Best Recent Content - | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!

Best Recent Content

  • The Shape of the Earth (redone)

    @Erfisflat Regarding the senelion, it was explained (refraction) and predicted before it occurred.

  • The Shape of the Earth (redone)

    To make sure there is no dishonest misrepresentation of what the scientific method is, we should probably start with the question, and start formulating testable experiments that allow various topologies and geometries to be discounted. From here we can rapidly narrow down to one or two geometries, then can select the geometry that best fits the evidence and experiments.

    That’s #science.

    So let’s start off with the basics. We’re talking about geometry, so we can determine the geometry of the earth we are standing on by attempting to determine a single property:

    What is our orientation compared to all other observers.

    If up is the same for all observers, the earth is flat. If there are six different “ups” that are all 90 degrees different from any other: the earth is a cube, if the change in orientation for any observer is directly linearly proportional to distance, the earth is a sphere.

    So; a way to scientifically prove the geometry of the earth is by finding a test that allows us to determine the orientation of all observers.


    The best way of confirming the orientation is to have each observer measure the position of an object multiple observers can see at the same time. 

    You can do this with the sun, the moon or stars.

    Their observed location will be a product of where they actually are, combined with the observers orientation. The latter is what we are attempting to determine.

    If you make a number of measurements; you will see something interesting:

    No matter where you are, or what location you are, if two observers are 69 miles apart, in any direction, the sun, the moon, or the stars will be in exactly 1 degree different positions in the sky.

    On a flat surface this isn’t possible. As the object and each observer should form a triangle. Tan(o/a) shows that has you get further away from the object on the earths surface, the amount the angle changes decreases: ie: if you move 70 miles, you will have a bigger change in perceived angle if you are closest to the object than if you are 5000 miles away.

    While this effectively means that observers must be orientated 360 degrees in 3 dimensions. While this could be described by a football type geometry or a geodesic with many sides: as we’ve never seen any form of ridge these can all be discounted.

    So geometrically; this proves the earth is a sphere, as these measurements are not consistent with the geometry of a flat surface.

    So, now we can get into the realm of confirmations, this takes the form of measurements that are consistent with the earth being a sphere. We should see most observations being consistent with a the earth being a sphere, and a flat earth. Consistence here is based on geometry only without additional explanations or theories added.

    So let’s go through them: (I’m assuming people know how to use google: every thing on the list below can be confirmed with a quick google search).

    1.) all other planets appear to be spheres. If any of the other planets appeared flat, the idea that the earth were flat would be more plausible.

    2.) the sun appears to set for all observers on the earth. The times and nature is consistent with a spherical earth, but not flat.

    3.) There is a horizon for all observers, that objects appear to fall over, and tall buildings are obscured by. This is consistent with a spherical earth, and not with a flat earth.

    4.) the sun moves at a constant rate through the sky. This is consistent with the earth being a rotating sphere, and inconsistent with the earth being flat, and the sun rotating overhead. This is the principle of how sundials work:

    5.) the sunset is at locations inconsistent with a flat earth and consistent with a sphere: at the horizon on the equinox, the sun rises due east and sets due west. On a flat earth, as described by flat earthers, the sun would be north east and north west respectively.

    6.) the regions of earth that have daylight are consistent with a spherical earth: with a straight edged terminator.when the map of the earth is flattened, the regions of daylight and nighttime make no sense when the earth is flat, as some night time areas would be closer to the Sun than areas of day time. In addition on a flat earth, even a close sun would be higher over the horizon at all times due to perspective, meaning all parts of the world would be within line of sight of the sun.

    7.) lunar eclipses are always round: never a line, no matter when or where they occur. This is consistent with a spherical earth, and inconsistent with a flat earth.

    8.) pictures of earth, as a sphere, from space have been provided by multiple space agencies and governments hostile to each other, and a number of private organizations.

    9.) GPS satellite technology has been developed that is based off satellite signals being received in the sphere. Hundreds of disparate companies are involved with the development of the satellite, commercial GPS chips, test equipment for validating them, etc: and gps is confirmed to work in the ocean, in the desert and in the arctic. This is not consistent with a flat earth, and is consistent with a spherical earth.

    10.) Gravity is measured to be stronger North/south by an amount consistent with gravity being cancelled out by the centripetal force at the equator more than at the poles.

    11.) Gravity would prevent the earth being flat, and requires it to be a sphere. This is also provides consistent explanations for the formation of the earth, and why all other planets are spheres.

    12.) the distance you can see and the objects you can observe are related to how high up you are, this is consistent with a spherical earth and not a flat earth where you would have consistent depth of view with objects in the way the only limiting factor other than this.

    13.) when using a device (a pendulum or gyroscope) with sufficiently low friction, the change they exhibit appears consistent with a rotating earth.

    14.) lunar eclipses can happen, which are inconsistent with a flat earth.

