The Earth is Overall, Flat

Again, my opponent is attempting to troll me but this time, not with ambiguity over terminology between "flat and smooth" but with ambiguity over the subject in question referred to as the "4th dimension". As such, I am only going to adhere to the understanding of the 4th dimension as offered in the primary article pro initially linked, seen here: http://www.techtimes.com...... And I will disregard any of his subsequent links (the magnitude of which suggests he is attempting to overwhelm me with material) that stray from this understanding (it should also be noted that whilst some of these articles don't necessarily stray from the initial understanding, they still don't make a claim to definitive evidence of anything being an actuality, just more possibilities and so I've included those articles in this list too). The linked articles I disregard are as follows: http://www.delusionresistance.org...... http://news.nationalgeographic.com...... http://home.web.cern.ch...... http://www.space.com...... http://physics.stackexchange.com...... (this link actually helps my case so I don't think my opponent really did his research and that he was just attempting to find as many things as possible to try and overwhelm me) http://www.math.columbia.edu...... http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com...... As you can see, the above list includes ALL of the new links my opponent added, so I hold that my opponent has made no actually useful contributions to his initial argument from the 4th dimension. Though I agree with pro when he claims it is a possibility, however I disagree that it is overwhelming... as it is still speculation it is hardly overwhelming in a definitively evident sense. Flat vs Smooth My opponent admits truth to my suspicions that he has only been interested in causing confusion via deliberate ambiguity. As such my opponent has revealed that was not in fact interested in a real debate and was only interested in how crafty he can be in the art of trolling. Thus, I claim that my opponent loses the debate in respects to the real interest of an actual debate by default. This being the case however, as I have removed all ambiguity over the terminology between "flat" in a geometrical sense and "flat" in a sense synonymous with "smooth" I am still going to address my opponents comments on both the argument from the 4th dimension and the argument from smoothness (ignoring the further ambiguity he attempted to suggest on account of the purposelessness of the semantics to anyone but a troll). __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument from smoothness: In this last round my opponent is trying to recover the ambiguity he threw over the synonymous terms "flat" and "smooth". It seems that it is a bitter-sweet victory for him as a troll that I first removed this ambiguity before conceding. It also appears that my opponent is fishing for some kind of praise towards his attempts to argue that the earth is "overall flat" by arguing with ambiguous semantics (and for pro's information, he is not arguing in a philosophical manner over the term "flat" by equating it to "smoothness"... that just is plain semantics, a common and cheap play to use in a debate). Now, whilst I have conceded to the argument from smoothness after I had removed all ambiguous semantics in the debate in this regard, I hold that I have also a rightful claim to victory in this part of the debate as well. My argument for my claim to victory is as follows: 1. It is the interest of a troll to not have an actual debate but rather to troll his opponent. 2. It defeats the purpose of trolling to come out of the closet and begin being reasonable. 3. It defeats the purpose of trolling to stop trolling and instead try to recover a serious debate. 3. My opponent has admitted that he is a troll (come out of the closet) and has been reasonable by admitting that this debate has "helped him" and has also reasonably attempted to recover a serious debate (see the last point in pro's conclusion). 4. Thus, my opponent has failed as a troll and failed his initial intentions as a troll in the debate. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument from the 4th dimension: I carry my counter argument from the previous round as my opponent has neither commented or refuted it. In extension to this, my opponent has admitted that if he were serious about this debate, he would have lost: In the second round I said the following, "I hold that pro cannot prove that from an objective, three dimensional perspective that the earth is flat. The most pro has shown is that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of another dimension and that it is possible that such a dimension is an actual feature of reality (and you will recall that my argument that still stands in refutation to the 4th dimension argument concludes that the 4th dimension argument is pointless and is thus useless in the debate)." In this last round my opponent has conceded to this, quote, "Obviously I would lose if I wanted to argue about the flat earth theory the normal scientific way, as photo evidence instantly smashes flat earth theory, and I couldn't exactly come up with any troll arguments about why the earth is flat." Thus, as my opponent concedes to my contentions in the second round as described above and as my refutation to the argument from the 4th dimension still stands, I win the debate in this respect on both accounts. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IN CONCLUSION: I claim victory in this debate for the following three reasons: Reason 1, victory by default: My opponent has revealed his true intentions as a troll and has thus revealed it was not his intention to have an actual, serious debate. So in respects to an actual, serious debate, I win by default. Reason 2, my opponent fails as a troll: See the above section "Argument from smoothness" for my argument as to why my opponent failed as a troll anyway. Thus, even in respects to my opponents true intentions of this debate, he failed and lost. Reason 3, my opponent admitted defeat if he was intent on a serious debate anyway: I quote him again, "Obviously I would lose if I wanted to argue about the flat earth theory the normal scientific way, as photo evidence instantly smashes flat earth theory, and I couldn't exactly come up with any troll arguments about why the earth is flat. Anyhow..." My opponent not only admits he is a troll here (see reason 1 and 2), he then goes on to try and recover a reasonable debate on his argument from smoothness (see reason 2 again) and so this not only admits defeat in a serious debate (see reason 1) but also admits failure as a troll. Thus, I win by debate and hold I have rightful claim to victory. Vote me. ;]