We should cut all funding to NASA

It appears he went and discussed the possibility of a Flat Earth. Rebuttal:"This is perhaps the biggest conspiracy of all, and in turn should show that NASA is a fraud, space is entirely fabricated, and there is no need for "space exploration" as we know it. " So NASA is cover up for the Flat Earth? But there's one thing repventing this possibility: Astronauts. I'll expand on that later. And yes, I like evidence. Distances:Yeah that has to be a mirage. The news reporter gives evidence, and a logical, scientific possibility as to how the mirage formed. Also, note that this mirage only happened once. Assuming this isn't a mirage, and really is Chicago, how come we only saw it once? We can't detect a rotation:I'm unable to find that quote from Einstein. Could you please link it? Also, this is an Appeal to Authority, and what's with the ". .. " surrounding the quote? It may also be quote mining. Earlier, I mentioned astronauts disprove a flat earth. If you ask one, they'll confirm that the Earth rotates. They're actually been in outer space, so they'd definitely know. (And I'm pretty sure an Astronaut would sue NASA had they seen a flat earth)"Arguments for a dome. " Now we're in a dome? That's a new one. Stars through a telephoto lens;So there's a mysterious light? Video 1: Oh, yeah. I saw those too, with binoculars. Just take any light, put it far away, use binoculars or telescope, and I'm sure that effect will happen. I'm not exactly an expert of light, but I believe that's just an effect. Video 2: Note that editing was used in this video. The wobbly effect could've been editing. Also, I doubt a dome could create a wobbly effect. Video 3: . .. Cool. Water. Are you trying to say the dome is made of water? Hahaha. .. no. Besides, who would've made the dome? And why did they make the dome? There's literally no reason to put a giant dome over the earth. Pro then tells us about a rocket, but refuses to source it. I'll refute his points, though. "The rocket had enough velocity to reach a much further height, but it makes an abrupt stop, then slowly begins to turn and descend, as if it were suspended in a dense liquid. " When the rocket reached the "water dome", it was going up, and gravity caused it to stop going up, making it have 0 upward momentum, then back down. Too complicated? Throw a ball up in the air. Chances are, it'll stop mid-air for half a second, then fall. This is potential energy when it's at its peak. "The sound that comes from the separation distinctly sounds like it happened underwater. " Source, please. "At it's peak, the camera catches a glimpse of a smaller, yet familiar face. .. . The moon. How, if the moon is 250,000 miles away from earth, can it shrink to this size? " Might I mention that you've never said how big the rocket is? Small beings see things bigger than a large being would. I'll get back to this point when Pro says how big the rocket is compared to the moon. Now that the examination is done, I'll make a counter argument against the dome theory. Counter Argument:The illogical dome. Let's review Pro's dome theory. He's proposing the dome surrounds a Flat Earth. This dome is also supposedly made out of a water-like liquid. However, there's a few problems with this. First, how come we're unable to see this dome? I could very well go outside, and look at the sun. Had there been a dome, there would be a water effect, much like this video has shown: So why can't we see the water effect? Does it turn on only at night? That can't be so either. We can see the moon at night. Let's imagine a water dome between us, and a Full Moon. There would still be that water effect. Also, if there really was a water dome, there would have to be witnesses. Not just my current opponent, but many of the Flat Earthers. Why didn't they discover it? If there was a dome, I think I would've heard of it before. I've seen my fare share of debates, yet, this is the first with the idea of a dome made of water. Then there's the problem of how it got there in the first place. How does one create a hollow sphere of water? It couldn't have been created before the Earth, since the Earth is in the center. Now we've got to find a way a hollow sphere of water could form. Think about it: You can't just make a dome in outer space. It would be difficult. The only possible way a dome could form is with a rocket ship. We didn't have rocket ships until around NASA was founded. By then, people would notice a difference in the Earth's atmopshere. Plus, of what substance exactly is the dome made of? H2O isn't exactly a solid substance, even in outer space. A stray meteor would've broken such a large dome. And we've had our fair share of meteors, yet, no such evidence of any water dome breaking exists. NASA would've been too late to hide a Flat Earth. NASA was supposedly founded in 1958 [1]. Christopher Columbus explored the ocean blue, in 1492 [2]. As we all know, Columbus is famous for discovering America, and disproving the Flat Earth theory. This is more than 300 years apart! There were many sailers between the founding of NASA and Columbus's voyage, trust me. Yet, no one pointed out an edge of the Earth! Flat surfaces have edges, right? No one said anything about an edge, so there's no point in tricking humanity with some crazy flat earth theory 300 years after the discovery of America. Conclusion:This has turned into a Flat Earth debate. Anyways, it's not like NASA's actually evil, right? Even if we have a flat earth (which we don't), there's no reason to stop them altogether. I'll accept the flat earth debate, but I won't ever concede to a flat earth. So anyways. .. anything else, Pro?