    15.) multiple dozens of companies in multiple countries develop and use satellites, including television, communications, satellite phones and have done since the days of Telstar.

    16.) we can observe satellites like the ISS, and others passing behind the shadow of the earth on a daily basis.

    17.) the stars rotate in different directions in the north and south, and appear to be moving in a straight line at the equator. This is perfectly consistent with a spherical earth.

    In addition it’s worth covering the observations that are not consistent with a curved earth.

    1.) There is always a horizon, but objects that should be a little beyond the horizon are sometimes visible.

    2.) lunar eclipses are sometimes visible when the moon and sun are both visible to an observer.

    3.) at short distances the earth appears flat.

    (1) and (2) are not evidence of a flat earth, as they could also explained by other geometries (such as parts of the earth being flatter than others, or the globe being larger than thought.

    (3) is not inconsistent with a spherical earth that is large, as any curvature or racing away of the earth would be nearly inperceptible and difficult to measure accurately.

    (1) is explained by measurable effects: the atmosphere can bend light as warm humid air and cold air have different refractive indexes, as this ends up curving light by small amounts. Measurements of air and snells law of refraction make this apparent. This is also a consistent explanation as these locations that are visible are only visible in specific conditions, and non predictable times; rather than all the time.

    (2), as with 1; knowns properties of air, and known laws of physics allows us to determine that the position of the sun and moon would be raised due to refraction; happily explaining this geometry.

    So, let’s compare the explanations side by side to which explanation best fits the facts.


    • the earth is a sphere; and
    • Refraction works the way establishes science implies it should

    Or (given what I understand listening to flat earthers)

    • the earth is flat. And
    • Every single picture of earth has been faked. And
    • Millions if not tens of millions who work in satellite communication, technology, GPS and the space industry are engaged in a massive global conspiracy AND
    • Multiple hostile governments have colluded to cover up the truth, over 60 years, and
    • Images have been faked since the late 1940s, in some cases with images far more advanced than the apparent technology to fake at the time, and
    • Not a single piece of documentary evidence consistent with this global cover up has ever been released or distributed. And
    • Despite multiple millions of individuals over many decades needing to have knowledge of the conspiracy, no credible whistleblower has come forward and
    • A team of individuals are constantly recruited to engage in cgi and photoshop and other fakery without anyone being tipped off and
    • There is some other process that by fluke of coincidence shifts the apparent position of the sun, the moon in just the right way that they appear to match the expected position they would be if viewed upon a sphere and
    • There is an additional rahu around the earth that by fluke of coincidence makes it appear as if there is a lunar eclipse in just the right way to be consistent with a spherical earth. And
    • There is some unknown force that moves the sun and moon around that no one has ever been able to measure and coincidentally moves the sun and moon in a way that exactly matches the way it should move on a spherical earth. And
    • There is some unknown reason by which the stars appear to rotate in different directions in a way that is coincidentally identical to how it should appear on a spherical earth. And
    • There is a team of people faking satellites with planes or other objects that have never been spotted taking off, refueling, etc. And
    • Some unknown force causes Foucault Pendulums and precision low friction gyroscopes appear to precess at just the right amount to be consistent with a spherical earth. And
    • Some unknown reason or force causes the measured weight/gravity to be different at the poles vs the equator by exactly the right amount to be consistent with the force of gravity being cancelled out by the force generated by earths rotation. And
    • Some atmospheric phenomena exists that matches the behaviour of objects appearing to fall over a horizon in exactly the way expected on a spherical earth.
    • Some mechanisms exists that causes the distance you can see to be proportional to the height of objects rather than obstructed perspective.

    It’s pretty clear here that the idea of that multiple coincidental process all “just so happen” to conspire to make the world look as if it’s spherical strains credulity.

    Most importantly: as there are multiple unknowns that would have to be assumed to exist; as well as multiple coincidences that conspire, it’s clear that flat earth fails Occam’s razor by a massive gulf; and thus a spherical earth most clearly and self evidently matches all the observations concisely, and with the fewest assumptions.

    So as a result; actually applying the scientific method; flat earth absolutely fails to meet even the most basic scientific standard.

    Indeed, it is not clear how anyone can think it is a scientific position given the number of unknowns, coincidences and unexplainable happenstance is necessary for it to be true.


  • Is global warming an issue?

    Explanation: I feel that For hade better counterarguments so that is why they get an extra point. However, both did great for this section. Both had a lot of evidence and sources but Against did not have any for the last round but it is not enough to deduct points.  Both had great conduct except for the ending for Against. The picture is irrelevant and bad. So, they get a point down. Against had much better spelling and grammar but For had good spelling and grammar for the last 2 but the first was terrible so they get a point down. Both had a lot of evidence and sources but Against did not have any for the last round but it is not enough to deduct points. This was a great debate. 
  • Is global warming an issue?

