The Earth is more flat than it is spherical.

My opponent asks for evidence as to why it is thought that space. may be a liquid, which, again is irrelevant to this debate, but I will amuse him. This might put a damper on my argument due to lack of characters. I would like to present exhibit a: sololuminescence. Scientists are finding that light can be created, with sound, in bubbles underwater. The discovery is relatively new, and more research is needed, but the point is it is a possible explanation for stars underwater. The scriptures say that the Firmament divides waters above from waters below, and that Yahweh spoke (sound) saying, "let there be light" and it was so. Surely you have heard of the Firmament. Where do you think the term glass ceiling comes from? An unseen, but impenetrable barrier. Exhibit b: views of celestial bodies through the p900. stars close up / zoomed in collection - not light years away http://www.youtube.com... More and more people are pointing their high zoom and def cameras at stars and planets. Now whether the body is a reflection on the water, underneath the water, or the object itself is beyond the surface is not clear, but this footage shows that there could probably be water in space. This has also been observed on the moon, to a degree, known as lunar waves, which have been filmed over a dozen times, from different sources, with different camera setups, which proves it isn't just a fluke or some equipment malfunction. Exhibit c: underwater lakes and rivers These phenomenon were found in the gulf of Mexico and are incredibly dense, so that the people that first made the discovery, upon attempting to descend into the waters, bounced off of the surface. Which leads to further examination of the go Fast rocket launch. At it's apex, the rocket, instead of gradually slowing to a stop, and descending at normal speed, it stops rather abruptly, and, after the fuselage is ejected (notice that it sounds like it is UNDERWATER), it slowly begins it's descent, still in slow motion, replicating the physics of an object suspended in dense liquid. This is evidence which can neither be alternatively explained, nor ignored. Since it is supported by the likes of Nikolas Tesla, Ancient texts not limited to the bible, Tycho Brahe, and more, but it would require another debate altogether, and as I stated has little to to with the physical terra firma we stand on. Therefore I will focus instead on the earth, that is the subject of this debate. Rebuttal 1 Gravity exists and demands a spherical Earth The observable fact that things of high density fall, and things of lower density rise does not directly imply that gravity exists. Gravity is said to be a force that affects everything in nature. Of you drop the ball off of the cliff, why does it not stick to the side of the cliff? It doesn't even slow it, or warp it's direction on it's way to the earth. Gravity is, according to scientists, indiscernible from centrifugal force. As for the tides, the moon may or may not have an effect on the earth's oceans. Since the tides rise and fall more than once a day, not once as you claim, and the moon passes over us only once daily, this is a direct contradiction to the claim. Instead mainstream science claims that when the moon is both overhead, and directly below a point, that point experiences high tide. So gravity causes things to stick to an object, while causing others to orbit around, while some objects pull, and sometimes push upon other objects. If the moon's gravity pulls the earth's waters at 250,000 miles, and earth's gravity is 4x(?) stronger than the moon's, how are we able to do space walks at the ISS? If gravity gets stronger when an object is close to it, and the typical orbit is elliptical, what increasing force pulls the planet back away from the sun against an increasing gravitational pull? It doesn't make sense, and there is no evidence for any of it. Gravity was invented to make the ball work. The tides are likely caused by electromagnetic forces from the sun and moon which are close in the flat earth model. Alternatively, it is caused by the rising and falling of the earth as it floats on the waters below. Rebuttal 2 view from airplanes Airplanes have convex windows which produces the same effect of a fish eye lens. Rebuttal 3 other spherical bodies... Again, celestial bodies have nothing to do with the shape of the ground we're standing on. This is not empirical evidence of a spherical earth. Rebuttal 4 unlikelihood... The unlikelihood of an event is not empirical evidence that it is not true. It is not unlikely that governments are conspiring against the public to steal their money. We are ever moving towards a one world government. I, and many others, don't believe that all these governments and organizations are actively trying to suppress