The Earth is spherical in shape.

Thanks to my opponent for a third and hopefully not last thought provoking debate about our reality, and whether we should trust our senses, or authority. I hope his views have, or will change about his atheism and scientific evidence for The Creator's probable existence. I just noticed pro was a devout atheist unfortunately. I'll just address each of my opponents main points, and give a short summary preceding that. Quotations will be from pro unless otherwise noted. "I don't have any obligation to prove that the earth is spinning, nor will I attempt to." I was merely suggesting an alternative means of proving the ball earth. One goes with the other. If the earth isn't spinning, then the sun must be either very fast, going around this stationary earth, or small and close, affirming my third counterargument, and this would create another issue altogether. Remember, "The burden of proof rests on Pro (me). As this is a scientific topic, my burden is satisfied should my arguments leave no room for reasonable doubt concerning the spherical shape of the Earth." I think I have cast sufficient doubt, to say the least, that pro's evidence is pseudoscience, under the guise of science, and the resolution has been negated.Pseudoscience is defined as:pseu·do·sci·ence noun a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. While the scientific method is defined as: sci·en·tif·ic meth·od noun a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. My opponent offers only one experiment to prove any of his claims, but it isn't consistent, and doesn't factor in axioms like electromagnetism or frequency and vibrations. So this is a debate based almost entirely on pseudoscience. "but traveling to the moon is still very hard to do." They went just fine on the first try in a time when the whole of NASA's computing power, basically, several entire room-size computers would now fit on a modern wristwatch (smartwatch). That's if you believe the entire hoax. Astronauts go back and forth to the ISS all the time. Care packages with musical instruments and even monkey suits are sent there all the time. Not one civilian though. Starting to get the point? Maybe not...Photographic Evidence Pro entirely ignores the bubbles in space Google search that I provided and instead watches a few seconds of the delay video I presented. He therefore does not even realize his blunder and misses the point altogether. The inconsistency wasn't meant to be pointed out in the first clip, that was just meant to give an example of how much delay there should be. The real NASA goof is when Chris Hatfield does a duo simultaneously with Barenaked Ladies frontman at the second clip, later in the video. So where is the delay? I have a few sources saying this was recorded simultaneously if my opponent should feel the need to research it, a simple Google search pulls up a few. My opponent guffaws "...is somewhat ironic considering the opponent believes images and videos aren't to be trusted.... Keep in mind that this is just an analysis of media from his source that he defends like a deacon would his preacher with... media from his source. This is proving the source of one of his arguments unreliable. This is literally the only source that would be able to confirm to us that earth is a ball now, so it is clear why he has decided to discuss it lastly in the coming rounds."...While every bone in my body wants to tear apart these goofy videos as nonsensical..." I await a proper response to this inconsistency in the coming rounds. He then downplays the word "sex" being photoshopped into clouds on virtually every 3rd graders dictionary by saying it looks like different letters, and blows the whole thing off by claiming that words or letters are common in cloud formations. I trust voters use their head on that one too, it seems that cognitive dissonance has set in on pro. His judgement of the debate I presented affirms his cognitive dissonance and Stockholm syndrome.Gravity My opponent makes the absurd claim that all of science is pseudoscience here in an all in attempt to defend his theory. Maybe his definition of pseudoscience or the scientific method differs from mine. Now that I've clarified that, I'll quickly discuss natural science, and it's difference between pseudoscience, or as some like to call it, formal science. Natural science is scalable, repeatable, and practical. Formal science is different because it doesn't require empirical observations to make a claim. The math just needs to add up. It can't be falsified in any verifiable way. The claim must just be accepted. Pro gives us one experiment originally performed in the 1700's(which ignores many axioms), and drops a mic, proclaiming this is without a doubt proof that we live on a (spinning) ball. He honestly believes, because he has been told so, that he is a monkey on a spinning ball. I feel the urge to quote the greatest scientist ever here."Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla My opponent ends this argument with a reasonable claim:"...objects at rest do not suddenly start moving. Some force has to cause them to move."We may be observing a "force" when we see the Apple or microphone fall, but does this mean that this force is attracting everything to everything else? We can only observe through the scientific method that objects tend to fall down. This inherently negates the resolution by bringing up the question that even 1st graders tend to ask when they are told they live on a ball: "Why don't people in Australia fall off of the bottom of the ball?" Local Daylight patterns1. My opponent will, in the next round, prove with his calculator what actual experimentation and empirical observations shows just the opposite. A child can fill up a glass of water and place an object behind it to scale this down. (1) This gives us 3 experiments that anyone can perform that refutes his claim. My opponent asks us to trust his calculator, I ask that we see for ourselves. Please use good judgement when making this call.2. Local lightingMy opponent does not seem to understand exactly what local illumination is, or think that it is even possible. This again is demonstrably false pseudoscience(2). We are just expected to take his word for it, without question. This also couples with the above point on refraction. His objection that " The idea that light continues to move until it hits an object is not an assumption" can be dismissed when one makes the simple observation that clouds, dust, fog, smog, heat, etc would be obvious blockers of light over the course of thousands of miles. We know these things exist and are always present in the atmosphere, let's not ignore obvious axioms.3. Small sunMy opponent asks me to explain electromagnetism. This is a possible explanation for how the sun could exist. He again, in his question, assumes the heliocentric model when we see the word "universe". In the flat earth model, there is technically no universe, or more specifically, space is fake. In the flat earth model, well the most probable one, there is a firmament in which all the stars, moon and sun are situated in. Explaining this in detail would require another debate altogether. Maybe we can discuss this in a future debate. I urge him (and anyone else) to research the firmament. Tesla stood by it, as does the Bible, amongst others. So I guess my response is what "basic laws of physics" does he propose a small, close sun does not obey? Keep in mind that it is not empirically known what the sun is. This information has been well hidden for a very long time, so it will take some time and some real science to give a definite answer to this concern. SummaryMy opponent is trying to shift burdens in this debate. I was expected to prove that it was possible for a government agency to lie, which is ridiculous, to falsify and unfalsifiable theory, and to empirically verify an observable refraction effect. I'm not here to prove anything. My job here is to shed some reasonable doubt that we live on a (spinning) ball. Had my opponent offered any scientific evidence beyond pseudo scientific claims and misunderstandings, we would have a valid reason to believe it in the first place. So far we've seen "NASA says so" (an appeal to authority/popularity logical fallacy), "muh gravity" (Affirming the consequent/false premise fallacy), and a misunderstanding about the sun (argument from ignorance fallacy) as arguments from pro, and none of it can be empirically verified. This is far from convincing to say the least. Bring back the actual scientific method. Vote con.(1) http://www.debate.org...(2) https://ak9.picdn.net...(height:160)