The earth is a ball.

Thank you Con! In this round I will make final rebuttals and write my conclusion.“We know that the Earth is the center of the universe because of all the evidence, no stellar parallax, North Star never moves, sun goes around us.” What evidence? Please be more specific next time. We do observe stellar parallax; take a look at the following photo. These are two long exposure photographs taken at the same time of the same thing in two different locations, Boston and San Francisco. They each show the movement of an asteroid (the white streak). We can see that the asteroid passes over slightly different spots of the background stars depending on where you see it from [1]. Also, the North Star doesn’t change positions in the night sky from our perspective because it is directly overhead of the North Pole. “..We are not random coincidences floating around in a speck in the vast universe. Bop is still on you though.” I chose to defend that the Earth is a sphere, yet my opponent expects to make statements such as these without any support? The burden of proof lies upon anybody who makes a claim. I believe I have met my burden of proof throughout this debate, while I cannot say the same for my opponent and his claims.After I brought up the hypothetical "edge of the world," Con writes "who said anything about an edge?" Every picture demonstrating what the flat Earth would look like has an edge, like the very first photo my opponent shared. It doesn't make sense that people wouldn't try to go to the edge. It seems like something important that more people would be trying to find if the Earth was actually flat.And yes I have heard of the Antarctic Treaty. Take a look at what it says: "Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue" [5]. It seems to me that something of this debate's nature would count as a scientific investigation. So why are't flat Earthers going on science expeditions to photograph the edge of the Earth?Speaking on lunar waves: I don’t know why the moon is so relevant to this debate. Nevertheless I will respond to Con’s claim. “Furthermore, since bop is on pro, he can't explain it other than through atmosphere, but since we have atmosphere above us at all times, we'd notice this anomaly at any time without cameras.” The videos my opponent refers to require the camera to be zoomed in 50x to 100x, much closer than our eyes can see. Any camera forced to extend its lens this far is likely to show some distortion. To believe the Moon is a projection is silly. A comment on one of these “fake moon” videos sums it up nicely. “Have you ever thought how they would project a hologram every day for the past thousands of years and follow the same schedule for thousands [of years?] It's irrational to even think the moon is a hologram” [2]. The Moon has been observed for thousands of years with the same 30 day cycle. To believe it is a projection is nonsensical.Regarding the lunar landings hoax, I apologize for the dead link I shared. This link should work: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... It mentions arguments such as how the flag appears to be blowing in the wind, which should be impossible in space. It simply appears like this because of the inertia of having just shoved the flag into the Moon’s crust. Another argument is that the photos are faked because there are no stars in the background, just darkness. “The moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light” [3]. The list goes on, and so do the rational explanations. With respect to the assertion that the Sun is much closer to Earth, my opponent’s evidence is severely lacking. It is curious how the video he posted cuts from real shots of the sun directly to extreme close ups.“Con ignores the subject of atmospheric perspective, and the fact that it is thicker at lower altitudes, which explains, without saying he is looking at them over a curve and at an angle, why he can see farther from a tree.” This is nonsensical. It doesn’t explain why there is such a clear, distinct cutoff between the visible part of the ship and the "invisible"/lower part of the ship. The atmosphere would have to go from incredibly thin above around 100 feet (the part we can see), and then incredibly thick under 100 feet (the part we cannot see). The atmosphere should gradually thicken, not suddenly become thicker. Con has ultimately been cherry picking. My opponent refuses to accept that the Earth is round, that we revolve around the Sun and that we have been on the Moon, despite the absurd amount of video and photographic evidence that point to the contrary [4]. Con likely believes that NASA photoshops their photos and videos, yet when he shares photos and videos that he thinks support his case, he expects us to accept that they are real and accurate without stating why. To conclude, it is beyond irrational to imagine that all the governments and space agencies would go to such great lengths to hide Earth’s true shape. There is no possible way they could keep such a huge secret from each of the billions of people that live on Earth. Imagine all the staff they would need to edit their photos and videos to make the Earth appear round. You’d think at least one of them would pull a Snowden and release a “real” image of the flat Earth from their many satellites. Besides, what do they have to gain from spending so much time and energy trying to hide the truth from people?It is a fact that the Earth is a sphere.I thank my opponent for debating me!Sources1. http://www.spaceweather.com... 2. http://www.express.co.uk... 3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 4. ;5. https://en.wikipedia.org...;