the true shape of the earth. We believe they are simply wrong. Mistaken, just as you are, because they have been told, as you were, that the earth is a sphere, and they have been told that science supports it, and the story is so amazingly pervasive that people believe it without trying to verify it for themselves. They don't necessarily have to know the shape of the earth, only few claim to have been far enough away to see the earth in it's entirety, but I believe that they are all lying about space capabilities to jump on the bandwagon and steal their citizen's money. Would you take a hefty paycheck (look at Nazi... I mean Nasas budget.... ) For cgi drawings and rockets. Rebuttal 5 the edge Why is it conceivable that an infinite space can exist as a 3d model, but not and infinite plane on a 2d model? The "edge" of the world, as everyday citizens know it, is Antarctica. It is not a drop off into nothingness. It exists as a sheer cliff, sometimes 2-300 feet, holding the waters in. Antarctica is completely off limits to civilians. If you try to fly anywhere near Antarctica, the world military will promptly escort you back. The Antarctic treaty was put into place as soon as they found whatever is there in operation high jump (be it an edge or dome) just so happens it was the same time Operation fishbowl started, and NASA was created. Why is no one allowed to go to Antarctica? Every country has kept this agreement for as long as it was started. The longest worldwide treaty ever held. They won't even let oil companies drill for oil there despite accounts of vast resources of every kind, according to pole explorer admiral Byrd. Not only can they not drill for oil (you know as well as I that if oil was discovered in human fetuses the drilling would start the next day) they can't even discuss it! When has anything trumped oil or money? Ever. I think it expires in 2065 Or something. Regardless, people falling off the edge of the world is something the opposition came up with to discredit the movement. Please do not assume you will disprove the flat earth by saying we can't see the edge. These are FAQ that have been addressed several times, I came across a FAQ for basic questions, since you did not properly research the flat earth theory. You'll find the FAQ at the end. Please, in future rounds, to save character space, refer to this link first, and refute the answer given there. Understand though, that there are a few various views on how things work, and the firmament, and I may not hold exactly the same views expressed there. Rebuttal 6 Sheer evidence overload Why are the u2 spy planes still in service if we have satellites? Could these planes produce like results from high altitude flights? Of course! One word proves satellites don t orbit the earth: thermosphere. It's way too hot for anything to survive out there, this is according to your model. We went to the moon in the sixties with the equivalent of a Nintendo game boy, we should have a McDonald's there by now, but virgin has 800 investors they can't even get to space. Some investors are now demanding refunds. All photos of earth are composites, this could be done with high altitude flights on a flat earth. Please, give an example of these pictures from space of Earth. Argument 0 Planes fly level with the horizon for thousands of miles, this is impossible on a globe, in 1 hour, the plane would be facing away from the earth. Gyroscopic artificial horizons prove a flat earth. You can't see California from Hawaii because of linear perspective, and, as you noted, atmosphere. At 60 miles, Chicago is very small, At 2,500 miles Hawaii would be smaller than a pinhead. 1 distance sighted Time lapse from the same spot. Sure let conditions are "just right" all day. https://youtu.be... 2. Reflection... Link is dead, argument stands that curved water can't produce an uninterrupted linear reflection. 3. flight paths Argentina to Sydney. While it is plausible that these flights occasionally detour slightly out of the way, but these paths add 20 hours and go thousands of miles out of the way. Refueling indeed. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 1. Either the Firmament holds us all in, and we're not allowed to test, or there is no edge. 2. The sun is close and small, it lights locally, and goes out of sight at night due to linear perspective. Same for the moon. 3. You can, but it's just a speck in the horizon, even a telescope will not being it to view, mostly due to atmosphere. As you can see from the timelapse, Chicago just kind of appears in the morning. 4. Admiral Byrd has a good interview hinting at what he describes as a land "past the south pole" 5. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Here's a FAQ, out of room http://www.flat-earther.co.uk... Note: ifers is down. Video FAQ https://youtube