The earth is spherical

"I'm not moving at 1,000 miles per second" Well, that depends on where you live. The fastest is 1,040 mph at the equator . The slowest at at the center of either pole, and it is only a fraction of 1 mph. Per second is an exaggeration." My opponent seems to have forgotten the earth' s motion around the sun, it's motion around the milky way, which is rocketing around the universe. To quote Eric Dubay: NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged "Big Bang" cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That"s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we"re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever." So, to clarify, 670,568,000mph "60= 11,176,133 miles per minute "60= 186,268 miles per second. Give or take. I get sick on the gravitron. With some people, even the slightest motion will cause the hurling. Motion sickness would be non-existent if we were constantly moving that fast. So 1,000 miles per second is not an exaggeration, it is an understatement. "Look, I believe in God, too. But I believe He created it round." So you believe in God but you don't believe the Bible? The Bible is clearly a flat Earth book from cover to cover modern Christians can adjust their beliefs or try to change the Bible to fit in with what science has discovered recently comma but with all the proposed motions that the Earth is going in fixed and immovable describes the Earth in the Bible and this is hardly true. "https://www.lhup.edu...; 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." " the heliocentric model came before the ball Earth model" False, Aristotle postulated the earth was a ball in ancient Greece, but he was a geocentrist, the heliocentric model was not introduced till later. https://www.google.com... "the man who introduced the heliocentric model was Christian" Copernicus was a sun worshipping Satanist, cultist, and freemason. "At rest, however, in the middle of everything is the sun. For, in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in another or better position than that from which it can light up the whole thing at the same time? For, the sun is not inappropriately called by some people the lantern of the universe, its mind by others, and its ruler by still others. The Thrice Greatest labels it a visible god, and Sophocles' Electra, the all-seeing. Thus indeed, as though seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the family of planets revolving around it." Copernicus "Yeah, well, that tin can also had fuel-powered engine thrusters, and a sealed air system." We carry a computer in our pocket more powerful than all of NASA's technology during that time. It's illogical to say that it's impossible to get a civilian into space by now. Of course you would miss the point entirely. Refutation: Specular Highlight My opponent seems to have misunderstood this contention, or is grasping at straws. He argues that dirt is not reflective, and but you can see the light reflected in the ball, as light is necessary for humans to see things, but these statements are irrelevant. The point was that when watching a sunset, sometimes we see a linear reflection that continues all the way to the edge of the water. This can't be reproduced with any convex shaped, reflective surface. The objective contention stands unrefuted. Refutation : Chicago skyline My opponent again shows us his Dunning Kruger effect towards his model. Vaguely asserting that the earth is too big to detect any curvature. He ignores the curvature calculator completely. He then rants about gravity for some reason. The observable fact that things that are denser than the air around them fall down is indeed objective, but is has not been observed that water, or anything for that matter sticks to the sides or bottom of a spinning ball, or that an object can be set in motion, in a vacuum or otherwise, so that it falls around another object. These properties of gravity are therefore subjective, and therefore gravity is irrelevant. Trust me, I went through the same indoctrination system you did, I understand the concept of gravity, I do not agree with it, but I get it, really.. Anyway, my opponent clearly has not even researched the allowed curvature for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, so I'll give him, and everyone else, a quick run down. From any point on the globe, there must exist a declination of 8 inches per mile squared. Water should drop 8 inches in the first mile [(1X1)8=8"], 32 inches in two miles[(2X2)8=32", and 3 miles worth of curvature should hide the average human. This is very measurable. So for 57 miles (the distance from Chicago to where the photograph was taken) there should exist a declination of almost 26,000 inches, or 2,166 feet at sea level. From a height of a generous 20 feet, the drop off should be 1,770 feet. The tallest building in Chicago is Willis Tower, to the tip, is 1,729 feet. Chicago should not be visible at all from 57 miles, yet we can pick out at least 30 buildings. Maybe my opponent understands now. This objective contention stands. Refutation :Gyroscopes My opponent seems to have possibly confused this contention with one from another debate entirely! Nothing he states about the magnetic poles is not relevant to the contention at all. I feel confident enough that most voters understands this point, and my opponent's refutation does not hold water. I urge my opponent to re-read the contention a second, or third time even. This objective evidence stands unrefuted. Refutations of my opponent's arguments 1. I've explained how gravity is both subjective (we must take someone's word that it forces objects into a ball shape) and objective (apples and microphones fall to a place of equal or greater density). The objective instances of gravity are irrelevant, or in actually, proves my case, rather than his, objects fall off of the bottom of a ball. He also assumes there is an "edge" to the earth, which in itself is a subjective assumption. 2. My opponent assumes a flat earth must be two dimensional, which is preposterous. Is a box two dimensional? The box has flat sides. This is an asanine argument, perhaps more so than any other I've seen. We know the earth has depth, at least 7-8 milled of it, which is the deepest we've ever gotten. 3. Circumnavigation is both objective and relevant to the shape of the earth, so let's address the statement "This would not be possible on a flat Earth." The flat earth is a circle shape, similar to a pizza. Magnetic north is the center of the pizza, and The Antarctic "circle" is the crust that holds the water in. When one circumnavigates the earth, they are just going in a very large circle around the north pole. Again, from Eric Dubay: "There are no fixed "East" or "West" points just as there is no fixed "South." The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth, with South being all straight lines outwards from the pole, East and West being concentric circles at constant right angles 90 degrees from the pole. A westerly circumnavigation of Earth is thus going around with Polaris continually on your right, while an easterly circumnavigation is going around with Polaris always at your left. Magellan and others" East/West circumnavigations of Earth are often quoted as proof of the ball model. In actual fact, however, sailing or flying at rights angles to the North pole and eventually returning to one"s original location is no more difficult or mysterious than doing so on a globe. Just as an architect"s compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the "pole," so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth." As of round 3, my opponent has yet to provide objective, conclusive that the earth has any curvature or axial rotation, two basic tenants of his model. It would appear he has no knowledge on the model he attempts to refute, and very little on the one he defends. http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...