The Earth is spherical in shape.

My opponent opens the round claiming that he chose these flimsy arguments because they are easiest to understand, but gravity is just the opposite. No one knows what gravity is, not even the smartest of the globe earth proponents, if you can call him that. I know he's just an actor, but I digress.(1) Nobody can adequately explain exactly what gravity is, how it works, or where it comes from. This is probably because it is extremely likely that, along with the ball earth, gravity is just a myth. Similar to someone saying "we know God exists, because we are here!" a blatant logical fallacy. How this is not understood is perplexing.BurdensMy opponent states his job here is to prove that a spherical, spinning earth is extremely likely. Our senses tell us the earth is flat and motionless, but we're told the opposite. So far he's yet to present any measurements of the earth, or any experiment or observations that prove we are moving at all. So far we've got images, which prove absolutely nothing besides now we've seen images of a curved earth from a government organization, a theory that assumes the conclusion supported by mathematics and more theories, and a misunderstanding about the sun. Again, I'll reiterate from round one:"if the heliocentric model were true, getting the average Joe far enough away from the earth to see it as a ball should have long been done."America has never missed the chance to over commercialize anything. If three guys really went to the moon almost 50 years ago as they claim, we should be able to buy a ticket to a moon orbit trip at the very least by now. Anyone willing to do even a few minutes of research into NASA's fakery will find air bubbles in space, (2) problems with delays, (3) and many more anomalies. If my opponent would have me believe the earth is a ball, he's certainly pointed at the wrong source. It's similar to a Christian telling an atheist to go to church to prove the existence of God. I'll point my opponent to a former debate because I'm running out of time. (4) China isn't much better (5) Russia has never been an enemy of the state. The entire world, aside from those third world countries whose leaders are still being replaced now, is part of an empire. Take for example the Antarctic treaty. If America and Russia were really enemies, Russia would have never given up rights to claim land in Antarctica in the height of the cold war. Both parties have a hefty income from the space programs, so this wouldn't be of beneficial to either party." I mentioned earlier that my burden is to show the earth has a very high probability of being round and this argument does little to thwart that."This wasn't an argument, it was a probable motive in response to:"Unless my opponent can reasonably explain political motivations for keeping this secret, it is difficult to regard the photographic evidence as anything but fact." Cobalt round 2Admiral Byrd's testimony verifies this, the link was in round 2.GravityYes, please Google what theory means, then research the flat earth theory. After that try compare how much verifiable evidence supports either theory. I'm fast running out of time, so I'll reiterate that my opponent is using a theory to support his burden, and this is pseudoscience. Again the only demonstrable evidence of gravity is that things fall. Up is up down is down, things of higher density that are unsupported fall. No magical force is needed.Local daylight patterns.I'm just about out of time, so I'll just quickly go over his objections to a small close sun.1. Sunsets.Refraction causes the sun to appear lower in the sky as it goes further away, while retaining it's size. This can be explained here. (6)2. This is an unfounded assumption that assumes the heliocentric model.3. My opponent here does not account for electromagnetism. (7)(1) https://youtu.be...(2) http://lmgtfy.com...(3) https://youtu.be...(4) http://www.debate.org...(5) https://youtu.be...(6) https://youtu.be...(7) https://youtu.be...