    Amazing job both sides!  I especially enjoyed con argument trying to prove that it's not an immediate issue. Pro didn't initially address the specific argument explaining that it's not an issue, but did clarify it well in closing comments.
    I am awarding extra point to pro though, because Con committed to his position that it's not an "immediate"  issue and not a "high priority" issue.  However, debate was if it's an "issue".  Also, regardless if there is imminent death doesn't mean that an accelerated death isn't an issue.

    grammar, conduct, sources were all excellent from both parties.

  • Is global warming an issue?

    Both sides did very well, although Debra AI predicts for Against side to win, I have to give both sides equal number of points in all categories. I tried to judge this debate on argument and presentation quality and not my personal opinion on the subject.  Nice Job!

  • Is global warming an issue?

    Great debate! I personally found against's arguments to be well constructed and heavily backed up with sources. However, I feel as if pro had slightly better conduct. Overall, I am going to award the debate to Against, because of the arguments, grammar was about even, slightly more confusing on the pro side.
  • Is global warming an issue?

    I was going to write out a longer RFD sifting through the specific arguments before I realized that this really only comes down to one question, and neither side is doing a particularly good job addressing it. 

    The topic up for debate is "Is global warming an issue?" Would someone please define for me what an issue is, at least within the confines of this debate...

    ...No one? 

    Seriously, I don't think I ever get a clear idea of what the actual subject for discussion is. Pro spends all of his space (and I'm excluding that last round because presenting responses to the entirety of Con's arguments in the final round is pretty abusive) talking about how terrible global warming is, but it's never clear when it crosses over the imaginary line into "issue" territory. I get that it matters, but does that make global warming an issue? Con spends more time talking about what kind of issue it is, shoving it backwards in the line of issues we should care about, but never states when it crosses over the imaginary line out of "issue" territory. Each of his points just seem to state that it's overshadowed or that it's solved and in the past, but isn't a minor issue still an issue?

    So, you both rely on the judges to make a judgement call regarding whether or not your arguments have shifted global warming into or out of issue territory. On that front, I'd say that Pro has shown that global warming is a present problem, and that no matter how minor it is by comparison to other issues, it is still itself an issue. That leaves only the question of whether or not it's been solved, since the resolution seems to require that global warming presently be something that matters. Maybe if Con had spent more time here, he could have won on this, but it's actually the only point that Pro responds to, albeit not directly on that argument. He explains how global warming persists as a problem. Even if I agree with Con (and I'm forced to do so, due to a lack of rebuttal on this point) that global warming is an eminently solvable problem, that doesn't mean it's no longer an issue. It only places one part of the research as "solved", not global warming as a whole.

    As a result, I'm voting Pro on arguments. I should be clear, though, that I believe Con presented stronger, more related arguments to the resolution, albeit ones that were unsuccessful in overcoming what appears to be a poorly crafted resolution. I also choose to award conduct to Con for those final round responses from Pro. You had the opportunity to address those issues in R2, and chose not to do so. Your opponent had no opportunity to address these rebuttals and, as such, it is abusive to present them here.

    Edit: I just realized that the debate topics for this debate are randomly chosen, ergo neither side got to select this topic. This changes things, from my perspective. If it were possible for me to edit the points, I would switch the scores for arguments. Despite the fact that Pro is winning on this topic, my judging paradigm changes to one of "who argued better on this topic?", whereas before it was "who won the debate on this topic?" The reason I'd do so is because I think it's a pretty unreasonably biased topic. It requires far more of Con than it does of Pro. Though Con did not do everything he should have to win this debate, he made a solid effort at it, engaged with his opponent, and built a strong (albeit inherently flawed) position for his side. Pro argued global warming, but stayed tangential to the topic and engaged too late with his opponent's arguments.
  • IPhone is better than Android

    @agsr I know this conversation is VERY old and I apologize for being so late to response, but here it is. Android is adjustable. HIGHLY adjustable. In fact, you can even have an android that runs EXACTLY like an iphone. SO MUCH SO, that some can BARELY see the difference! If end to end integrated user experience is a issue. believe me, you can find an Android that will be WONDERFUL for this. Maybe the thing with Android is that there are SO MANY options and it can overload somebody who just wants something smart and simple. However, I encourage you to possibly try an android tablet or something just to have a bit of curiosity knowledge about it. Maybe look at a friend's android device and compare a bit. I used to use macs in elementary school and that's my bit of knowledge on macs. The rest is through my parents having apple products and even going to an Apple store a few times. I encourage you to be curious about Android as it may become an OS in the future for vital things which Apple will not, so knowing a bit about it will always be a plus. 
  • The Shape of the Earth (redone)

    @Erfisflat Seems pretty flat to me but I remain curious, where was that image taken from?
  • The Shape of the Earth (redone) | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, 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