The earth is spherical and spinning

Thanks to my opponent for his Speedy response suspectively already typed up and ready to copy and paste. A good way to examine evidence is to first determine whether it is directly relative or proves the conclusion, then see if this proponderence of evidence is conclusive or not objectively, of course. R1 Direct observations My opponent seems to be confused as to the meaning of direct observation. Direct observation is defined as: "Direct observation, also known as observational study, is a method of collecting evaluative information in which the evaluator watches the subject in his or her usual environment without altering that environment. " What my opponent offers as evidence is indirect, meaning we must take someone's word for it. You also must alter the environment, or go to "space", which no civilian has ever done, much less my opponent, i or our voters. It is i who offers actual direct observations, that anyone can confirm, while my opponent offers pictures and videos from limited sources as if photoshop or a green screen didnt exist. The majority of his sources are governments, who don't have the best track record for honesty, matter-of-factly, they probably have the worst track record. From fruitless speeches of "no new taxes" to secret oaths, and secret societies, to several admitted false flags against their own people(1), it seems that governments are the last people we should trust. So in my honest opinion, we should look at these images in a very skeptical light, and think to ourselves, "could these images be faked? " My opponent offers a few images in the way of proving his ball, so i will address some of these, the first two links are just curved horizon images, not unlike what the Red Bull dive video has. Had these images been videos, The camera would likely be fixed, as the footage from the ISS is, so as to prevent any morphing. Also note that the top of the curvature stays at eye level, which is inconsistent with the ball. So we can basically group these images and videos together, as they are numerous and can, and as i have shown, can be done easily with high altitude flights with a fisheye lens on a flat earth, and conclude that this is not concrete proof of a spherical earth. There's one supposed picture of the full earth on NASA's page, (3)which is admittedly created in photoshop, lazily. (4) I'm kind of glancing over the very many sources my opponent offers, and to save space, I won't evaluate them all, but by grouping them into a few categories, we can explain what we are seeing. This leads me to source 5, which is a rocket, which, when we evaluate, shows no warping, and definitely does not remain stable, providing evidence that this is not a fisheye lens, and does seemingly show a very slight curve. In this instance, and any time the camera gets into a position where it is a visible distance from where the close, small sun's light ends, and night begins. The light from the sun creates a circle on the earth. Such as this(5), we are actually seeing the limits of it's light. Source 6 is just fakex, who actually works for NASA. This video is just silly, Landing a pencil shaped rocket on a barge is impossible and plenty of people are not falling for it. (6) Source 7 shows fisheye effects and concave earth at 4:15. Source 8 show a curved horizon because it is viewed through curved glass, that is put on all planes. And most of us know what curved glass does to straight lines. (7) and source 9 is a dead link. It has been shown that these images could be faked, and given the fact that most of these images and videos reach altitudes similar to that of the dog cam and the Red Bull dive, and show varying levels of curvature while there is no lens presently that straightens out curved lines, we must assume that the dog cam horizon is the true one, and that the rest are either entirely faked, or misenterpreted. Especially when given direct observations examples of no curvature from here on earth. And that this proof fails the conclusive test. R1 Geometry My opponent insists that astronomical observations are critical to understanding the shape of the earth. This is speculation at best. When surveyors start their measurements on beginning the site of a building, are those surveyors carrying telescopes and observing the sky? Does a homeowner look to the skies, observing how birds fly over his house to check for it's level? My opponent claims that the flat earth has no way of predicting where celestial bodies will be, but this is entirely false. Ancient cultures accurately predicted eclipses, the sun and moon's motions, as well as the stars. The Mayans created a calendar based entirely on the fact that the earth was flat, which is still accurate today. The Egyptians, who also believed the earth was flat, built monolithic structures that were perfectly aligned with the predictions of stars, eclipses, the sun and the moon. An ancient tool, called the astrolabe, was constructed in ancient Greece over 2,000 years ago (when people knew the earth was flat, whereas they at least had the use of their basic senses, and weren't preprogrammed and indoctrinated with educational systems insisting the earth were a globe as a "fact" from day one). It was the most accurate tool for predicting the positions of all celestial bodies. ". .. Typical uses of the astrolabe include finding the time during the day or night, finding the time of a celestial event such as sunrise or sunset and as a handy reference of celestial positions. Astrolabes were also one of the basic astronomy education tools in the late Middle ages. .. The history of the astrolabe begins more than two thousand years ago. The principles of the astrolabe projection were known before 150 B. C. , and true astrolabes were made before A. D. 400. The astrolabe was highly developed in the Islamic world by 800 and was introduced to Europe from Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) in the early 12th century. It was the most popular astronomical instrument until about 1650, when it was replaced by more specialized and accurate instruments. Astrolabes are still appreciated for their unique capabilities and their value for astronomy education. .. " (8) My opponent insists that since modern astronomy can predict celestial bodies positions in the sky because they assume the earth is spherical, but since this has been done for thousands of years using the flat earth model, and in my opinion have very little to do with the shape of the terra firma beneath our feet, I must leave this decision to the voters to consider this as any sort of concrete evidence dIrectly related to or proves the conclusion. I do ask that voters ask themselves, how, over thousands of years, have the movements of celestial bodies been so accurately predicted, especially since, if the big bang theory were true, all bodies are spreading out, and spinning in such a chaotic manner? Could it be possible that modern astronomy has adapted these ancient means of these same predictions, changing the sizes and distances to fit the current model? Yes it is. Take the sun for example, the size and distance has changed multiple times in history per the current model. The sun is small and close, this much can be observed by small changes in size, my opponent insists that the change would be so great that it would be noticeable due to to perspective, but while perspective causes objects to change size greatly as they increase distance to the viewer, lights act differently. Take this photo for example. (9) The lights further away from the camera are larger In some cases than those closer. This is due to the magnification effects of liquids in the atmosphere, which my opponent denies. It's still unclear what exactly the sun, moon and stars are at this point, but if modern astronomy and science were to acknowledge the shape of the earth as flat, we would no doubt figure it out. Regardless, this is a debate about the shape of the earth, the shape of the heavens are irrelevant, and my proofs far outweigh my opponent's in this debate, and are relevant. I must ask my opponent, since I have shown both the flatness of water over large distances, and there is no evidence of movement, which directly refute the basic tenants of the heliocentric model, what evidence could I bring that would disprove his model? If the spherical earth cannot be falsified, why should we consider it seriously per the scientific method? All that would be needed to falsify the flat earth for me would be authentic video of a whole spherical earth spinning from space. R3 Big G My opponent brings to the table another so called proof of a spherical earth, a force under the name of gravity. The only directly observational evidence that Big G exists is the observable fact that what goes up must come down, and this in no way suggests a spherical earth. This observable fact can actually be used against the spinning ball, in that anyone who has ridden on a gravitron at the fair can attest to the fact that anything spinning will exhibit centrifugal force, which is just the opposite of what is actually happening. It has not been shown that all objects are attracted to one another relative to their size as my opponent claims. Big G on a flat earth can be adequately explained using simple laws of buoyancy and densities. The molecules in Newton's apple were more dense than the molecules that made up the air around and under it. Why this happens can't be explained by my opponent's model or mine, it is just a natural tendency of nature, probably due to pressure. The submarine, when pressurized, or when air (mass) is added, floats. Depressurize that same submarine, or take some mass away from it, and it sinks. There are many holes in the theory of gravity, and even mainstream ballers question it's existence today. (10,11,12,13,14,15,16) So this proof fails both tests, as it does not directly prove the conclusion, and is not substantial evidence.