Earth is spherical/spheroid shaped

Since this is the last round I'll just give the rebuttals and a short conclusion. Starting with one I left out of round 2. I missed it the first time. Probably because my opponent's source was a refutation for one of his own claims." The Verrazano Narrow-Bridge was designed with Earth's "roundness" in mind, it's 2 towers seperated by 1300m and perfectly vertical are nonetheless 41 milimeters further apart at the top than at the bottom because of Earth's curvature." My issue is how exactly my opponent's hidden Easter egg source concludes that the two towers are vertical? Was a water level used to measure this? They may very well have built the bridge to allow for the earth's curvature, This does not mean that the water it was built on was curved. Round 3 rebuttals GyroscopesMy opponent offers a rebuttal of the gyroscope argument by showing a diagram and explanation of Foucault's pendulum. While they were invented by the same guy, they are entirely different. Which means he has no rebuttal for gyroscopes. There is no rule to prohibit new evidence in any round, I'll give a short rebuttal.Foucault's pendulum Woe is the gullible one who gets tricked by such idiocy. Whereas the crowds gather and gape in amazement as the pendulum is swung about on top of the earth, and the swinger explains that the earth moves under the pendulum instead of the obvious, the pendulum goes about over top of the earth! What of eclipses, and the effect they have on these swinging pendulums? During eclipses, the pendulum is known to change directions and speeds. Does my opponent claim this is proof of the earth changing directions and speeding up? If the earth moves about under a swinging pendulum, there should be no reason one shouldn't be able to, when bound on vacation, rent a hot air balloon, and make a trip intercontinental! Why if the earth moved as they say it does, over 1,000 miles per hour, I should make to from the east coast of the US to the west coast in a bit over 3 hours time.Chicago SkylineMy opponent seems to have not even examined the evidence, has no idea how much the earth should curve in his model, and types a one liner rebuttal:"Not sure about that because the Earth is big enough to feel and look flat."Using the curvature calculator, We can deduce that most of Chicago should be hidden. There should be a 2100.7340 foot drop at 60 miles.https://dizzib.github.io...Since the tallest building in Chicago, Willis Tower, at 1,451 feet, is clearly visible, where it should be over 600 feet over the curvature of the earth, it stands to reason that the water on Lake Michigan is flat, aside from swells and waves. Since water is always found to be flat, and it is claimed to cover roughly 75% of the face of the earth, logically, the earth is flat. "About his Christmas balls, I don't celebrate Christmas just so you know,"That's very sad."but small balls are much different from ginormous balls because any ball that is as big as Earth can work like a flat ground and can even have a flat ground placed on it, Kansas is flat as a pancake yet Earth is an oblate ball."My opponent claims that Kansas is flat, yet the earth is a ball. In order for a ball to... be a ball, every point on the earth must have some convexity to it. From any one point, the earth must, out of spherical geometry, curve away from you. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can calculate the amount of curvature by squaring the mile, and multiplying by 8 inches. I'm not sure my opponent will understand but let's see how much curvature is missing in Kansas if it is indeed flat. If one were travelling from Kansas city, which is one the eastern border of Kansas, to Karonado, over on the west side, we would have to travel 451miles of road. 451 X 451 = 203,401 That's in inches. Divide that by 12 to get the missing feet: 16,950 feet. That's a 3.2 Mile high hump of road. Doesn't seem like a 3 mile high hump of road would look very flat. I'll just go over my opponent's last round rebuttals. "As much as I can agree ISS is not really 250-400 miles up" My opponent concedes the ISS, and starts on a gish gallop with probes and the moon landings, which were proved fakes, even some ball earth proponents admit it.He continues on his gallop by admitting that NASA fakes "a lot of images" but points to yet another picture from these tricksters, claiming there was no possible way to fake his last image, where the straight lines appear straight, as if a green screen doesn't exist.He goes on with a straw man saying that I've claimed any distance to the sun, and assumes his model's temperature for the sun is absolute. It's obvious there is no amateur reading for the temperature of the sun, and it's even more obvious he has no idea how "globalists" attained this temperature of many thousands of degrees. He concludes with a last ditch effort involving the sun, swaying again, way off topic. While laughably claiming that three friends in three opposites of the world, all the way from New York to London are seeing the sun at the same time at all, let alone the same size sun. The sun doesn't change size because of atmospheric lensing. There is a lot of water in the atmosphere, in the form of gas. Trillions of tiny convex balls of water that is know to refract the light from objects. The more distance, the more water, the more magnification. Rob Skiba should be credited with this significant discovery.