's source to prove curvature right along with Con's source.
I have to buy that water surface looks flat like surface of balloon to ant on balloon...look at live feed of a spherical water covered earth.
Arguments to Con
Sources
Con's ISS live feed is near insurmountable, and the fisheye point was won by Con BECAUSE of the source's credibility when I went to inspect it. It was used by Con to make his case that one can easily see the curvature of an earth covered in water and one need not worry about fisheye lenses, because the ISS provides other angles that are not fisheye perturbed. Pro never battled that point and what was worse is that Pro's source Pro used to show a flat earth when looking from 100,000 feet showed a little curvature and Con mentioned that. Since Con's ISS feed proved a curved earth and Pro's 100,000 feet source proved a curved earth, Con wins sources for using them to make his case and because Pro used sources counter to his claim Con wins sources.
Conduct
Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited twice, which is viewed as poor conduct. Pro on the other hand kindly posted every argument maintaining proper conduct throughout.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeit twice. This is poor conduct and evidence that Pro's arguments were convincing.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro argued well, but the arguments still fail to convince me because the claim being made was very specific and most of the arguments were simply implying that Con (and by extension his sources) are lying. I'm no fan of NASA, but even if they are lying, that by itself doesn't prove Pro's claim. It seems he got too busy attacking his opponent to remember the original point of his claim. Plus, most of his citations were screenshots he took himself and I'm definitely not seeing the same thing in those screenshots that he was. Sad that Con forfeited at the end.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Why would nasa lie they have no reson to
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The whole basis of this argument by the Pro is that NASA is lying. Even if they were there are plenty of others space agencies. There all also lots of private companies. If you still say they are all lying then this is a conspiracy theory, not an argument of fact.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Though Pro seems to have not learned kindergarten science, they constantly provided higher quality sources, facts, and arguments than Con, while Con rebutted all those sources and facts by playing the “What if?” game.
Conduct to Pro for Con’s forfeit.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro for forfeit.
Arguments to con. Con raised the argument that effectively the earth is very large, and as a result gives the appearance of being flat. Pro concedes this is a valid argument, and then suggests that this can’t be the case as balloons at altitude show no curvature - proceeding to show a video of a high altitude balloon that clearly shows curvature. This means con shows evidence to support an argument he claims is valid - and which refutes his position. That was devastating for pro. This was pointed out - and pro dismissed this as being from one camera (which he should have clarified) - however curvature is clearly visible in both the left and right hand aide camera.
Most of the remaining arguments from pro concern arguing about fisheye lenses. This argument can be discounted as pro makes no effort to explain his reasoning or providing any justification as to why his claims are true - specifically he claims that all video evidence can be explained by a fish eye lense, simply because the fish eye lense will curve images - he himself posted a video of a fish eye lense curving and straightening lines - as pro makes no effort to establish how fish eye lenses can produce the images he claims they can, merely establishing that they distort, this argument can largely be ignored.
As a result of pros self refutation, and lack of establishing much of a sensible argument to support his position: arguments go to con.
Sources go to con too: while con had a source that didn’t claim what he said, his source didn’t refute his position. Pro posted a citation that not only showed the opposite of what he said it did, but showed the very thing he said would invalidate his position. The remainder of pros sources appear to be mainly conspiracy videos - which inherently casts some doubt on the veracity of the claims.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up.
The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this.
Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.