Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Best Recent Content

  • Two Equifax executives will "retire" following massive data breach

    They were clearly asked to leave and it is likely they are still exposed to future letigation that equafax may encounter
  • Is time travel going to be possible?

    It is possible that it is possible; therefore, it is possible.
  • We live on a flat plane

    @Erfisflat the six mile test he's 2ft 7in above the land but the land is NOT at water level. Yet he tries to claim his camera is only 2ft 7in above water level. The waves are almost a foot tall and don't come over the lower bankment. Meaning the ground underneath the camera is many feet above sea level, and it's a lie.

    12ft total above sea level means 2ft removed from the bottom which looks about right assuming we take their word for putting the mirror at sea level.

    Rogers building is likely the same issue but we aren't given any pictures showing his camera position, we have to "take his word" for it.

    The bottom of Chicago across from lake Michigan is hidden, proof of the curvature! It's obvious from the camera angle that the picture was taken well above the water line. (some 15 meters if the article I read is correct but there's no pictures of the camera though is there?) However there are issues with the mirage effect. Here is a time lapse video showing the buildings rising and falling due to that same effect.

    Oahu from Kauai. First off I LOVE when you post pictures of half the sun being obscured by the curvature of the earth over a body of water. Taken from an Linhue airport 150' above water level, 83 miles means roughly 1000 feet of Oahu should be visible... which it is.

    Isle of man is just another case of no information of the elevation of the camera above water level, and the angle looking like it was shot well above sea level.

    Canigou with the sun obscured behind it because of the curvature of the earth. In this one you can see buildings at the bottom of the picture which must have been taken at a rather tall height. 

    You won't take anything from the NASA, but you consider it "proof" if any yahoo posts a picture that agrees with your confirmation bias even when it's obvious they are lying about the elevation of the camera above water level.
  • We live on a flat plane

    Erfisflat said:
    "How exactly did they measure 150 miles of water and the elevation of that water with just a camera and their eyes? I was referencing how FEs are usually normal citizens without access to thousands of dollars to spend on advanced equipment."

    You don't need very expensive equipment, just your eyes. If an object is supposed to be hidden by curvature, it should be impossible to see. Pretty simple. Of course it helps to learn the mathematics involved to figure out how much curvature there should be.

    "As I have stated , you can not just take their word for it. It is the same as taking nasa's word for something."

    Taking a government organization's word is far different from asking a random pilot or two. You also completely ignored the angle of attack argument, which is standard for all pilots and flights.

    "This is not high enough. You will need to be able to observe the planet as a whole to definitively determine if the world is flat or not."

    So your official position is that we can't see a curve... unless we see the whole ball? You do realize this is patently ridiculous right? How high do you have to be to see curvature? 

    " What if the Earth is not 25,000 miles in circumstance? Have you measured the earth yourself to come to this number? "

    I'm just going by what NAsA and the scientific community claim. If you would like to proclaim that the earth is much, MUCH bigger than that, I might agree, IF you offered some inkling of real evidence. 

    "Firstly, water is not flat. It is not solid, it is a liquid. It doesn't have an actual shape. If you place water in a sphere container, the water will conform to that shape. It will not curve, it will simply just conform to its mold. Water without a container, like the water seen in oceans, is not in a closed container. Therefore it levels out. "

    This is my whole point. Level means flat. Therefore, while the land will have hills, mountains, etc. the oceans are level.

    "Only the surface of water in an open container is flat. "

    Which means that the ocean's surface is flat, I'm glad were in agreement. Do you agree that most of the earth is ocean?

    "But even then there are waves and what have you that affect the appearance of the surface of water.

    It doesn't affect the overall dimensions of it's surface. 

    "Water changes form depending on its container. This does not mean "in all measurable circumstances."

    It doesn't affect the overall dimensions of it's surface. So, to recap, water takes the from of it's container, and finds and maintains a flat, level surface in all measurable circumstances.

    "Air balloons can only travel so high before you run out of oxygen."

