The Ancient Astronomy Theory is Correct

First, I would like to point out that my opponent has broken the rules of this debate. At the beginning of this debate, he stated that we would be using the exact same rules from the other debate he had on the same topic:"R1 for acceptance, we will just use the same definitions from that previous debate, all rules will remain the same."Those rules were:R1 AcceptanceR2 -3 ArgumentsR4 LESS THAN 1000 CHARACTER conclusion, no new arguments may be presented [1]Clearly, my opponent has done more than a 1000 character conclusion and therefore is in violation of this debates agreed upon conduct.Since I have no other option, I will have to respond to my opponents arguments, so here we go.C1: THE NAZCA LINESPro claims that me pointing out that his argument assumes what he is trying to prove is a insufficient rebuttal. It should be noted that 1. I talk more about the Nazca lines literally in the next sentence and 2. being seen from the sky does not prove that they are alien runways. My opponent has the BOP on this and without any actual proof there's nothing to rebut, so criticism my rebuttal is a moot attack.--The Nazcans did build temples, but they also made giant sand-figures. The idea at play here is that they are tributes to the Gods, who live in the heavens. Besides, humans do odd things all the time, this doesn't warrant jumping to the conclusions that aliens where involved. There are no ancient Nazcans left to ask, but I ask the voters, which is more likely?; That the ancient Peruvians made sand-figures of animals to honour the animals gods they believed controlled things like rain and crop quality and made straight lines to act as pilgrimage guides -- or that the Nazcans made animal figures to impress (?) aliens and made run-ways for them that stretched for miles. --No, we're talking about the runways, which run for miles.--I can't say I understand what you're trying to get at here. Yes, you were referring to the drawings, but the animal figures obviously couldn't be used as runways, and my point is that the straight-lines are far too long to make sense as run-ways.--It's not "blatantly" false if your only response is that it looks unnatural to you personally. The fact is, the Nazca region is recognized as a plateau, not a mountain that's been manually shaved off. Furthermore, I leave it up to the voters to decide if the area looks artificially flattened, or if it looks basically the same as any other plateau area [2] [3]. If anything, the second picture looks like an artificial plateau, but both are natural.C2: THE PYRAMIDS OF GIZA AND TEOTIHUACANPro provides the source he meant to use as source 1 last round. His source is the wikipedia page on TGPOG. This source confirms that the facings line up with true North and not magnetic North, which was what I was saying last round. A compass points to magnetic North, but the sun aligns with true North, just as the pyramids faces do, which means to compass was needed and therefore no aliens where needed either.As a side note, my opponent states that my sources do not say true north lines up with the sun. This is not true. Source number 6 of that round clearly shows you how to find true North using the Sun -- without the use of a compass.--My opponent uses the wikipedia page of TGPOG to support his argument that;1. 2.3 million limestone blocks were used2. They came from nearby quarries, not cut on site3. The largest stone weighed 25 – 80 tonnes and was transported to TGPOG from Aswan, which was 500 miles away.4. 5.5 million tonnes of limestone, 8000 tonnes of granite (all from Aswan) and 500 000 tons of mortar were usedHis source does indeed confirm this. I was being lazy last round and brushed this off until I could verify his source, but now that this is done I will deal with this argument. "Nearby quarries" and "on site" are the same thing;"A horseshoe-shaped quarry lies just south of Khufu’s Great Pyramid and the Khafre pyramid causeway. The sides of the quarry align with the sides of the Khufu Pyramid." [4]. I've already shown in round 2 that they were capable of cutting large blocks and transporting them via sleds and ships. Check out the videos I've sources explaining the process.That's basically all that needs to be said. To recap, the bulk of the stones where cut on-site and the ones that weren't were dug out of the ground, lifted with levers onto sleds, dragged to a ship ad transported to the build site.--There's nothing magical about the pyramids perimeter that makes it superior to another perimeter. If it is, you need to show that. Other than that, every other dimension is different. This just isn't enough evidence to prove aliens where involved.--Changing the walking distance to driving distance doesn't change the actual distance 5 fold (or at all, really), so your counter argument doesn't hold water. Also, you can't derive a similar angle when you're only talking abut 2 objects relative to nothing. The voters can run this experiment right now. Take 5 objects, line three of them up in a row, then the other 2 in a row. Do the angles of how they line up match? You can't answer that question because it's nonsensical. There is no angle involved in a straight line between two objects to make it relative to a straight line drawn through 3 objects. This is why pro couldn't say what the angle was.--It doesn't take extensive astronomical knowledge to have two buildings line up with the sun 1 days of the year. Anyone can line anything up with the sun for 1 day a year just by observing the sun, or even accidentally for that matter.C3: REFERENCES IN WRITINGPro admits he hasn't read his own source. My source from last round already debunks his source this round.--This is petty semantics. They were your words, not mine. That's all that's relevant.--The source was given in the previous round. It's the same source because you ignored it.--Pro's source doesn't say anything that hasn't already been dealt with. If it's a machine, it's from the hoax book. If not, it's a floating palace drawn by flying horses or a magic carpet.--Pro is making new arguments here abut galactic alignment and Mayans knowing the earth is round that I simply don't have the space to respond to. The point is, pro's source was an Internet snippet that itself sourced wikipedia which said nothing about what said snippet claimed it did.ConclusionPro violated the rules of the debate that he himself established this round. The only arguments he has going for him are 1. We don't know for sure why the Nazca lines exist, 2. Two pyramids have the same perimeter (but no other similar dimensions). Everything else is either completely debunked or so poorly supported that it can't be taken seriously. this is not enough to justify a belief in ancient aliens and so the resolution has been negated.1. http://debate.org... 2. http://www.viewzone.com... 3. http://us.123rf.com... 4. http://www.aeraweb.org...