We should cut all funding to NASA

After reading Pro's round 3 argument... God is now a part of this debate.Argument:Let's review what the actual resolution is: "We should cut all funding to NASA". I'm taking the position that NASA should continue, since they're travelling outer space in search of alien life, and who wouldn't want to see [insert any alien life form]?My opponent says we should stop funding NASA, since they're hiding a flat earth, and we live in a hollow water sphere. So what? NASA isn't hindering us. Besides, what would NASA gain from pretending the Earth is round?And, none of Pro's statements are true. I believe Pro isn't really linking his arguments to the resolution. I might've missed something, but we'll see.Rebuttals: The Colorado mirage:Sure, it might've been a little longer than a few minutes. So did we actually see Colorado or not? If that was the real Colorado, then how come we can't see it anymore? If it wasn't actually Colorado, then it had to be some form of an illusion.Einstien's claims:I thank Pro for sourcing the quote. Let's view it. Hmm... Remember the "..." surrounding the quote? Here's the full paragraph:"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."Einstien admits the Earth is the one revolving. And Einstiewn said "any optical experiment", meaning just looking at things from Earth. However, going into space will show you that the Earth is moving, although very slowly.Astronauts:Astronauts won't confirm moon landings? Let me see... Oh no... hour long video. I hope you don't expect me to watch the entire thing.So I did watch the first 2 minutes, and they refused to be interviewed. I do not deny this, however, maybe they just thought the whole interviewing was bull. I still think they would sue NASA for lying."We should have a McDonald's on Mars by now. Why is it that much harder to get amy civilian like neighbor, the A/C repair guy into space, than an astronot?" This is a straw man of technology. Yes, the game boy was released. It was advanced. Would 1,000 game boys get us to the moon? What about fuel, strong engines, sufficient space suits... Going to Outer Space isn't as easy as making the Wii U, or the Vive."who would've made the dome?" God" ...So God's the puppet master. Show me that he wanted NASA to hide everything.The Rocket:1: Abrupt stop; Ah. It actually went to space. The abrupt stop was when it was at space. It didn't quite escape Earth's gravity, I think.2: Water Sound; I did hear the sound. Sadly, I can't explain what it is. But is it a water dome? Let's not forget what light does on water; light shines on the water. We can't actually see the water dome.3: The Moon; I swear I clicked source #7. Are you reffering to 4:13? It could either be that the moon is very far, OR that's not even the moon. Pro needs to prove that it's actually the moon, and show how close th object is.Defense:My opponent is attempting to refute my logic. It won't last long, however.I claim: "First, how come we're unable to see this dome?"Pro responds: "My opponent acts as though he's never heard of glass before..."I thought it was a water dome. So is the dome water, glass, or something God created?Pro continues: "If the Sun weren't glaringly bright, you could. The moon however, is a different story. (8) It's possible the stars and sun/moon are at varying heights in the firmament."No, I'm pretty sure there would be a water effect in the sky. Far away, maybe. The moon has become irrelevant, as I've seen the rocket took off during day.The sun's quite bright indeed. So bright, that there should be a water effect, assuming it is in fact similar to water.I claim: "Also, if there really was a water dome, there would have to be witnesses. Not just my current opponent, but many of the Flat Earthers. Why didn't they discover it?"Pro responds: "It's only recently been confirmed (9), but the idea has been around forever."So there are others. Some that believe there's a watery dome, and others that believe it's a glass dome. Which is it? Is it both? please expand on the material the dome's made of.The reason?Ah, money! Should've known! But hang on... why are you mentioning Disney?(Looks at Source #12) Okay... what dome did they find? I couldn't find anything.(Looks at source #13) I am NOT reading the entire thing looking for a dome. Pro, show me where it says something about a watery/glass dome.So where's Disney?"Von Braun and Walt were old Freemasons buddies, and so Disney was brought in." This goes unsourced. I think Pro is trying to use Disney as some sort of emotional trigger or something. However, I'm immune to emotion attacks, but more prone to actual logic and facts.Also, might I add source #14 is "The Coincidence theorist"? This is one big "Illuminatti confirmed" attempt; linking coincidences and suggesting the claim is true. This proves nothing.Pizza Planet is irrelevant, and so is source #15. Again, I think it's some subconscious emotional attack or something. "Predictive programming. MKUltra at it's finest." So you saw my MKUltra debate. But NASA is not MKUltra. This is irrelevant.(Looks at source #17) Where does it say something about him discovering a dome?Overview:My opponent's logic is this:P1: If NASA is lying about a round Earth, we should stop funding.P2: We saw Colorado once from Michigan, which is impossible on a round Earth, so NASA lied.P3: Einstien "claimed" we can't see movement, so NASA lied.P4: There's some dome, and NASA is hiding it.C1: Therefore, we should stop funding NASA.P2 can be refuted: Once, Pro. Once. It's either all the time; round earth is false, or not at all; round earth is true. We saw Colorado only once, so that was probably an illusion of some kind. If it's not an illusion, then what?Pro quote mined for P3.P4 hasn't been proven yet. At least not sufficiently. It's also unclear what the dome is made of. Also, look back at this:P1: If NASA lied about a round earth, we should stop funding.P2: There is some dome, and NASA is hiding it.C1: So we should stop funding NASA.This is not logical. We have a dome. So what? That doesn't mean the Earth is flat! We could have a water dome, with a flat or round earth. We could have a glass dome, with a flat or round earth. Pro must show how having a dome equates to "we should stop funding NASA".Closing thoughts: This debate is closer than I thought it would be. I admit I am no expert, like MagicAintReal. I'm not even taking classes on the Atmosphere, or aerodynamics or anything. But I will press on. Let's see this debate through to the end. I will not back down. Even if Toy Story 4 is official (it won't be.)