The Earth exists as an oblate spheroid

I start off this round by conceding my "Galaxy" point. The purpose of this was to say that NASA had faked images, but I cannot find them, so I concede that this is likely false. This does not, however, dscount my entire case. Just a lack of evidence for one claim, which I am conceding to be false with current knowledge. I do object to pro saying that the voter must be persuaded for an argument to be clear and convincing. An example is an abortion debate, where the voter may be pro-life, but the pro-choice debater made several more better points and honestly won the debate. The voter would not be persuaded to vote for pro-choice after this debate if their view did not change, even if they were the better debater. I am allowed to defend an obscure viewpoint but not necessarily persuade all others to believe in this obscure viewpoint (take for example my 0 = 3 debate). In law this may be the case, but this is far from law.NASA says so:I meant that you did employ a different type of fallacious reasoning when making your claim. Just saying "NASA says so" is not an argument, it is just giving a source with a title. I did not mean an appeal to authority fallacy, rather, a different one.I will not be debating this any more, it is just beating a dead horse, and I am sure the voters appreciate me stopping this fallacious argument.Remember that this debate is about the shape of the earth, not if my opponent did X fallacy or Y fallacy.Under an article titled "The Spherical Shape of the Earth", released by NASA, they speak of climactic cells and show a diagram of a spherical earth. This is an attempt to show the reader that climactic cells prove that the world is spherical, because there is no other proof in this article that the world is spherical. We must assume that pro meant for the climactic cells to prove the spherical-ness of the earth, because no other proof in this source was provided.I employ the example of President Obama speaking of the current crisis in the Middle East. Is he an authority on this subject? Of course, he is in charge of nearly all foreign "wars". But what if he says that 99% of all people in Syria are atheists that are fighting because they like dogs? Well... he is an authority, so he must be correct. But he isn't, when you actually look at the proof. This is an absurd claim, and I hope you, the reader, take note of this.I only brought up the moon landings as a sort of off-hand thinking. If NASA lied about that, then how do we know they are not lying about this? I concede, this is not the core of this debate, it was just an off-topic thought that I did not delve into much detail about. In an attempt to find more thoughts of mine to attack, pro attacks this, even if it is unrelated to the debate. Please do not vote based off of this argument, because it is not related to the debate in any fashion.Map:I do not have to prove that the motion of the sun is completely the way that it is shown in this diagram. Perhaps the Earth is moving underneath the Sun? This would disprove my thoughts that the Sun is moving around the Earth, and give you the win, even if you are not meant to prove that. You are meant to prove that the world is an oblate spheroid, and with your sources and ideas attacked, this is not met.I was comparing my map to a map of the Earth. The 2D map of a spherical earth shows misrepresentative data for places, just as my map does, so I was saying that attacking the data of my map is not valid. It is not fallacious to assume this and to say this.Ice Wall:We have not died so we cannot rule out an afterlife.Please successfully disprove something that is not observable. It is not possible, since all physical things have a possibility of existing. You, me, Obama... we all have a possibility of existing. Regardless if we study it or not, there is a possibility.Four Earths:An edit of a photo without an actual justification is fishy. Four different photos would be a better course of action rather to deceive the onlooker. One falsified image for the onlooker is just as bad as all of them being falsified, because we cannot prove their validity.Milky Way:As aforementioned, I concede this point.Pluto:Sorry, I have my thoughts mixed up. I thought that the original course of action was to go to Pluto, and this had not been acheived (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...), so I thought that they had not gone beyond it. Concede this point due to misinformation.Though this concession does not prove the existence of a round earth.Radius:Just a mathematical proof that what I drew is a radius of a circle, though it is probably an ellipse, so I simplified the data.Astronomer:The role of an astronomer is to "find new things in the universe" [1], not to prove or disprove if the earth is a sphere.My own source directly proves my point, while your claim that astronomers study the earth is sourceless. [1]. http://www.nasa.gov...Please remember to waive R5.Thank you for a fun debate and for letting me wake up all of the SHEEPLE of this earth that the world is flat. 'Till next time.