The city of Chicago being visible from the opposite shore, proves the earth is not a sphere.

"In round 1, evidence was presented that IF the earth was a sphere and downward refraction in the atmosphere occurs; it would be geometrically inevitable that light could curve around the earth. This would allow objects behind the horizon to be viewed in the right conditions." No, in round one, con stated the conclusion and the rules. In round two, the only evidence that was presented which supported this claim was shown to be misunderstood, or falsely assumed. The light travelling from a superior mirage is a MIRror imAGE, one that is inverted. In other words, if the object appears higher than it's true position, it will be inverted, otherwise, it is magnified, and lowered. This can also be reproduced by water, in smaller quantities.(5) "Snells law, the objectively measured refractive indexes of air, AND geometry make it clear and unambiguous that in the right conditions" Besides this being an unsubstantiated claim, con never explains how exactly Chicago could be visible where it should be hidden from sight. Basically he is stating that science supports his claims, never actually explaining how, exactly what he must prove to negate the conclusion. Merely asserting this is not science, it is assumption. He gives us a few more diagrams and mathematics to support his claim, as predicted. "PRO confuses the scientific approach of asking "IF the earth is a sphere, what would we see, and do I see it?" " Con confuses scientific approach with the scientific method. Instead of weighing evidence with unbiased, scientific approach, he proposes that we should not trust our senses, with the model he stands by as infallible. He's basically stating: " The earth can't possibly be flat, so let's make up some stuff, I know, we can assume it is an illusion, and show various diagrams and mathematics to support the claim!" Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The scientific method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and EXPERIMENT, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. In round one, I affirmed the conclusion by pointing out that there is no observable curvature on lake Michigan. My opponent responds with... "Refraction" At times, my opponent refers to mirages, which (it was assumed) are understood by both parties to be image inversion. His source states so on almost every page mentioning mirages. As we see in the image I presented, that my opponent ignores, there is no inversion, we can safely rule out mirages, or image inversions, above (superior), or below (inferior). From con in round 2: "PRO cites only one source, if Chicago was truly visible, it would be expected that people and individuals would have regularly taken images or pictures of this occurrence any time the conditions were clear enough." As I pointed out at the end of round 3, mirages are more uncommon than just seeing the city skyline on the horizon. So my opponent has the burden of proving that conditions are present for this undemonstrable, unfalsifiable, new refraction phenomenon most of the time, and on rare times it is not refracted ie. hidden over the curvature, or the conclusion is affirmed. If the very many images of Chicago from Michigan is not enough, there is source 4 from my last round, there is (6), "the image shows refraction: PRO agreed." In some images, of course there will be refraction, just not as you assume here. In no instance has my opponent shown either a practical example of this, or explained what specifically we are seeing. This is a fallacy of composition. "this was a mirage: PRO agreed." Purposely misleading. I agreed that mirages can appear over Lake Michigan, and can see them, and identify them, according to some of their characteristics.(7) As we see, no inversions are present in my image, so no mirages are present in the image, and the image is NOT raised. "this was not contested or mentioned by PRO" Which is why I asked about any points I've missed. I'm using up a lot of characters refuting every other false claim in that gish gallop, since CON does not mention specifically what he claims I've ignored, it's clear that this is an assertion. He goes on in the next few paragraphs saying that it is possible, with mirages, for light to be raised. In every instance this happens, even in the images CON presents, the image is inverted. This is by definition, a mirage. I'm beating a dead horse here, and it's clear that CON is grasping at straws. CON claims that he has clearly shown magnified images, done so by WATER, that are raised. Since I've given practical examples of objects being lowered, due to refraction, and my opponent continues to ignore my requests for an alternative, it is more likely that the image is being lowered, or in some instances, small temperature inversions are inverting the image, making the tower's appear taller. Again, in my image, no inversions are present. He then goes on with further mathematics and diagrams explaining which direction light is bent when refracted, again, no practical experiments proving that what we are seeing is an illusion, or that images can be raised without inversion. His purpose, clearly, is to confuse anyone willing to read the gish gallop. He gives a misleading example of a pencil appearing higher when looking down through a small body of water, except we aren't looking down into a body of water, a more accurate example from the proper angles would be this one,(8) which I magnified and lowered. The prism, which is cut specifically to reflect the light downward as it is magnified. He then asserts it is a mirage.... again. He then gives us some examples of what appears to be some rising and lowering of some islands that should be almost invisible over the curve at 32 miles. In reality we can't tell whether the islands are being raised over a curve, or lowered by looking, so we reproduce the circumstances in an experiment, and see, as I have done in round one, and thereafter. CON has yet to give us any reasonable examples without first assuming the earth is curved. The islands are often visible on clear days, (9) so he has inadvertently proved my case, as he agrees, with :" "PRO cites only one source, if (Farallon Islands) was truly visible, it would be expected that people and individuals would have regularly taken images or pictures of this occurrence any time the conditions were clear enough." CON then repeats the same extended assertions for the remainder of the round, coupled with assertions that my case has been refuted, without actually refuting them, puffing himself up, when in actuality, a practical example and experiment has been presented and performed that affirms the resolution that he continues to dismiss with no valid exceptions or examples contradicting mine. 1. The skyline should not be visible on a spherical earth. 2. The image is not a mirage, or image inversion, which is what mirages are. 3. What refraction is happening, is magnification, and apparent drop. What my opponent must prove to negate the conclusion: Refraction, in this circumstance, can cause an object to reappear from over the horizon, fully erect, and raised. What he has done: 1."But, but, muh science book!" 2. "But, but muh calculator! " (5) http://farm8.staticflickr.com... (6) http://www.skyscrapercity.com... (7) http://aty.sdsu.edu... (8) http://etc.usf.edu... (9) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...