The Earth is mostly spherical.

I keep finding myself having to cut down a lot of my argument in order to fit it within the 10,000 character constraint. To help alleviate that, I'll be using many images in the following argument. Distances SightedI think I'm going about this all wrong. This is a point in favor of proving the opponent's case, so I don't need to prove that this definitely is is superior mirage (or other equal phenomenon). Insteak, I need to ask the question "Could this be a superior mirage," and "is it likely?" If I can show that it is possible this image is a superior mirage and that it is somewhat likely, the Burden of Proof that the opponent has (regarding his own case) implies that the point cannot be favored toward him. In other words, the opponent needs to prove that this is definitely a real image and not a mock image or mirage image. If I can show he has not proved this, then the point does not weigh in his favor and becomes moot. So, could this be a superior mirage? Yes. The term "superior mirage" covers a wide variety of atmospheric and refractive phenomena. The more accurate term to describe this particular skyline event is called a "mock-mirage". A "mock-mirage" is a type of superior mirage. [1]Mock-mirages happen because of an event known as "thermal inversion", which is due to temperature differentials in the atmosphere. This is exactly what one would expect over a body of water, since the temperature above a body of water almost always differs with the temperature on land. (This is because water releases energy more slowly than air.) Notably, a mock-mirage can exist as long as the conditions for producing a mirage do. [2]All together, this results in a slight refractive curvature which allows objects to be seen over equally as slight curvatures. (The slight curvature of the Earth over a distance of 60 miles). To conclude, we know that the conditions are right for a mock-mirage to occur over the lake from which the image is taken. We know that mock-mirages do happen. We know that an image of some sort is seen. Therefore, it is completely plausible that this skyline is a mock-mirage. It is also plausible (in some ways) that this is an actual image, but given the current evidence -- it is impossible to tell which is true. As such, the opponent's argument cannot be weighed in his favor, since he has not proven that either a) this can't be a mock-mirage or b) that this definitely or most likely is an actual object being seen (as opposed to an image.)Reflections of light on water. The opponent evades my argument by pointing out I used the term "stretching" instead of "shrinking". Regardless of the correct term, my argument still holds, since I was pointing out that the "change" in the image of the sun would only change slightly since the viewed curvature of the earth is very slight. Whether the sun appears "stretched" by 0.3% or "shrunken" by 0.3% is not pertinent, since the point was the change is super small. I've already presented the image describing how light still reflects on curved surfaces and how it still appears to "radiate" toward you. Unless the opponent is claiming that there is not a minute shrinkage in these images, he has failed to rebut my point. And if he is claiming that these reflections do not have any shrinkage, I would expect some sort of evidence to prove it. Flight PathsThe opponent noticed that I couldn't exactly "prove" what I was saying. This is fair. I do believe it was common sense, however, which should be waved. However, let's just look at "one way" flight paths. By looking at these, we remove the "economic incentive" argument, since clearly getting from Point A to Point B would be the best possible thing for the carrier. [http://i.imgur.com...]In the image provided, we see the flight paths do not follow any odd patterns. There is a noticeable curvature in the flight paths, but this is what would be expected on a curved earth. The shortest distance between two points on a three dimensional sphere would look curved when projected onto a two dimensional surface. Understanding this, it is clear that flight paths do not follow some "secret most efficient flight path" that only applies to the Flat Earth. Rather, flights with multiple stops will take odd paths (likely for economic reasons) and flights that do not have stops will follow the single most efficient path they can, should they have the fuel. As such, this point clearly does not prove a Flat Earth. (If anything, the curvature apparent in these flight paths indicates a spherical earth.)GyroscopesHere, the opponent complains that my link was dead and argues that he "couldn't find" mentions of pendulous rods. (Anyone can click on said links and see they lack deadness.)As for the pendulous rod -- apparently this really isn't that common. So I spent a few hours researching gyroscopes and finally found the exact reason Attitude Indicators stay "locked to gravity". And that is... drum roll.... precession. Everything