The city of Chicago being visible from the opposite shore, proves the earth is not a sphere.

I'll just pull some quotes from my opponent's argument and address his points, then give some conclusions. If I miss any major points I ask my opponent point that out in the next round. Snips are noted... "... the atmosphere of the earth produces fantastic effects due to various forms of refraction" Yes, this is known. There's no reason to state the obvious here. I am claiming that seeing Chicago from Michigan proves conclusively that the water between this two points, a distance of 57 miles, is flat, which abides by the commonly know fact that water always finds it level and lowest point, and my opponent is claiming that no, there is a 2,000' hump of water there, taller than all of the buildings in Chicago, and light has been RAISED over this hump of water, and caused the city to appear in the exact spot it would be if the water just "appeared" flat... or maybe he claims that the water has been lowered... after reading his attempt at a rebuttal, it's still not clear. Ponder this while I tear into his arguments. "Numerous examples of atmospheric refraction exist..." Again, stating the obvious. Basically a repeat of the first paragraph. We know that mirages happen, we know they have specific names and characteristics, this is why we're here. What my opponent must show, is what type of refraction he claims it is, with examples of little or no distortion. I'm claiming the obvious. This is not possible on a globe, but it is something that is empirically verifiable, therefore the globe is impossible. My opponent assures us this is a trick of the eyes, and we can spend the entire debate uselessly identifying them all, or he can specify what type of illusion this is, that is upright, little to no distortion, no inversion, and can contain, or consist entirely of shadows, otherwise, it is an unfounded assertion, with no falsification available. "it"s geometrically inevitable that light could be bent around part of the earths curvature" This is an assumption. For this to be truth, the conclusion (the earth is a sphere) must first be assumed. My opponent has not proved the earth to be a sphere in the least bit, and any reputable university with government funding will never claim the earth is anything but a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This is subsequently an appeal to authority fallacy. Basically my opponent pulls the "but, but, muh science book!" excuse. The link includes a few diagrams and some mathematics to support the claim, that what we are looking at is a "looming" mirage, or refractive phenomenon, from source (5). Another unrelated diagram without explanation, so we can dismiss this unless he clarifies, because it isn't found in link 5, and includes much higher distances than any that are found in that source page. Seems somewhat deceptive, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The link provides assertions around the 10 km range. Trying to find an example of looming is near impossible, but I found a few. This wikipedia(1) picture of a few boats supposedly floating above the horizon, while we can clearly see the horizon where the boat is, it is the flat water that appears to be reflecting the sky, aside from some waves that get higher than the water's mean level, there is also a large object in the water to let us know it is still there, between the boat and the observer. I found a bigger version, the wikipedia link was suspiciously grainy and crappy, and we can clearly see what's happening.(3) This is the only source I've seen from my opponent that asserts anything about making a previously invisible object reappear from the cover of the assumed curvature of the earth. Since looming has some fundamental characteristics, (appearing to be raised above the horizon, and never further than 10KM) We can safely eliminate this assertion, based on empirical observation. This being successfully ruled out, and the only suggestion as to what type, specifically refraction we are seeing, I'll continue. "An unimpeded, un-refracted object will normally be visible a significant proportion of the time ...it will not be magnified to any significant degree..." I did not say that refraction is eliminated from the equation completely. In fact I pointed out with a practical example, noted in the first round, what would happen if refraction were happening. We probably are seeing a lot of magnification, which was present in the results of our experiment, and the object appeared lower(3). I tried my best to make an invisible object behind any sort of blockage reappear or raise up at all. If my opponent can suggest a practical experiment we can all perform to suggest otherwise, now would be the time to share it. Until then, he is merely making assertions, which are supported by assumptions, a diagram or two, or some numbers based on false axioms. "In some cases, there may even be inversion; which is a where the amount of refraction changes such that a portion of the city appears upside down" Yes, once again, we know some refraction is happening. Sometimes the skyline, or portions of it are inverted, creating a mirage, and sometimes, when there are no temperature inversions, there is a magnification, which by definition lowers the bottom of the image. Looking through this much water, in it's gaseous form, will cause magnification. Hot air holds more water, if there is an inversion layer, where a varying difference in temperature layer is present, we will see an inversion, or mirage, otherwise there are no discernible features, aside from a lowering in it's apparent position, my opponent asserts that the skyline has been raised, I've shown anyone willing to read this, that his assumption is wrong. My opponent will likely continue to dance around the observable fact that this is what happens with more diagrams and mathematics, but we will not have practical examples or empirical observations, ones we can confirm for ourselves or have a testable means of falsification. This is what is known as pseudoscience. "PRO rules out refraction with minimal argument" Again, I haven't ruled out refraction in the least. I have ruled out mirages, which are image inversions (though they do happen), and anything my opponent has mentioned other than magnification, which also has been affirmed to lower it's apparent position. " At one point in the video, the image Chicago even appears to invert through the center..." Yes, we see some mirages at times, meaning there is a temperature inversion during those times. But not once will we ever observe the skyline appear to raise, in it's entirety, into view from it's original position below the horizon, and still be upright. Buildings will disappear from atmospheric blockage/washout. " ...that the full city would be fully visible top to bottom, as there should be nothing between the observer and the city to impede the view" Unless the image of Chicago was being magnified, which was shown to be the case when Rob Skiba was taking video, and which has been proven in round one to be lower in it's apparent position. Then the water that is not being refracted (closer to the observer) will block the now lowered section of the skyline.(2) "Secondly, distortion in weather ..." My opponent returns to the original bonehead meteorologist who originally claimed that this is a mirage, for another asserted excuse. "He does not explain how his example is relevant to Chicago," I have explained that water is in the atmosphere, and this is the most simple, practical example of which direction light bends when viewed through this much water. "...Atmosphere, objects can only appear lower." I'm inviting my my opponent to show me, as I have done, with an empirically verifiable experiment, any alternative. If he can't explain what specifically we are seeing, in terms of refraction, he is attempting to make his claim unfalsifiable, this is a red flag. Out of room. It should be noted that the skyline is visible most of the year (4)