Is Earth a sphere or disk

Last text of the debate, and I shall include the two initial pictures I was meaning to post in the intended order: *Sources for these images were included in my last argument.Anyways, it seems as thought the majority of your claims are centered around disclaiming every source of evidence, not taking it for face value. I have provided numerous sources throughout my first argument, however, you would quite literally be denying all of them at this point, simply stating that they are "fake". Simply because there are no stars, you would assume its falsity? In all actuality, it would make logical sense from both a scientific and artistic perspective: The atmosphere directly outside of the earth accounts for the highest light-reflectent ratio from the Sun as a source, meaning the overwhelming glare, which essentially allows viewers to witness the earth from the atmosphere, is what cancels out the prominent lightsource from the starts. Quite literally the immense contrast between the atmosphere's reflectent and the voidness of space is what determines this. This same "glare" in the same manner explains the visible "glare" along the equator in the NASA images (and in the one I posted above), since the nearest portion of the earth is the equator, due to the bulge in response to the moon's own gravitational pull. The reason the that "Grand Canyon" one depicted this was only a matter of momentary perspective (due to the inability to see the entire earth at once). However, search close enough and the curvature will become evident. Of course, this could also be argued for the same purpose as "round disc", but this is why I also included the numerous other videos, for the same display of evidence. *I would like to note that the Instigator's "experiment" is linked to a Redirect Notice and not to an actual source/experiment. Because of this, I cannot accept this argument as valid for this reason; however, I may still take a look at it if you provide the sourcing in the comments. But please note, as there was no physical way for me to review this information, this presented argument cannot be held against me in the actual debate, even if you do source it afterwards. Concerning your stance on gravity, I did address you asking this in particular. I also stated the theory in response, which the earth travels at an increasing 9.8 m/s^2 in an upward direction, assuming the Northern Pole is within the positive direction on a Y coordinate plane. However, this is not what I asked. My thought was: Firstly, what is the force causing the acceleration? Only velocity may remain constant in outer space (whereas on earth, frictions such as air resistence will slow a velocity). Acceleration is an increasing velocity via mass over an alotted period of time (squared). And assuming you did define this "force", what exactly is the cause of this force, and where did it originate? Secondly, in terms of relativity, what prevents the earth from accelerating to the speed of light and beyond? Again, I am already aware of the flat earth theory of "Acceleration", but my point, is this lacks in fine, key details. Its concept is vague and cannot account for several factors, and it most certainly can not substantiate them on one another. Circumnavigation is a concept commonly used in support for those of use who believe in round earth. However, I did not state my argument on these evidences for two reasons: Flat-earthers have a tendency to deny the circumnavigation, even with a great many sources. Secondly, I did not feel the need, since my personal strengths (as an engineering major) lie in concept, universal law, and even a fair share in mathematics. I feel as though these evidences prove well more than enough to refute your claim of a disc-shaped earth, but I might also admit, I was exhausted last night. Considering the time restrictions on this debate, I was not inclined to remain up any later than necessary- so I apologize if it appeared as though this topic was neglected. But even still, I do not believe this is a necessary point to proving the curvature of the earth. Well, the reason that I insist that earth is a sphere is because of A. The overwhelming resources and evidence which suggest it is (even from individuals and small engineering groups) and B. The fluidity of the logics behind the theory of a spheroid shape. However, I am not entirely sure why you would insist that it is even necessarily a plate. Denying NASA evidence is one thing, but what exactly gives one the impression that it is a plate, and not another shape? It seems as though this theory initiated, but instead of basing this theory on concepts and observations, th concepts and observations seem to be based upon this theory. This quite frankly strikes me as a result of the "Confirmation Bias." (http://psychology.about.com...). What "proofs" have ever empirically proven the actual "dics" shape of the earth? It is a simply, never-ending statement of rebuttals- but no assertion, no offense. The entire theory is always on a constant, defensive playing field, yet there are no experiments (and the few there are seem to deliberately or ignorantly overlook the vast size of the earth in the process, meaning an underwhealming sample size- as well as a lack of random sampling). You state that "It is prove that a ship does not sink behind hill a hill of water." Well, you have not provided a "proof" here, so I am not particularly inclined to believe that unless you can provide that proof through either formula, theory, or source. However, bear in mind, that distance is a prime factor in conducting these experiments; many claimed experiments have only measured a mere six miles or less, but even in this, with a closer, micro-perspective, these calculations can be proven as well for round earth (refer back to the video of Eccentric Views). And I apologize for one of my typos on the debate. I meant to state, "However, what interests me is your actual lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that earth is in fact a 'plate'." But again, as I was feeling ill last night, I was having a difficult time proof reading my argument. Instigator, I am sincerely grateful for your time, and I thank you for the argument, as well as the topic. I do hope that the voters will consider voting on my behalf, but it be best that they also consider both sides of the conflict