    ??? Weather balloons don't need oxygen. This balloon reached 110,000 feet. The horizon stayed flat and eye level the whole ride. This contradicts the model you defend.

    You can not measure the entirety of the earth with your eyes, cameras, and rulers.

    Yes, yes you can. If the earth is a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, there should be a declination from any given point of 8" per mile squared. As we have agreed, water (the surface) is always relatively flat. Which means we shouldn't be able to see some things at some distances. There are several reported instances where can.

    "Google "attitude indicator". Not altitude. Just because you have not heard of something does not mean it doesn't exist."

    You saw I put attitude indicator plain as day. I did bring this point up, and I know full well what they are and how they work.

    I'm going to assume due to your response that you don't. 

     we can not trust the word of others. The entire reason why flat Earth theory exists is because certain people do not trust current science and do not take their word as a fact. Do not take pilots word either. Apply the same skepticism you treat astronauts with to every other group of people. 

    I have no reason to distrust random pilots who gain nothing from telling me the way they fly. I do have several reasons to distrust NASA, aside from me measuring the earth itself, whose entire existence ($18,000,000,000 yearly) depends wholly on the earth being a spinning ball. Thousands of people fly in planes. What reason do I have to distrust them? Or my own senses, since I myself have been on both commercial and single engine flights?

    "I don't quite understand why you bring up the angle of attack. It is simply an angle showing what direction the aircraft will be taking off. The plane isn't actually angled upwards it is just that specific part of the wing that is."

    Just to be clear,  you're suggesting that an airplane wing is angled slightly down during flight at cruising speed and altitude?

    "Again, why do you trust this number. It is a number created by NASA. Treating this math as true is treating NASA's measured size of the Earth as true as well."

    I don't, you do. That is presumably why you are here. Again, if you're suggesting the earth is bigger or smaller, some more evidence is needed, not just your say so.

    "Just because you don't have the ability to perform an observation does not mean the results of that observation can't be true. I also don't understand why you believe governments need to fake the existence of  a globe Earth. You do understand that USA is only one of many governments that support globe Earth. What benefit do governments receive from faking this?"

    We do have a means of performing an observation that directly contradicts the globe earth theory. By measuring the water, and it is always found to be relatively flat. Why they hide it is irrelevant, and a very long story.

    You simply dismissed my argument without providing evidence to support your own claim. In your previous statement you call me out for not providing evidence and then immediately make a huge claim with no evidence to back it. I did not provide evidence for this as I knew you would dismiss this argument regardless.

    There is substantial evidence that supports the flat earth, especially in the debate the earth is flat. So far you've just denied all of it.

    "Literally every single person on the planet has many things they don't know. I understand my point here may be irrelevant."

    Very, but there is no reason to believe that the earth comes between the sun and the moon. Selenelions prove that.

    Those planets are supposed to be much much farther apart. "A shred of evidence" is a huge exaggeration. With a good telescope you yourself can see these objects if you look at the right spot in the sky at night.

    Just because you see lights in the sky doesn't mean they are  physical terra  firma.

    Sorry It took so long to respond. 
    @DawnBringerRiven is completely unable to defend the globe Earth theory, so I assume that Dawn concedes completely to my argument. I will no longer reply to any comments that do not refute my current arguments. If no serious rebuttals are made toward my argument, then I will assume the globe  Earthers have given up on this debate all together. 
  • Is time travel going to be possible?

    There are many theories, but it is not likely even in the next 500 years. Maybe millions, but I do not think it will be possible, we can only wish.
  • We live on a flat plane

    @DawnBringerRiven ;

    "This argument originates from the Bedford experiment involving a seemingly flat river and three poles. Because of measurements being from optical observation, this experiment was flawed. This is because your eyes do not have perfect sight since your eyes assume all light only travels straight, but light actually bends and bounces from surface to surface. Mirages are a optical phenomenon due to the different densities of air causing different bendings of light A well known mirage effect is that the sun appears flattened when setting. Looming is another interesting mirage I first saw a looming mirage in a plane to London, when I saw a lot of boats forming a sky armada. Rather than believing my eyes and believing the Empire was about to strike, I thought about refraction. Now back to the Bedford experiment. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet (0.91 m) higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved."

