The earth is expanding (part 2)

Before I start my rebuttal, I would like to address the topic of my opponent REPORTING votes on our last argument. These votes were completely viable, and my opponent most lily reported these because he didn't want to lose. This is a breach of conduct so bad, it's almost crazy. 0. MY PROFILE: My opponent checked my profile and calls me a liar because I put my age down as 19, and say I'm 14. This was an error, I accidently put the wrong age and cannot change it. You also say that I said that I graduated school in 2012? I never put that once on my profile. I said I WILL be graduating in 2021! Because of these two things, one being a simple mistake, and the other being simply false, my opponent says that I am a liar and cannot be trusted. He then goes on to accuse me of creating two other profiles for the sake of winning votes is really... preposterous. These are both highly active profiles that have different views, religions, and debates than me. The idea that I have three active profiles with different backstories, music and movie tastes, political views, and organizations is really silly honestly. NOW LET'S RETURN THE FAVOR AND CHECK OUT MY OPPONENTS PROFILE. Out of 59 debates my opponent has not won a single one... my opponent also thinks that he is the 'only honest' debater on this website because he has not won a single debate. If my opponent cannot win a debate, does that make him and his sources and arguments very trustable? Does reporting votes to win make him even more trustable? 1a. Yes it is true you have already explained where this matter would come from, HOWEVER that is irrelevant because I already debunked it. What I am asking for is an argument that I cannot debunk, which so far you have not even cam close to delivering. 1b. You then go on to start saying that, because of my age, what I say is irrelevant. Quite silly, indeed, especially since I have been winning against you for the past several arguments. I am not trying to be rude here, I am just saying that saying that whatever I say cannot be credited is simply because of my age is rude, predatory, and just plain silly. 1c. "The source of information is irrelevant. Its whether the information is correct or not that matters most. My sources are all correct, while your sources are all incorrect." Actually, the source is very important. Sources are supposed to provide facts to support your arguments, not to say your arguments for you. Thus, if a source gives just purely facts, and has a history of incorrect facts, or is on a platform where literally ANYBODY can upload, whilst not having a significant following, it can be discredited. This is especially a problem for you, because your sources often state your arguments, whilst also being not very credible. In the rare case that you do have a reasonable and credible source, it often has almost nothing to do with your argument. 1d. "My opponent has agreed that Alfred Wergener's drawing are very shonky and not worthy as displaying as evidence. Thank's opponent. You have just discredited your own evidence. Thus, the plate tectonic theory is unworthy." I was saying that Wegner's drawings are not to be credited as an exact source. Because the work of one century old scientist is not exist, it doesn't mean I am discrediting the entire theory. I am just floe saying that such broad drawings cannot be used to argue such a specific thing. 1e. "Detailed map of Pangaea. - The ancient river systems don't match the Pangaea model. Rivers are flowing to nowhere. It just doesn't make sense. Now, if you wrap Pangaea onto a smaller globe, it will fit perfectly. Now, that makes sense!!!!!" As detailed as this map is, we cannot really know the exact flow of these rivers, because over millions and millions of years, these things change. Also, rivers really don't flow to 'nowhere'? could you please give me an example because I see nothing. Also, if you wrap Pangea around a smaller globe, the rivers would literally have nowhere to lead. You provide ne real argument on WHY it would fit more perfectly there. 2. "Earth unstable - Proof - If you get a sphere on a string and spin it around. No problem. Now, you add a piece of chewing gum to one side of the sphere and spin it again. Now, observe - sphere is unstable and wobbles. With all the land on one side of a spinning globe there would be no regular day and night pattern. Thus, life would not be able to evolve. Let's face it, the Pangaea Earth model is full of inconsistencies and errors". This is because of gravity. There is no 'direction' in space, there for it wouldn't be wobbling. The reason why something might wobble is because one side might be heavier than the other, giving more pull towards the Earth. 3a. You fail to explain how this supports your theory, and don't provide a link to why it might. This book is also extremely old, from 1988, which makes it unexposed to lots of new evidence gathered within the past 30 years. Also, I checked and there is no 'Carey' under a list of all Nobel prize winners. Check for your self (Control F, 'Carey' : https://en.wikipedia.org...) 3b. You also credit a source, which literally just discuss the things I have already debunked in past arguments... Also, your source barley talks about, let along gives evidence for Pluto expanding. According to my own research, Pluto has never been said to be expanding... This appears to be a misunderstanding of the observation that Pluto's ATMOSPHERE has been expanding! (https://en.wikipedia.org...) 4. What? How does this disprove seafloor spreading? 5. Once again, your source gives your argument for you, not evidence. It is fine if you would AGREE with the page, however you do not even state your claim, just link to a website. The website seems quite credible, however the main argument in this article is that gravity increased, causing the big organisms on Earth to die off. The argument linked is too big and detailed to debate here, but it is not related to your theory. And because the claim rests on the increase of gravity, and your explanation of gravity is different than the source cited on the website, you must first explain (without being debunked) how the gravity increased. This source is not a viable argument, because you have not debunked my theory, and my theory is still viable.