The Earth being flat, which can go beyond our limited pretense of it.

I thank ChokingChlorine for instigating this debate. As is standard in debate, Pro has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution. The two major points requiring proof are:(1) The Earth is flat(2) Our conception of the Earth is beyond our limited "pretense"I aim to show that neither of these claims are true, yet I only have to negate my opponent's argument which attempt to prove these things, in order to win the debate. Counter-case A1: Geostationary orbits In satellite technology, there is what is known as a “geostationary orbit”, of which is where a satellite orbits the Earth without moving. To do so, there is a certain altitude in which the satellite must remain to stay in the same as the Earth rotates. An implicit absolute within this calculation is the idea that Earth rotates and is spherical, otherwise the satellite would not be able to stay in the same spot, sometimes recording a view of the Earth. The calculations for determining the altitude required for a satellite to be geostationary are as follows: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) A2: During a lunar eclipse, the Earth’s shadow is circular It is well documented how the Earth’s shadow can be seen on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Below is an abstract pictorial representation of how the effect occurs. Further below that are actual pictures of the Earth’s circular shadow on the Moon: (http://physics.weber.edu...) A3: Ships disappearing over the horizon If there is curvature to the Earth, it would be expected that ships would appear to be sinking as they traversed the world. Take the following depiction as demonstration: (http://www.weatherwise.org...) Now, observe the following image. Are the containers floating in the water? Of course not; containers do not float. The curvature of the Earth has hidden the ship beneath: (http://www.sailblogs.com...) Conclusion It should be abundantly evident that there is no “limited pretence” involved with the shape of the Earth. There is a mountain of evidence which quite clearly shows how the Earth is round (I have only cited a mere fraction of it). This mere fraction, as it stands, is more than enough of a counter-case, especially considering that I do not have the burden of proof. Counter-arguments “Okay, I know that in the common sense that the Earth as we know it is to be called round, but did you know that aliens who inhabit worlds may use the term flat as to say that when they view the world from the outside that they can size themselves up to a planet and come up with the term flat as the world is big enough to provide flat land for them?” (1) Firstly, it is not common sense that tells us that the Earth is round. Rather, it is science that allows us to realise that the Earth is round. Before science proved that it was round, people believed that the Earth was flat due to “common sense”. (2) Secondly, my opponent does nothing to prove that there are “aliens who inhabit worlds”. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that these aliens exist. (3) Thirdly, in the case that these aliens do exist, my opponent does nothing to show that aliens do use the term like this, hence there is no real reason that the term “flat” should be interpreted this way. In fact, this is semantical abuse because in contemporary discourse, flat is never used in this sense (flat meaning: “the world is big enough to provide flat land for [aliens]”). Actual definitions of “flat” are as follows: “Having a smooth, even surface” [1] “having a smooth, level, or even surface : not having curves or bumps” [2] As you can see, the meaning of flat my opponent tries to convey is semantical abuse and is not supported by any these official definitions, and I challenge my opponent to find his/her definition from a credible source. “Or there could be the thought that the Earth is not perfectly rounded, and thus is cast down to be in the category of the flat worlds, if you are a perfectionist.” The Earth not being perfectly round does not mean that it is considered flat – this is a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy) [3]. The reason this is a logical fallacy is because there are not only two options involved. To demonstrate, it is possible that: 1) The Earth is flat 2) The Earth is round 3) The Earth is neither round nor flat My opponent’s arguments implies that there are only two possibilities involved (i.e. 1 or 2), of which there are clearly not, as I have demonstrated. References [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.philosophy-index.com...