The Earth is not Flat

I'm at a slight disadvantage for time since My opponent posts his entire debate on a Google doc that's password protected and logged off for some time. With no time to waste on pleasantries let's get started at a conclusion and rebuttals. "My opponent proposes that the globe Earth has a circumference of 25000 miles" Wrong, it is my opponent that proposes this lie. I only give this statement it's falsifiability, explaining how much the earth should curve, if it were true. If this curvature, that is required, is not found, we can safely assume the statement is false. My opponent claims, without rhyme or reason, that the distance to Chicago from where Mr Nowicki has photographed it is only 35 miles. Every other point was basically agreed upon. The actual distance is the attempted refutation, and since weve gotten the ridiculous idea that this image is a mirage out of our heads, the distance is actually 57 miles. (1)(2) So we shouldn't be able to see any of Chicago from this far. Lake Michigan is known to have on average 4-8' and higher waves, (3) which would hide the regions my opponent uses, when perspective is factored in. If this EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION isn't enough to prove my case, what would it take? (1) . http://www.abc57.com... (2) . http://tjpeiffer.com... (3) . http://chicagoweathercenter.com... "my opponent is focusing on crepuscular rays and the impossibility of such rays in a sunset, since that would require the sun to be below the flat earth, which he implies should not be the case since he claims that the sun is a moving light in sky" My opponent misunderstands my case, claiming the focus was of the sun, and not the reflection of it upon the earth. He attempts a refutation in his "sidenote", so let's address this. "since the metal and the earth has quite different surfaces and atmosphere and compositions (if you haven't noticed), and comparing two contrasting things would be a false comparison. " Water is a reflective surface, as is sheet metal. I think most would agree the experiment would be a valid comparison. My opponent's confusion in such a simple concept is likely a last minute tactical ploy to ultimately dodge a refutation. In the case he actually doesn't understand, here is a picture of the results of such an experiment. (4) They produce near identical results. If my opponent had offered some logical reason why atmosphere would cause this, it might have passed he sniff test, or at least the "I memorized all of my indoctrination pamplets" test. Another direct observation that, when seen through objective eyes, shows the earth is not a ball. (4) . http://www.debate.org... 3 My opponent insists that pictures of earth from space should remain a positive proof of a spherical earth. Even after it was agreed that Photoshop was used to basically create the images, and it was ruled as anecdotal, this point is inconclusive for my opponent. Most "images" of earth are ribbons of data that are literally stitched together in photoshop, (5) and my opponent ignores the fact that one could theoretically do this with high altitude flights over a flat earth, U2 planes are still in operation today, nasa owns and operates a few, which is odd, because satellites should have forced them into retirement long ago. His analogy of atoms, quarks, the marinara trench are fallacious, two are not visible to the naked aye, and the trench could be seen, with the right equipment, by anyone(4). Space however is unattainable to anyone but NASA and friends, which is odd, but is another piece of evidence in itself. In conclusion, the fact that not one real picture, or video of earth as a ball directly proves my case. If they successfully took a picture of earth from space (6) riding on the technologically equivalent of a Gameboy, we should logically (due to advancements in every related field) be posting selfies with the blue marble in the background from a McDonalds on the moon by now. Also, with over 2,000 giant pieces of aluminum foil and baler wire zooming around the earth, the sun should reflect some glimmer of light back to the camera, with the sun at the photographer's back. (4) . http://listverse.com... (5) . http://www.npr.org... (6) . https://youtu.be... As for angle of view and perspective curving lines, where at lower altitudes, when Felix is in freefall, the earth is a ball, and at higher atitude, it is flat, I must leave with the voters, because it is highly illogical to me. On my opponent's display of ignorant arrogance concerning the Nikon p900, "a camera which does not have the zooming capabilities close to even the most commercial of telescopes. ", this is simply not true. "The Nikon Coolpix P900 is not less than a "telescope" with a 1080p digital camera attached. The astonishing device boasts a record-breaking 83x optical zoom lens, which is equivalent to a 24-2000mm on a 35mm sensor. What that means in regular jargon is that you can see really, really, really far. "(4) His statement: "Opponent, before trying to display the "true nature" of something and the flaws of widely held knowledge, please do inform your viewers on the actual truth on how the information was obtained, instead of displaying charlatan-like behaviour by intentionally keeping them in the dark on how you got these pictures of "stars". It is plain dishonest and a shameful practice. " is completely uncalled for. As my opponent puts it, "I suggest you put some effort into learning about (ultra zoom cameras), before trying to refute it! " (4) . https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk... I have shown that in more ways than one, anyone can prove that the earth is not a ball. My opponent offers proofs that it is in anecdotal, theoretical, inconclusive, or unrelated to the topic. Let's discuss my opponent's arguments a last time. Pictures We have already decided that this evidence is anecdotal, and not only could be faked, but is likely that way. These observations ultimately proves that either the earth is not a ball, or that nobody has got far enough away from it to take a photograph of it as a ball. His 2nd point was just an pitiful grouping me with flat earthers, assuming none have shown a flat horizon from a high enough altitude. The Dog cam shows a perfectly flat horizon at 110,000 feet, as does the Felix Baumgartner high jump video at 128,000 feet. His 3rd point is mostly unanswered questions he has about the model as a whole. Science has based all it's findings on the assumption that the earth is a ball. It took the most brilliant con artists in history to make us believe why humans, water and buildings can remain on firm foundation on the bottom of a spinning ball. Had the scientific community based their findings on the fact that the earth were actually flat, these questions would've likely been answered long ago. In short, i personally can't answer his questions, i don't claim to be any sort of scientific expert in any of these fields. But direct, empirical observations ultimately prove that there is no curvature to be found. The decision should be simple. If we cannot prove any curvature, or detect any movement, if our basic senses are not decieving us, how can the earth be a spinning ball? I'm quickly running out of time so I'll have to leave it at that, and hope that common sense prevails over years of indoctrination. Good luck to y opponent.