This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow.

"It takes years for the closest star to us, excluding our sun, to get to us. Four years, to be precise. This star is to the left of the Sun. Considering there will come a time in a 4 year period, or already has, when the arctic circle is turned opposite to that star, and will intersect with the winter solstice, there will be no light coming from our sun nor that one. I don't want to get too deep into this, but that's the closest star. All those other ones take thousands to millions of years to reach us. Now, that time span is easy to work with. Malleable. Also, please take into fact that all those stars are probably obscured by different objects. This means that even if their light hits the Earth (very unlikely) the chances of it hitting the exact point on Earth where the winter solstice is, at the arctic circle, in the thousand year gap. .. yeah. The odds are very slim. I'm sure we can have a full winter for the arctic circle where there is no light even for one minute. " This makes me question whether my opponent understood my argument or not. It matters absolutely not how long it takes for the light to get here nor which stars are closest. What matters is that the light is here. It's not unlikely, it's fact. Look up in the sky. If you see stars that means their light made it through. And you don't even see all the light that makes it through with the naked eye. In making the assertion that there is actually a place in the sky which is somehow immune to the all the invading photons from all directions of the universe as if it's in a floating lead block, than you my friend have a very heavy burden of proof. And seeing as this is the last round, I'm afraid you won't be able to defend that. The area of the Earth which is described as "totally dark" is not entirely accurate, it's only a generalization made for the absence of main light from the sun. "The appearance of objects or light sources described in terms of the individual's perception of them, involving hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources. Only our perception of it. Based on this definition, then, it has no color, since we are all blind. " This is in inaccurate definition. It defies objectivity. The analogy of blindness can just as easily be replaced by ignorance. Is something colorless simply because we don't see it? Are all rocks under the surface of the Earth colorless? Are things only things because we recognize them as being things? Nonsense I tell you. A color is a description about the specific and intrinsic nature about an object. Not a personal opinion. Does the nature about the electrons flowing through your computer right now depend upon your interpretation of it? Again, nonsense I tell you. Further more, to put forth this definition does not extend to you some absolute authority over the logic of this debate. We must offer only reasonable definitions. Which that one is not. Notice that Earth has not yet been defined in this debate. If you dare challenge my statement about how definitions should be treated in this debate as to say that your definition of color must be accepted than you must also except any definition I put forward for Earth right now. So I define Earth as something that at all times must be yellow in all it's parts. Now obviously you don't take that seriously, now do you? My point is made. I negate your definition of color. And I reassert that all areas in the Earth sky are touched by light.