The earth is a spherical shape.

My opponent's diagram does not show how the supposed shadow of the earth can move the opposite direction than it should. It only reinstated refraction as an explanation for both Sun and Moon being visible above the horizon. In my video, for the shadow on the moon to go down, the sun would have to be on the underside of the earth coming up. "The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon (selenelions) is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the center of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards; but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end towards the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen, as the water is poured in, to bend upwards--thus proving that if refraction operated at all, (atmosphere is far less dense, creating far less refraction than water) it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth's shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon's surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is an utter impossibility." Samuel Rowbotham Zetetic Astronomy So the shadow of the earth should be well below the horizon. And if atmospheric refraction is the explanation, which even a straw in water which is in liquid form and would produce more refraction than it's gaseous form cannot produce the amount of refraction required to make these things happen. If refraction can account for selenelions, then refraction should in fact throw the the light from the moon and the shadow of the earth in opposite directions. Yet in some cases the lunar eclipse lines the Moon and Earth's shadow up perfectly which is too big a coincidence for me. Especially when faced with empirical evidence stating otherwise.I apologize if it seems that I imply that I did not trust science in general. I do not have a background in physics or formal math. But I am learning enough to know that the globe can't be correct. http://aplanetruth.info... As you may know, you can put science in a handful of categories, such as natural sciences like studying the world around us, social science, or studying cultures, and formal science or mathematics. The latter is separate from the others because math DOES NOT depend on empirical observation. So if an idea, or fact, as some might call it, is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not science, it then becomes faith. It can not represent or substitute reality, and should not be used or implied as fact. It is not a coincidence that science, in every category that does not use these theoretical equations, or Zetetic science, proves in more than one way, with verifiable experimentation. (bedford level experiments is one example) that the earth is flat, if you want to bring your science textbook to the debate, and just claim everything in it is fact, then the debate is pointless because of cognitive dissonance. If this debate were set in the 1980s, you would tell me that Pluto was a planet(or did they flip flop on that again?), a debate in the 1930s would have led to the claim that DNA has nothing to with our genetic makeup. I would have been told in the 1800s, that animals like mice can come into existence spontaneously out of thin air. 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute is not little by little, especially when the average speed is 500mph. We were not taught the curvature of the earth for a reason. Pro continues to rebut yet again with the theoretical gravity by saying "since gravity is equal on every part of earth" so I will use this information that HE provides against him. If gravity is absolutely uniform, the force needed to counteract the centripetal force acquired by spinning at 1,000 mph would have to be varying, because we know, by looking at any spinning ball, that the equator of the ball is exhibiting more centripetal than the rest of the ball, because it is moving at a slower and slower rate as you move toward each pole. Does this mean, since gravity is uniform, that when I travel to the poles I will weigh a significant amount more? Again at what amount of mass does an object have to be to exhibit this force? Are objects sucked sideways to mountains? Or is that not big enough? It seems that it is only when The object is planet size that this force begins to take effect. Therefore you must first assume that The earth is a giant ball for gravity in the celestial bodies sense of the word (the part we can't demonstrate, and provide empirical evidence of) to exist. The curvature must be squared after the first mile. So with 2 miles you have 32" the 3rd mile would yield 72" or roughly 6 feet. So at a little more than 3 miles, you should not be able to see another human, because he would be over a hump in the earth. There should be a hump over 700 miles high between Hawaii and California. Which is a distance of roughly 2,500 miles. Basic Geometry on a Sphere The Global Earth theorists for 500 years have been telling us the Earth is a sphere. IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity"every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the diagram above. Spherical trigonometry dictates that a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference would curvate 8 inches per mile varying inversely with the square of the mile, so after six miles there would be an easily detectable and measurable 16 feet, 8 inches of downward curvature. To determine how much the Earth falls away on the curve you take miles squared X eight inches. This is an inverse relationship so the farther one travels the greater the distance of feet or miles the Earth will fall away. Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 Miles squared X 8 inchesone foot = .000189394 miles Curvature of Earth1 mile 5.33 ft. or .12626 mile 10 miles 66.666 ft. or 1.2626 miles 100 miles 6,666.66 ft. or 12.626 miles So the farther one travels the greater the drop (or rise) in distance. The mistrust does not include something that has empirical evidence, such as computers, etc as you mention. I mistrust those who said that they went to the moon, or that we are on a spinning ball, which can only be proved by using mathematics assuming first that the earth is a spinning ball. Empirical evidence shows that we are not moving in every direction at 1,000 mps. Pertaining to photos of earth, I thought since pro accepted a debate, and provided proof in the way of photos of earth from space, that he could at least recognize the few examples I provided. There aren't many, which is odd enough, and all but 2-3 are admittedly composites(1), which I noted would be possible on a flat surface from high altitude flights. 1 has the word sex in the clouds, the other one was supposedly done in the Van Allen belt, I'm not even sure how that one work but in the film a funny thing happened on the moon, I can see how it happened. These are the people I do not trust because of empirical evidence that they lie repeatedly. http://www.debate.org...(1) https://www.metabunk.org...By GoPro i generalized it with any fisheye lens which can be affixed to any camera http://beforeitsnews.com...