The earth is a big ole ball.

Hahahaha - If you believe my anger has been caused by me not having an 'easy win', then you and I are debating for different reasons. I relish a good challenge, I want my perception rocked, my presumed foundations ripped out from underneath me so my perceptions open, and thus I will grow. I have learnt more in the arguments I have lost, than those I won, and for that - I cherish losing. You appear to simply be shooting the same redressed quotes, pithy responses and your perception is about that of a blinkered horse - I am angry that I thought we were going to have a good and tough debate - This did not occur, each attempt you have made to 'debunk' my counter arguments are to respond with a metaphorical "Nuh-uhh" and then changing the goal posts of this argument, and yet you still say that you are 'Winning'. AS stated before, I am tired of this 'debate', There was no knowledge or insight to be gained from this endeavor. You sprout hypocrisies left, right and center - and seem immune to any logic pointed out to you. I cannot offer real proof of a globe to you without somehow growing to ridiculous sizes and physically showing you - Mathematically, logically and deductively I can show you that this is what it is, and i can show you pictures (which you will subsequently dismiss). Those citations and sources could have been placed in my debates - If I had done this or not, the outcome would be the same - I have evidence of 3 past debates that prove this. Honestly I am now glad I chose not to do this, as that would have been effort wasted on my behalf. I am not writing this as a vent of my anger, I am now cutting my losses and hope to try and implore with you to change your debate methods, This is neither a constructive nor informative debate, I had hoped that either we could discuss if it is a globe or not, how the earth is a globe (or not), and perhaps broaden our understandings mutually, but I see you prefer to build your cases from Youtube videos, where ONE person has found ONE correlation that they, and now you, venomously protect by attempting to psychologically unseat a person's foundation - i.e. referring to science as a 'space religion'. I hope now you understand the irony of your statement there - You want to disprove what you believe to be someone's belief, and they fall back on some un-provable statistic - Such as "Gravity" - or perhaps even something like "The bible is said it was written by god, it has to be real" - I can attest it is very annoying when you have a subject that cannot be changed because of anothers' opinion - no matter how you try - it must be double that if you have an opponent willing to accept new facts, and still failed to change their mind. That last round I was still open, there was the possibility that a ray of light could come forth from you and clear all my silly aspersions and trust of fact, logic and mathematics. The chances were slim, but I still came to the table ready to change my mind, after reading what you wrote that went straight out of the window. As a last little bit to show you your flawed reasoning - you say jumping means that you resisted the pull of the earth's gravity? I ask you - how long did your jump go for, and did Gravity stop affecting you while you were in the Air? Unending torrents of water coming out of a drain, will not be blocked by a single dust particle trying to block it for a second, your logic of "I jumped so Gravity wont affect me anymore" is flawed. Jumping is caused by your muscles exerting more force than your weight to leave an foundation object - When in the air, the power of your jump is capped at whatever forces you were able to generate while on that foundation. Gravity is a constant - 9.8 m/s/s in the direction towards the source - i.e. down (Perception based here, So enough of that whole "But what is down?") Say your jump was worth 15 m/s/s - after 2 seconds, gravity would have capped your ascension, and then brought you crashing back to the mass, which is when your toes touched that flat, flat earth. Conclusion : Based upon logic and basic mathematics, I have been able to show that there are clear fundamentals that can be used to prove to oneself that the earth is in fact a Globe. Using basic observation, coupled with previous knowledge with the effects of gravity, I have been able to show that although we have water on our 'surfaces' - the earth can still be another shape than a plain. However somehow my opponent believes that his word of "That is just a lie, and NASA is an evil corporation and all gravity is therefor a lie" somehow debunks my claim. My opponent here appears to have forgotten basic logic in the fact that "Because Gravity has a hand in X, it must solely be gravity's fault when I cannot understand something, or if it doesn't work" - as shown with his Water on a tennis ball concept. IF he had paused to remember that the continents we are currently inhabiting around the world are nothing more than the mountainous caps that arise from the earth - the water is kilometers deep and there are millions of caves, crevasses and recesses that water has already flooded, its just hit the brim of its capacity at our shores. Another is assuming that because we say that gravity comes from X source and is *universally* agreed, this somehow has become a brainwashing endeavor and that we will not accept his point of view until we realize how 'controlled' we are... We are making this claim and asserting it because all evidence we have points to this being the answer! If tomorrow we were to prove that all gravity is generated by Pandas, then guess what - That is what i will be debating to *protect* if someone was to say it was something else (And a noticeable increase in Panda conservation activities!) - WE NEED FACTS - not just youtube videos that are structured to purely point out the creators ideology - We have no way of verifying the sources credentials, we cannot verify who it is apart from username : "Eric Dubay" The written sources you have provided (Not videos with people talking over a series of images) - they are all from biased sources - Institutions of Religion and 'scientific' that base their perceptions from the bible - which has not been *universally* accepted as an authority on current issues. I have no further interest in this debate - such as the points and whatnot - but hopefully I have some people thinking the same thoughts as I do regarding my opponent, and can at least empathize with my decision to cease actively debating with them, I have better things to do with my time than what this debate boiled down too.