    There is far more proof that water is flat than the bedford experiment. Refraction and mirages do not prove that water is not flat, unless you can explain how they do. 

    "As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet (0.91 m) higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved."

    What you are ONLY able to see is the vanishing point, a convergence point ONLY, your equipment end point, of its magnification point?LIMIT OF VIEW!!. Then the ship starts vanish to perspective/view... starting bottom/ up...keep in mind that if at that so called sinking or vanishing point moment you would taken a more powerful power magnification device...of whatever kind...that whole ship would POP UP WHOLE AND COMPLETE VIEW ..until again the end of its magnification view ends, and the vanishing point repeats itself again.. of which you the viewer will. I can imagine this is about to get dismissed as "perspective magic bs" but teva

    "Flat Earthers used pictures of the atmosphere being flat, so I assume I can counter them with pictures plus logic and sources. We have amateur pictures and videos, too. Ones that were made with absolutely zero affiliation to NASA and any other company. Pictures made by people with average income and normal civilian (non-government) jobs. Before we get to the pictures, consider the fish-eye effect, often utilised by flat earthers to dismiss any photographic evidence of a round Earth. However, an eye-level horizon line does not get distorted; looking at a flat earth with the horizon at eye-level does not produce a fish-eye effect. There are numerous images showing that there is a pronounced effect for an eye-level horizon, thus directly providing evidence against the flat earth. Here is an amateur video "

    It literaly says the curve is a fish eye lense. Now could you tell me at what height the photo is, because the image I showed was at 317,000 feet and what about this neat little one from 121,000Image result for 121000 feet
  • Atheism IS a Religion

    Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), It's a null value, it is not a belief, or a lack of caring. It's a simply binary question. Do you believe in god(s), a creator, supreme spiritual being, etc? 

    if yes, you are an theist
    If no, you are an atheist

    Now some take it a step further and say they believe god(s) doesn't exist, but this is just the same statement phrased with more certainty, as saying "I don't believe in god(s)" has the same meaning as "I believe god(s) don't exist". There is no difference in position between those two statements. 
  • Atheism IS a Religion

    @Evidence please don't start in with the word games...

    An atheist doesn't believe god(s) exist. (I find people who use "really", "truly", and "honestly" tend to be liars) Nor do we believe in your uncreated creator who you say isn't a god because there isn't a religion. Also just because you have knowledge of something doesn't mean it exists. 

    That being said, and I may regret this later, if there were no such thing as a theist, then no one could be an atheist.
  • Atheism IS a Religion

    Atheism is fundamentally different because Atheism lacks a need for faith without evidence. Atheism may share some of the same dogmatic qualities, but that does not mean it is a religions. Fundamentally, any true Atheist can justify their beliefs with solid material evidence. Obviously, religions relies on no such thing. If one asks a Christian why they believe something, they can't often respond with a scientifically article or a study, because their beliefs rest on faith. Not evidence unlike Atheism. 
  • Atheism IS a Religion

    Evidence said:
    @George_Horse @Coveny @JoePineapples ; @DawnBringerRiven ; @SilverishGoldNova I have a few questions for you my fellow debaters, and by the way, I love you guys and love reading your debates. Thank you for allowing me to be a part of it. Oh, and I apologize for my grade-school vocabulary, and thank God (the Only One True Infinite Creator), .. and the person who invented the spelling-checkerer!

    First, what Coveny said: It's a simply binary question. Do you believe in god(s), a creator, supreme spiritual being, etc? 

    if yes, you are an theist
    If no, you are an atheist

    Q. If there really, and truly was no God/gods to believe in, could you be an atheist?

    Careful how you answer!
    Of course you could, it's not about any of the thousands of gods actually existing or not, it's about what you do or don't believe. So if none of the gods do exist (extremely likely) you can still be;

    a) A theist, as long as you're with belief in one or more of those gods
    b) An atheist, as long as you're without belief in all of those gods

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | 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
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch