The earth is a spheroid.

I do not accept that definition for earth, solely because " the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars." Is assuming the heliocentric model. In most flat earth models, Venus and mars are not physical terra firma. It is minor, and I accept the first part, mostly. Earth is the place we all live. "We launch satellites into Earth's orbit by having the satellite hit a critical speed, called the orbital velocity, given the size of the satellite and its distance from the Earth, necessarily a radius." This is the claim put forth by the heliocentric model. I see no reason to believe it, as you've not given a reason, and have good reason to say it is gibberish. "Currently there are over 1,700 satellites orbiting the Earth successfully right now." Another unevidenced assumption. "The equations for orbital speed, acceleration, and period of a satellite necessarily include the average radius of orbit for the satellite or the distance from center of the central planet." Maybe we can get to the point soon. I haven't seen any evidence for the claims stated so far, which makes them assumptions. "These equations only work if the central planet is a sphere or spheroid, because as noted, they use a radius to calculate everything...the calculations are working, and you can thank them for your GPS too." This seems to be the closest thing to evidence that we will see. His 1st piece of evidence is that GPS works, which prove satellites orbit a spherical earth. 1. GPS was used long before satellites were invented, and back in the 40's, the term was triangulation or trilateralation. We empirically see towers, er, "satellites" multiplying in front of us. Get in between 3 of those towers and your position is sent to the USGS, who control the data coming to your gps, is mapped onto the supposed glibe, then sent to your device. The system is far less expensive, and is still under development, and has cost taxpayers $150m in continued upgrades. http://3.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.insidegnss.com... https://www.google.com... Several obvious discrepancies lie with the claimed existence of satellites, like the temperature of the thermosphere, where many reside and the fact that 99% of the world's international data is transferred via undersea cables, but since my opponent carries this burden of proving they exist, and ive given alternate (and more probable) reason that GPS exists, I'll let him respond, and lead the arguments. "The moon is also a satellite and for the same reason. Its orbital velocity is proportional to its average radius from the center of the spheroid mass, the Earth, and because earth is round, the moon maintains an average radius about the Earth." Again, an unevidenced claim that assumes your model. I'm well aware of what the heliocentric model sates. I've studied it extensively. I graduated ball earth university, and am a sophomore in flat earth school. I need evidence for the claims. 2. "The Earth is too far along in its planetary formation to be flat." https://4.bp.blogspot.com... The earth hasn't moved an inch since it's conception. See that works? I can make unevidenced claims and assumptions too. "The planets and the sun all formed from a gas rich nebula." The planet's are just wandering stars and are placed in the firmament alongside the sun. "Within the nebula, "as gravity pulls material in the collapsing cloud closer together, the center of the cloud gets more and more compressed and, in turn, gets hotter, much of the cloud begins rotating in the same direction, and the rotating cloud eventually flattens into a disk that gets thinner as it spins." http://hubblesite.org...; Another unevidenced claim with a link to some diagrams and cartoons presented as evidence, with more unevidenced claims. "This flat disk is called a protoplanetary disk because it is the beginning, not complete form of a planet. This is really the only time the Earth was ever flat." That's some great sci-fi storytelling. Would you like me to quote Genesis as a refutation? This is the equivalent of what your argument is. Where is the proof that it happened like this? More importantly, where is the proof for the globe earth? "At every moment after this protoplanetary disk state, gravity and coalescence made the earth very rocky and globular. http://iopscience.iop.org...; No evidence, no reason to doubt that the earth is flat. "The Earth is currently about 4.5 billion years old, which is way too old to be in the beginning stages of planetary formation which negates that it is still flat. The Earth is too mature to be a flat protoplanetary disk. https://pubs.usgs.gov...; Maybe my understand is unclear on my position. The heliocentric model is wrong. His offerings of appeals to authority do not prove anything. Basically, his argument is "but, but, muh science book". Proof. Evidence. I see none. 3. All other planets in the solar system formed similarly and are all spheroids. My opponent is again assuming the heliocentric model. The stars are always above our head. The earth is always below our feet. What reason do I have to compare the stars to the earth? Is this the equivalent of saying that the billiard balls are all spherical, so then the table must be a spheroid? This is a logical fallacy of false comparison. This is a video of a star that doesn't appear to be a flaming ball of gas, Brazilians of "light years away". https://youtu.be... "4. Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round." Pro against makes a critical assumption here, the conclusiin, once again. It has been proved through the scientific method, that the earth is without curve or axial or orbital movement, so that it could never come between the sun and moon. Selenelions have been on record some 50+ times, where the sun and moon were both above the horizon so that the three of them could never be exactly aligned, even if we were to assume earth as a ball. Here's one on video record. https://youtu.be... This positively refutes the idea that a spheroid earth blocks the light from the sun on the moon.