Earth: Spherical vs Flat

Rebuttals for rebuttalsThe HorizonThat only goes against common sense if the world is flat, which is why the Earth is round. My opponent goes on to explain away the sinking of ships over the horizon by stating that atmospheric perspective, or air that distorts light and therefore the object moving away, is to blame for the effect, because, as the object moves away and seems to become smaller and smaller, the distorted light covers more and more of the object. And in the case of the football field that he produces, this is accurate. However, this is only the case when the line of sight of the person watching the ship leave, is level with the bottom of the ship, which is not true. My opponent also claims that any videos he's seen depicting ships sinking into the horizon lower the camera to give the ship the appearance of it sinking. Not only is this erroneous for obvious reasons but it is patently and provably false by merely going to the ocean yourself, if you feel the need to, watch a ship leave, preferably from a high vantage point above the ship, such as from the top of a cliff or a lighthouse and watch the ship sink into the horizon because of the curvature of the Earth. Coriolis EffectMy opponent claims that the direction that water drains in different hemispheres is a common misconception because the direction the toilet flows depends on several factors such as the shape of the bowl. However, the direction the water flows only depends on two factors: the shape of the bowl, which I suppose my opponent thinks, conveniently enough, that all drains in all of the Southern hemisphere are shaped to drain clockwise and all drains in the North are shaped to drain the other way, and which hemisphere you're in because reasons I already explained. A lot of drains are shaped so as to drain the water a certain direction, but, as my opponent's source claims, there is still a force, however small, that would cause the water to drain a certain way if there is no architectural favor taken to one direction. Firstly, the Earth is hardly moving under projectiles and balloons because gravity again. Gravity is holding the atmosphere, for the most part, pinned to the surface. Which is why you can jump in the air and land pretty much in the same space. Which is why you don't feel like you're spinning over 1,000mph. Secondly, unless the balloon is anchored to the ground by a rope, it's not going to land in the same place as before after just floating aimlessly. Thirdly, this is not because of the Earth moving: this is because wind and air currents exist, and should also exist on a flat Earth model: they blow the balloon. Clouds move in different directions because of weather systems and density differences between cold and hot air: these exist on the round-Earth model. It actually isn't "hearsay" because, while I may not have shot a missile, I've fired long-distance shots with firearms, and the Coriolis effect had an impact. My opponent also didn't address the fact that hurricanes and cyclones spin according to the Coriolis effect, even in different directions according to the hemisphere it is in. PhotosMy opponent thinks the photos taken are laughable. He links to a video of a grown man who laments that he can't find a photo of Earth that isn't a composite or obvious fake with a ten second Bing search. Because of this, my opponent and the video maker assume that there are no actual photos of Earth ever made ever. Never mind what composite photo means, by the way. Then he links to a few images that, if you close your eyes and pretending to see proof that it's all a conspiracy, then you'll see proof that it is all a conspiracy. My opponent only addresses NASA. I only made this original point to see how far my opponent carries his tin foil hat. He also asks for evidence that satellites are in space, to that I can direct him here:. https://www.google.com...Or perhaps the GPS on his phone. Lateral MovementMy opponent failed to address my original point. Claiming that all airplane pilots and air traffic controllers are now also in the conspiracy, he says that airplanes appearing to travel straight from East to West (or West to East) are actually flying in a great circle. This still doesn't address the fact that, if you were to stand in Lincoln, Nebraska, stand facing true North, turn 90 degrees right and follow that direction in a straight line you would eventually end right back in Lincoln, Nebraska instead of Antarctica as a flat Earth model would suggest. The "mirage"My opponent reasserts his claim, using a tweet from Mr. Nowicki as a source and stating I do not have one. I restate my source as Facebook, in which, if it is not the same photo from the tweet, then it was taken at the same time. But the description reads that it was taken from atop Warren Dunes State Park. I said this in my original argument. Gyroscopes. http://science.howstuffworks.com...The horizon"My opponent argues that ships go over a curve at a mere 3 miles, yet at 100km, being able to see hundreds of miles in any direction, we can't see a curve? " I didn't say ships go over a curve at 3 miles: it's much longer than that. And I'm not sure what 100km he is referring to. "The horizon is always at eyey level no matter the altitude"The Andes in my horizon are not eye level with me. "If the earth were a ball, the horizon should drop the further up you go, but it doesn't. " This is applicable even on a flat Earth: the further you get from the ground, the more in the sky you get, the more sky you see. Is it not possible to go up on a flat Earth. What about airplanes? Because I've been in airplanes, and when I'm in an airplane, I look down at the horizon whereas I look up at the horizon from the ground. The Sun is CloseI never addressed the math of my opponent trigonometry. Radar technology is actually quite easy to get a hold of. I ignored the arguments of the hotspot because the hotspot presented no argument. My opponent seems to be confusing arguments with staring at pictures and thinking that it looks funny. Evidence must be solid, and reasonably unexplainable for the other side in order to be proof. Twenty-four Hour daysAntarctica is not off-limits to every civilian. Even if they weren't, this is another one of those "Absolutely everyone that disagrees with me is a liar and evidence they offer is a forgery because everything is a conspiracy" rebuttals. There are other videos. NASA isn't involved in Antarctica, so I'm not even sure how that came up. There are seven nations on Antarctica. Mount ChimborazoThe convenient thing about the other side being a conspiracy is that all evidence against you is a forgery or a lie, so you can attribute everything to "thick atmosphere. " When modern telescopes are still perfectly capable of seeing at least more than 60 miles away. Gravity and TidesMy opponent accuses me of frequenting the forums of "the flat earth society" and, despite the fact that this is not true, does nothing to distance himself from the members of that organization. I know that flat earthers don't believe in gravity because it is impossible on a flat earth model and also because my opponent is not the first flat earther that I have talked to/debated. Additionally, he provides no good explanations for how tides come in, but at least he does not try to claim that tides don't exist. Here is how tides work:. http://science.howstuffworks.com...Lunar EclipsesSelenelions are thought to be possible due to atmospheric refractionThe Earth's atmosphere, when eclipsing the moon, filters out all shorter wavelengths than red and refracts over the surface of the moon. This is the same effect that causes the sky to be blue. . http://earthsky.org...It is also worth noting that my opponent didn't bother to give an explanation of how lunar eclipses could work on a flat earth. Star ConstellationsMy opponent didn't bother rebutting my point here, just made an argument from authority by citing Nikola Tesla who, in the quote provided, did not even support my opponent. He merely mentions stars being in the sky or firmament "Though free to think and act, we [humanity] are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. " and that science recognizes that the suns, planets, and moons of a constellation are seen as one body, "Science, too, recognizes this connectedness of separate individuals, though not quite in the same sense as it admits that the suns, planets, and moons of a constellation are one body. .. ", none of which has anything to do with this argument or even this debate. The View of the MoonI have to admit that I laughed here. My opponent states that, if you stand in a room representing Earth, taped a quarter to the middle of the ceiling to represent the moon, and you and a friend stood on opposite sides of the room to represent people on both hemispheres, then you would see the quarter oppositely. Yes, the quarter would flip from one side of the room to the other if you stand opposite. But if both people faced the same wall, such as two people on Earth both face North, they would see the quarter the same in the room. The Michelson-Morley ExperimentI don't have the characters to address the experiment: watch the video and see how it doesn't address my opponent's point at all. Closing StatementsMy opponent's arguments are either laughable or insulting. And his rebuttals are equally so.