I said before now was me not understanding what I was talking about, so ignore it. I came upon precession from the beginning of my research, but I didn't fully appreciate what it was doing. Essentially, when any force acts upon a gyroscope, it does move in response to this force. This movement, however, occurs at a 90 degree angle to the applied force, in an action which is known as precession. Gravity acts as a constant accerlative force upon a gyroscope, meaning the instrument will always attempt to precess 90 degrees to it. Example: The drawing software I use somewhat mangled the top left of the image, so we'll ignore picture 1. Looking at picture two, we see a gyroscope in a housing and a center of mass. The housing is the block in the middle and is free to rotate (but not translate) as it is in a larger set of gymbals. The center of mass is represented by the red dot. Note that the center of mass tries to go toward the direction of gravitational pull. In image three, we have the gyro 'turned on'. The gyro will precess such that the force of gravity is causing the gyro to react, but in a 90 degree difference. As such, the gyro is perpendicular, rather than parallel, to the force of gravity. Finally, note in image 4 how the same gyro would look as it moved across the surface of a curved earth. The directional force of gravity would change in relation to the moving gyro, and as such the gyro would precess in order to reflect this. All object are affected by changes in directional forces, since objects change motion when acted upon by a force. The gyro's reaction is just "weird" because of the precession that occurs. [As a note: The red dot represents the gyro's center of mass. When the center of mass is not at the center of rotation on the gyro, you have an "earth gyro", since a force is attempting to move the center of mass about the center of rotation. If the center of mass and the center of rotation are the same, you'd get a space gyro, since no force would be attempting to move the gyro about the center of rotation.]My CaseSatellitesThe opponent seems to want to discredit the existence of the ISS by posting a bunch of picture of the ISS. Just kidding.Tracking sitesAs I said, the position is figured out via a mathematical formula and known past positions. When there is an ISS correction, NASA releases said information and the tracking sites input the new position and orbital configuration into the formula.U2 PlanesOpp moves away from U2 planes and attempts to say that the ISS is a hologram by referencing grainy photos of the ISS taken from Earth. Obviously long distance photos are grainy -- this is not indicative of a hologram. More on this in the next point when we discuss "light".ISS too far to see.The ISS is too far to clearly see with the naked eye. Instead, it looks like a light moving across the sky. Consider that one can clearly see the blinking lights on a boening 747 as it flies across the night sky. Even though the lights are some 1x1x1 ft, they are visible. This is because our eyes are good at seeing light. This is the same reason we can see stars that are millions of miles away -- they emit large amounts of light. Similarly, the ISS reflects large amounts of light, due to it's reflective surfaces and fairly large surface area. If you can see a 1x1 ft light from 7 miles, it stands to reason that you can see a 356 x 240 ft light from ~250 miles. HeatingThe opponent is correct that a radiator does not optimally dissipate heat in a thin atmosphere. The same goes for an object absorbing heat, however. Satellite radiators work because they are able to poorly radiate the heat being poorly absorbed by the satellite. The opponent is basically correct in his explanation of radiators. As it applies to satellites, heat absorbed by the exterior of the satellite is vented through the craft to the radiators, which more effectively absorb and vent heat than the rest of the craft. So the heat moves to the "cold radiators", which is dissipated out of the craft. Again, the opponent himself pointed out the thinness of the atmosphere. 1200 degrees on the surface of the earth heats objects much more efficiently than 1200 degrees in the thermosphere.Cell Towers/Satellite PhonesThe following explains that satellite phones are used at sea. [3] This pretty much defeats the opponent's only counterargument. Satellite phones are designed such that they can only work if there exist satellites, since they don't utilize cell towers at all. Satellite phones wouldn't work if satellites didn't exist. Satellite phones work. Therefore, satellites exist. Aerospace Learning/Bermuda triangle/Time ZonesWill cover in next round ConclusionI'm out of space; apologies for not hitting last two arguments. I will likely post my final response in the form of a video, fyi to Opp.1 - http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...2 - http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...3 - http://www.bwsailing.com...