The earth is a spheroid.

Con only accepts that Earth is the place we all live.It's still a spheroid, whether you call it a planet or not.Con missed a lot in the debate, so I'll point it out.I also have some surprises for Con.*Final Rebuttals/Defenses*I had four proofs.#1 was that satellites orbit the earth via the correct orbital velocity, which was calculated, tested, and proven successful over and over again.Orbital velocity has been demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions about where and how each and every satellite will travel, radially about a spheroid center, the earth.#2 was the earth's too far along in its planetary development to be flat given the nuclide and long-lived U"Pb chronometry, meteorite evidence, the current volatile element inventory of the solar system, variable and intense x-rayemission of protostars, and zirchon chronology all indicating that the earth formed via coalescence and gravity, necessarily rendering it spheroid.#3 was that all of the other planets formed the way earth did, and the real, live telescope shots of each of the planets and their moons confirms spheroidal formation.#4 was that when the earth gets in the way of the sun's rays traveling to the moon, the shadow is round, not flat. *Con on #1*Con tries:"There may very well be satellites, but to assume they are all flying around a globe is an assertion, with no verifiable evidence...yes, we saw the computer simulation. Still waiting on evidence...How do you observe that specific satellite in that specific orbit, pro?"My response:Ok.Now, I had debated with myself on whether or not to give out my membership for all readers to access, but I joined Slooh, a free telescope website that allows you to view particular observatories' telescope's views from around the world, and I was able to not only confirm the path of a particular satellite, I was able to see it in the actual live telescope shot, from Chile.Remember that silly computer simulation Con tried to poo poo?Well check this.I decided to track the American satellite Navstar 55, launched with those calculations necessarily dependent on orbital velocity, which is necessarily dependent on the RADIUS between the central spheroid mass and the object orbiting about it.So I found its path here:http://stuffin.space...While that site doesn't give latitude and longitude coordinates for seeing what's up in the sky, the next site does, and what you'll see is the position on that simulated globe from the link above is corroborated by the coordinates and map on the site below.https://in-the-sky.org...After I corroborated the evidence of the existence and path of this particular satellite, I looked at the live shot, on 1/18/18 9:34 PM ET, from the observatory in Chile and then I looked at the exact same shot from Chile at 9:40 PM and here are the *actual* shots.These are live telescope shots, from my membership to Slooh, of the sky above Chile which is part of the path of Navstar 55, an American satellite.https://www.slooh.com...9:34 PM 9:40 PM Notice the mid-upper-left side of the 2nd telescope shot has a satellite emerging from the exact place that the satellite trackers said it would.BAM!Orbital velocity works!At about 9:30 PM, the site that Con claimed was just some computer simulation, accurately predicted that Navstar 55 would pass over the visible sky above the Chile observatory, from which I took TWO live, authentic images, corroborated with a different satellite tracker with coordinates.Demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions.That's how science works actually.Now, I had mentioned that the materials on satellites, (aluminum, titanium alloys) can perfectly handle the temperature of the thermosphere.Con attempts:"These materials have a far lower melting point than 2,000 C". Couple that with the excess heat from the vast array of electronics on board each of them, and the basic laws of thermodynamics..."My response:Oh you wanna talk about thermodynamics?Ok, well the thermosphere is far less dense than the atmosphere of the earth, very few particles concentrated, so though temperatures do rise quite high in the thermosphere, the heat TRANSFER is for crap, so the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.The ISS and the satellites need not worry about burning up or melting, the thermosphere is not dense enough.Oh, and I had mentioned that all cell phone companies use satellites directly or indirectly for their broadband service,Con annoys:"Wonderful, another unevidenced claim. Love it."My response:Verizon's Satellite Sitehttps://www.vzwsatellite.com...AT&T's Satellite Sitehttps://www.corp.att.com...Come on Con.Also the moon is also a satellite that Con forgot about, but whatevs...we track it all of the time given orbital velocity about the spheroidal earth.*Con on #2*Con grumbles again:"Another unevidenced claim with a link to some diagrams and cartoons presented as evidence, with more unevidenced claims...an appeal to authority. If there aren't countless experimental, scalable, verifiable and objective experiments."My response:This is Con's only response to how the earth formed given the source I provided on it and the evidence that supports it is ignored by Con.For example, the uranium-lead chronometry indicates that the meteorites they found from different places in our solar system are about 4.5 billion years old, when they had predicted the solar system formed given the current volatile element inventory.http://iopscience.iop.org...Another example is measuring the x-ray emissions of protostars which indicate early irradiation within the solar system at the time the meteorites corroborate the beginnings of the solar system to be.So you can decide if this evidence is just some appeal to authority or if it's an evidence-based explanation of how a globular earth formed like its planetary brethren of the solar system.*Con on #3*Remember I had sourced live telescope shots of the other planets in our solar system, and they were all round?Yeah, Con never touched those.They stand.All of the planets and their moons in the solar system, including the earth and its natural satellite, are round and spheroid/spherical.*Con on #4*He just shows some video of a particular type of lunar eclipse perfectly explained by atmospheric refraction ON A SPHEROID EARTH.http://iopscience.iop.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...Click the link if the image doesn't work.Basically light gets refracted and distorts the positions and aparent sizes of objects given the velocity of the light traveling through air, so while it may appear that the sun and the moon do something strange during selenelion lunar eclipses, you can thank atmospheric refraction for their apparent paradoxical orientations.*Conclusion*Con's just not very good at refuting things, instead just resorts to saying "no evidence" or "doesn't cut it" or "I can't believe it" without any real delve into what he's talking about in particular.Con made no attempt to try to understand any of the information provided to him, and instead, just resorted to stomping his feet.It was annoying, but I'm confident that opt-in voters will notice the obvious idiocy inflicted on all of us by my opponent.