The earth is a big ole ball.

Apologies for the delay, I have lost a debate and missed this round due to Christmas/Birthday/Work near the end of the year, Perhaps they should add a 'Pause debate' so that when things pop up, it can be easily resumed after a pre-agreed time. However, I have returned and I will address your Round 2 Concerns. Of which I would like to politely point out had very little reference to the stated point of the Earth being a 'big ole ball'. Clearly you have done your reading/Youtube-ing, as the Comments section can clearly describe, So I will disregard the information that I can bring from the Internet and tackle you with some basic common Knowledge/Logic. You state a tennis ball soaked in water spinning will flick out the water instead of retain it - 100% correct. Now let us take some time to equate the two separate objects. and build up your experimentation from there - 1. Tennis ball - A Hollowed out rubber ball with fibers covering the top, typically fluorescent green/yellow in colour 2. THE PLANET EARTH - a gigantic mass of compacted rocks, minerals, water, heat, magnetism - surrounded by an ozone layer that refracts the majority of rays floating this space. Earth (diameter) 12,756 km http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu... Now if we were to cover the Tennis ball the same way that the Earth is covered in water, it would be minuscule to the amount you are describing, Rotating the ball at the proportional rate that the earth is spinning (Not just spinning as fast as you can spin it), the outcome is greatly different - I can assure you that. The earth as has been mutually accepted by the scientific community as a mass of compacted earth, layer upon layer, upon Crust, upon Mantel upon a Core. The core consists of a highly volatile combination of searing heat, and metal/molten rock and other minerals - This generates the magnetic field by the rotation of the earth. Gravity is generated by any large object moving at 'fast' speeds. Evidence that it is generate-able is a Gyroscope, They utilize high speeds to create their own gravitational fields. Now, let us combine these two things - Mass + High speed movement = Gravity. With the Mass not particularly going anywhere with relations to the earth, and the High speed being a constant, the following makes logical sense : Gravity + Mass + High Speed = Globe. Say we were to say that the earth is not actually a globe shape, the simple fact of it spinning, compressing the different layers on the earth, and the heat and other forces that are generated by the earth, affects the Earth, making its Globe shape. https://en.wikipedia.org... Please note that I have always maintained a Globe shape, not a Sphere. Sphere's indicate a clean facet and a uniform shape, I refer to however the shape a planet makes under such internal forces it exerts. From all accounts, I will never rule out that theoretically the earth should be a more 'flatter' shape, by all chances if we could isolate the planet and see what it would do - after a millennium it will probably flatten out a bit, however we are not debating on what could be or what equates to what - We are debating on the fact that the earth is a Globe/'Big ole ball'. You say that objects are only enforced by gravity due to the force it exudes : "I see you failed to recognize the idea of gravity we are being given and how I am perceiving the amount of force it requires. " I Counter-argue with the accusation that you seem to fail to understand what Gravity is. Gravity is not something created knowingly (as far as we can prove), that keeps us trapped on this mass of land, it is what has happened when a large amount of mass spins, it attracts other masses to this movement. It is something that is generated without a singular thing brought to mind, it just is - and whatever has happened because of it, just is as well. Gravity is not a universal right of all subjects walking, flying or swimming through this world we call Earth - this is a force that we have to battle each and every single day - I will use myself as an example for this - I have been facing the earth's gravity for just over 23 years now, and I have grown very, VERY accustomed to fighting it, so much so that I must now do other activities to strengthen myself. However this does not mean I no longer take the strength of Gravity lightly, Which is precisely why you do not see any news articles about me jumping off buildings or bridges with my makeshift wooden wings. Gravity, when taken in globally, as in the entire force of 9.8m/s/s over the entirety of the Globe, it is a serious amount of force. However we each only face what we put out - i.e. a 100kg man will need to battle 9.8m/s/s worth of force for his 100kg's - However a mouse will only fight the gravity affecting his little light body. I can see you have disregarded my debate topics regarding the Car, by stating that a Car and a globe. If you re-read my arguments, you will see that I refer to the car as in the states of a Vessel in transit - I.e. A planet flowing through space - AS the planet has its own Ozone layer - it is metaphorically a 'car' with the windows wound up, maybe just a crack left open (Thanks global warming! -.-). Please re-read the statements and the theory behind that with this new perception, then choose to disregard the information, And I really hope you don't reply saying the above information isn't relevant to the debate - I have structured my argument into using examples that relate to the subject - please do not take credence into the 'vessel's' I use to explain my concepts - they are not to be taken literally. Also, unsure exactly what you refer to as the Second sun option after that - "I don't know about you, but I've seen a few full moons during the day, wouldn't that be nearly impossible, if the sun is 93million miles away, and the moon were on the same side of the globe as the sun was, it would mostly produce a new moon or close to it." The Moon can be in the Sky while the sun is out, as they are separate objects, and one is revolving around another object - However the light can still be reflected from Distant stars, and that the Sun's rays refract from the Ozone layer as well, Logically I can deduce that at least SOME of the rays will bounce from the ozone, from the Moon, and then back to the earth - This also will explain why when this happens, the moon will appear opaque while the sun is up. https://www.math.ubc.ca... I seriously implore my opponent to use his next round to clarify his stance, as if I am battling the entire Illuminati conspiracy in this debate, a little fore-warning would be greatly appreciated. (I.e. Debate on Earth's shape -> Gravity > Moon/Sun > ??? )