DDO Tier Tournament 2-Flat Earth Theory vs Spherical Earth Theory

Thanks to Pro for his argument! Unfortunately, I am a bit scrapped for time and will have to drop a few less important contentions. .. I will be utilizing this round to counter Pro's rebuttals and over-view some of the major themes covered in this debate. C1) As Seen from SpacePro objects that the satellite imagery I have provided is no more reliable than a photo of Bigfoot. However, this completely ignores the source. .. these pictures do not come from some random "expert"; they come from NASA, a highly reputable organization of professional astronomers, funded by the government itself with tax-payer money. Information that comes from their research carries much, much more weight than a Bigfoot photo. Pro then goes on to criticize NASA as a source, claiming that the astronomers there would lie to make people believe that the Earth is round. But this accusation is totally unwarranted. .. . Where is the motivation to do such a thing? Pro provides absolutely no reason for why the astronomers would want to propagate the idea of a round Earth other than that "they will lose their jobs and funding", which makes no sense. Why would the Earth being discovered to be flat have any negative effect on them? We cannot accept Pro's baseless criticisms of NASA; there is no motivation for fabrication. As for his objection regarding fish-eye lenses, EVEN if they were actually used, they can only cause a sort of curved distortion. .. they can't make a flat object appear to be a perfect sphere. (. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...)And Pro's argument concerning a spotlight sun is absurd; just because the Sun wouldn't be directly shining upon parts of Earth doesn't mean those parts would appear to be completely invisible. .. we can still see outlines of and city lights in the parts of Earth that are experiencing night time. .. .NASA's satellite imagery of Earth serve as near-definitive proof of a spherical Earth. C2) Horizon ObservationsPro claims that the main cause of the sinking ship effect is small, imperceptible waves covering up the bottom of the ship. .. however, this makes no sense; if the waves were really *that* imperceptible to the point that no one even noticed them, then the sinking effect would not be visible from such a long distance away. .. . this is a self-refuting and paradoxical explanation. Pro also blames optical illusions and external factors such as light diffraction, haze, and clouds. However, he provides no elaboration as to HOW these would make the ship appear to sink. .. . I could just as easily list off some other illusory effects and hold them responsible for the results of the Bedford Level Experiment, and it would hold the same weight as Pro's rebuttal, here. If the common observation of the sinking ship effect is so easily rendered an unreliable indicator of the Earth's shape, then such also applies to the Bedford Level Experiment. Pro's rebuttal here applies to his own C2 just as much as it does to mine. C3) Lunar EclipsesPro states that the circular shadow on the moon shows a circular flat Earth just as much as it does a spherical Earth. This is blatantly false. For a circular shadow to be projected on the moon by a flat Earth, the moon would have to be directly above the Earth, and the Sun would have to be directly below the Earth. .. Given the positions of the moon and the sun around the Earth, even in a geocentric universe, the shadow cast on the moon would RARELY, if ever, be circular. In a flat Earth, the shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses would more often be a misshapen ellipse of sorts. Seeing that this is not the case, the consistently circular shadow of the Earth during lunar eclipses serves as evidence for a Spherical Earth, ONLY. C5) Center of GravityMy opponent's only rebuttal to my argument here is an assertion that gravity doesn't exist. .. However I provided numerous pieces of evidence for the existence of gravity last round, and Pro's only response has been that Newtonian physics and Relativity contradict each other, invalidating gravity as a whole. Since several of his refutations rest on this contention, it is a matter worth clearing up. Relativity EXPLAINS Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics still accurately describes the vast majority of gravity's effects, including planetary motions and falling objects on Earth. It can still be used for all practical purposes within this debate, since we are discussing very ordinary gravitational effects here. Using relativity as evidence for the existence of gravity and then using Newtonian physics to describe the behavior of gravity is perfectly sound. Pro's pointing out of the supposed "contradiction" between the two does not do anything to refute this contention. And regarding the helium balloon phenomenon, gravity is *still* acting on the balloon; it is just that the lesser density of helium compared to the higher density of the surrounding air forces it to travel upwards. In the same way, when oil floats on the top of water, the oil is not defying gravity. .. it's just floating to the top by the action of the more dense water. Gravity exists, and its predictions combined with our observations of reality indicate that the Earth MUST be spherical. OVER VIEWNone of Pro's "evidence" for a Flat Earth holds up. .. -- Gravity almost certainly exists and completely explains the quirks of a Spherical Earth-- Observing that the Earth looks flat from anywhere near the surface is like calling a soccer ball flat by staring at it from a couple millimeters away. It is simply not not logical, and is an attempt at abusing the limits of human perception. (Also, I'd like to note that Pro has brought in quite a few new facts and figures this last round concerning the Earth's size and proportions as they relate to its curvature, which is unfair because I do not have a chance to address them) -- Pro has refuted his own horizon observation effects by pointing out the confirmation bias involved in human perception and potential external interference. -- Simplicity is not a valid indicator of truth value. Occam's Razor deals with which one makes fewer *assumptions* made; not which one is simpler-- Whether or not the universe is Geocentric has NOTHING to do with the shape of the Earth. .. Ptolemy actually believed in a round Earth. .. Meanwhile, the pictures of Earth from space, the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses, and the theory of Gravity's predictions all serve as near-definitive proof of a spherical Earth.