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

My opponent opens up the 4th round stating that I'm in denial, and that I've called him a name, but for the life of me I can't see exactly where this happened or what name I've allegedly called him. I ended the last round with an attack on his argument and how it is fallacious and illogical, not calling him a name, and in return he calls me a name. Which isn't even original(1). It seems I have touched a very raw nerve. As for his accusations of me being in denial, well yes, yes I am. I'm denying the earth is a spinning ball. I'm denying the pseudoscience that supports that claim. Natural science is, as it should be, the core of science. Something that is repeatable, scalable, testable and verifiable by anyone willing to test it. Mathematics and diagrams are helpful and useful, but when they contradict reality, and becomes untestable, unverifiable, etc. it becomes pseudoscience (does not involve empirical observations) you can make up whatever you like, implement this into the education systems, supoort it with CGI, diagrams and Math, and Bam, you've got yourself a "fact" now. My opponent fall for it, hook, line and sinker. Modern science has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist". Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it WITHOUT BIAS against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by scientific evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem/appeal to authority attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented, or relying on pseudoscientific claims and assumptions. I asked my opponent, repeatedly, to reproduce the experiments. Reproduce your position, show us what the scientific method is all about! He repeatedly points to a science book instead, the same science book that tells him that we live on a spinning ball. All i can say is: Doh! Facepalm. I've given 3 practical and verifiable experiments that use different methods of refraction, all reproducing the same results. My opponent never acknowledged them, refuted their validity, or gave alternate examples using the scientific method. This is called fact checking. This is what the scientific method is about. My opponent agrees that refraction is happening, the question is, which direction was it? This was the purpose of this scientific debate! I've shown Chicago from 57 miles away, and explained why it would be impossible on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference. My opponent agrees, the maths add up. It was then asserted that it was a mirage, or looming, or more generally, "refraction", so he doesn't have to actually defend a position at all, and he can sit and say "Nay, it's an illusion" He's pointed out dozens of examples of the skyline, mostly visible, most of the time (after taking into account 57 miles worth of atmosphere) while saying it's a rare occurrence, while ignoring the initial picture, posted in the opening round. The buildings in the picture I posted were shadows, where the sun had gone past Chicago. They had no distortions. It is safe to say that light can bend, especially if we can show that it's possible, but does my opponent hold that shadows, by definition, an absence of light, can be raised the same way? The crux of cons argument is the illegitimacy of my and Mr. Skiba's experiments. I'm not 100% sure what the disagreement is, I've asked for other experiments he could give me to produce the results he assumed are facts, to no avail. Refraction in the atmosphere is caused by water, in it's gaseous form. This is commonly known. Logically, we are looking through 57 miles of atmosphere. Over a lake. We are looking through a collective body of water in the air.(2) Water causes lensing/refraction and sometimes image inversions. It has been shown that magnification happens to great degrees, which is present in the experiment results. Along with magnification, the object appears lower when the object is eye level. This has been tested 3 times with the same results. We can safely say this is a fact. My opponent has denied this fact, simply because of the implications. He may call himself a scientist, but I don't see it. He may have even fooled other people into believing that he even knows what the scientific method is. I see through that. CON will likely finish out the round without producing one valid experiment that can raise an entire skyline raise up over some imaginary curvature. He has shifted the burden of proof, and made his claim unfalsifiable by not stating exactly what type of refraction we are seeing. It was implied to be a mirage sometimes and looming sometimes, which was proved to be an actual lowering of terrestrial refraction with experimentation. I expect much hissy fit in the last round, not unlike his episode last round, and I urge voters to see past this. And, as always, don't trust me, or anyone with a title before their name. Think for yourself, do some research, do some experimentation, and keep your mind open. This will probably be the last time I debate Con as he has proven to be dishonest and manipulative, as indicated in this debate, as well as generally unpleasant to converse with, about anything. (1) http://www.debate.org... (2) https://water.usgs.gov...