The Earth is spherical in shape.

My opponent has the burden of proving that we live on a spinning ball. I will show that this burden has not been met. Let's go over these arguments.Photographic EvidenceLogical Fallacy Alert Firstly, photographic evidence shouldn't be considered evidence at all. I can show my opponent images of a 200 foot gorilla, I could even bring a video of this gorilla kidnapping white chicks and climbing buildings. Is this evidence that 200 foot gorillas exist? Of course not, this is evidence that you saw an image or video of King Kong. So my opponent's claim that this is an important argument is invalid. He, and NASA even admit(1)(2) that "most images of the entire Earth from space are computer generated images", so why should we consider any images from the same source as real? Pro gives us a few images as supposed evidence of curvature of the earth, none of which show the earth to be a sphere. These images could easily be completely computer animated, or shot with a fisheye lens they used in NASA/Red Bull sponsored "stratosphere dive". (4) To be clear, NASA receives almost $20,000,000,000 (BILLION) per year. Which is over $50,000,000 (MILLION)per day. In comparison, one can go to Netflix and see the the Death Star which cost producers $114,000,000 (MILLION). Just two days of NASA' s income. My opponent may feel that indeed, images on a computer may be valid as scientific evidence, bit it is not irrefutable, therefore does not meet his burden. He even admits this in his statement: "The common response to this argument is in the vein of "all of those images are fake". This is undoubtedly *possible*, but we will analyze how likely this is." -Cobalt Rd. 2 (Motives)His doubts are understandable, it's hard to believe a few people control the earth, it's government's and their people, but it is not impossible. It is also entirely possible that those people are hiding some things by perpetuating this lie. While some things may not be clear, some things are easily comprehensible as a reason to hide this. I'll quickly outline a few obvious reasons below.1. Resources What if (considering a flat earth) things like gold, oil, land, water, food etc. were not rare? What if there was plenty of everything for anyone willing to go get it? A flat, infinite plane may have more earths. What if there are more people? Giants? Something even more amazing?(3) "What if the lost city of Atlantis was not a fictional place, but, I don't know, 200,000 miles to your left?"-FEA2. The Creator A flat, geocentric earth covered by a firmament 100% beyond a doubt takes a giant steaming dump on one of the most widely accepted theories in the scientific community, Big Bangism. Instead of our ancestors being just "dummies", this means just the opposite, that we are the less intelligent ones, being tricked into such an obvious lie. People would turn their attention to the idea of a creator, and instead of the idea that we're just an insignificant speck in a godless, infinite universe, will learn to act by morality, instead of impulse, greed, and materialism. We would spend our energy finding out why we're here, and for what purpose.GravityPro is again basing his belief system on shaky ground, this time in a theory. One that was fully discussed in our first debate. His first statement is a false one."We know the following things to be true:1. There exists some force which pulls (or pushes) physical objects toward the planet."This is assuming the conclusion, one can easily substitute this statement for "what goes up, must come down", which actually contradicts his position. People knew the earth was flat for thousands of years. When Aristotle first postulated that the earth was round, they probably didn't think that someone would be living on the underside of it. Then, when that was realized, some magical "force" was needed to explain how this could be. Enter Newton and his answer with his theory, that supported Aristotle's initial theory, which had since graduated to an assumption. My opponent, and many more globe earth proponents now comically use this theory to somehow prove the assumption! Maybe it's just because I'm looking at this with a more skeptical eye than my opponent, but this argument, again, seems highly illogical, and in no way supports his burden here in my honest opinion. It certainly doesn't convince me anyways."2. There exists some force which pushes (or pulls) any object to another. [4]"This is another false statement. My opponent links us to an experiment where two lead balls seem to be attracting each other, but this does not mean that any object is attracted to another, based on some undetectable, magical theory. If any object is attracted to another, as my opponent assumes is fact, then I should be able to drop a wadded piece of paper off of a sheer cliff and see that paper stick to the side of it, instead of fall to the ground as common sense will tell me. This is not reality, it is pseudoscience.Pro makes a few more assumptions after this. One being the age of the earth, which is not the subject of this debate, and the other, what materials the ground beneath his feet is comprised of, despite the fact that humans have not even gone past 8 miles deep. He provides an interesting experiment involving some sand and water, interestingly enough coming to the conclusion that, in a real world experiment and everyday observations, proves that the ground is level. When he or I get to go to space, we can then test the other imaginary experiments and observations he proposes, under the assumptions that earth is a ball, space is real, anyone has reached a point far enough away from the earth to just "float around", and gravity being real (the theory) is the basis for every one of them. Local Changes in DaylightMy opponent ends the first round with the classic observation round earthers make when they've done no research into other cosmological theories. In the flat and hollow earth theories, the sun is not a ridiculous 93,000,000 miles away. It is closer and smaller, and sheds it's light locally which adequately explains each of his arguments. A smaller, closer sun is far more likely, considering crepuscular rays, and a growing sun in some balloon videos, not to mention the hotspot, and perfectly explains the problems with daylight that pro infers is exclusive to a ball earth. (5) (1) http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...(2) https://www.nasa.gov...(3) https://youtu.be... (4) (5) https://youtu.be...