The world is flat.

First Pro will define flat. Flat "1. a. Having a smooth, even surface: a flat field. See Synonyms at level. b. Having a relatively broad level surface in relation to thickness or depth: a flat box. 2. a. Being in horizontal position; lying down: flat on his back. b. Being without slope or curvature: a flat line on a chart." [2]. Sounds silly, but I got in a debate in real life about what the definition of flat was. Specifically if a pancake was flat. The other person contended that a pancake is a 3-d object and thus cannot be flat. Claim: The Earth is a 3-d object in the sense that it has length, width, and height. Warrant: If the Earth was 2-d we would simply fall right through the Earth. Warrant: Jump up and down, if the Earth was 2-d when we landed we would continue going downwards right through the Earth ad infinitum. Warrant: Think of a piece of paper, it seems 2-d at first. Yet, if you stack a bunch of different pieces of paper on top of themselves you can now see that paper has height. Impact: 3-d objects can have the quality of flat, therefore the world can be both flat and 3-d. The world is 3-d. Claim: A Cube has squares on all sides. Warrant: "Its faces are all squares" [2]. Claim: A square is flat. Warrant: "A Square is a flat shape" [3]. Claim: A cube is flat. Warrant: Previous two claims. Impact: The world is a cube, which is flat. Now to refute Con's arguments. "The issue comes with the fact that such a scenario would quickly empty the oceans. Just as if you spill water on a flat surface, it will drip off the edges -- so would the oceans drip of the edges of the world if it were flat. We know that ocean levels are currently rising (due to melting ice), so it is clear that the world cannot be flat, since we aren't losing water. " Con The world is cubical in shape. Because a 3-d object has mass gravity would keep the water from being lost. This case would only be true in the case of 2-d object. Instead, there is a massive waterfall, the water falls somewhat then, gravity pulls the water back. The water never falls far from the surface of the planet. "First, we can look at photographic evidence." Con Con earlier states "It's worth mentioning it's even easier to convincingly edit a picture than to convincingly edit a movie. " Con Its unfair to call Pro's pictures fake, while maintaining that Con's are legit. "Man has created maps of the world that do not indicate a 'falling off', or edge. There are very few unmapped places left, implying that an edge likely does not exist. Additionally, all parts of the globe have been seen from satellite imagery and an edge has not been found. Given the size the edge must necessarily be if it exists, the fact that we haven't found one implies its non-existence." Con If you look at a map you will often notice the map is not to scale. Humans being a land based creatures have exaggerated the land portions of maps will showing water areas as smaller. The edges could be in the water part. The ocean is huge. "Additionally, all parts of the globe have been seen from satellite imagery and an edge has not been found." Con A conspiracy by the elite few to trick the majority. Only a few know how to operate a satellite. "A flat planet cannot form through any scientific means." Con Science has its limits. [5]. Humans are only smart enough to know so much. Also, Einstein's theories will be disproved be science eventually. "The results of a recent experiment at CERN, the giant particle accelerator near Geneva, seem to attack one of physics" sacred cows: Albert Einstein"s postulate that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In the experiment, physicists saw that streams of neutrinos " tiny, ghostly particles which seldom interact with other matter " were traveling just above the speed of light. But this is impossible if Einstein"s theory of relativity is correct. So was Einstein wrong?"[6]. As you can see scientists are getting very close already. "if one did somehow exist (maybe a god created it), it would quickly collapse into a round shape, again due to gravity and rotation. " Con It would take a very long time for this to happen. Con fails to demonstrate how gravity and rotation would round the Earth. "We can observe that the earth often casts shadows on the moon. " Con Aliens messing with us. "People noticed that as ships left a port, they would appear to sink into the ocean as they got further and further away." Con Perhaps the ship was sunk by a natural disaster. Also, the planet doesn't have to be perfectly flat, just relatively flat. "Lastly, I'll point out that planes have circumnavigated the globe before. What this means is that they have started at point A, travelled along the circumference of the Earth, and ended up back at point A. This would not have been possible if the world were flat, as the plane would reach a point where the Earth suddenly ended. This did not happen, again showing the Earth to be round." Con A plane could fly all the way around a cube, planes already defy gravity. Thanks for the debate, a lot of fun. Links 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://gwydir.demon.co.uk... 4. http://www.mathsisfun.com... 5. https://www.goodreads.com... 6. http://www.nytimes.com...