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."Your problem is that you automatically assume that the earth is a spheroid, and the only proof you have is speculative assertions. The word planet means wandering stars, by adding the letter t to the end of plane, we were all fooled for over 500 years. Pro goes over his arguments, gives my position on them, or at least cherry picks what he likes. "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."It's sad that my opponent believes everything he see on his computer screen. His proof that we live on a spinning globe is that mathematics add up, they can be inputted into a computer, and they correlate with various software programs and GPS. The grand finale is another unverifiable image. Pro ignores that these satellites are so elusive that they aren't in any of the so called space footage from the ISS, this calls that footage into question, he also ignores that these brightly (presumably self) illuminated bus size objects aren't in any of the images or video from "space". He ignores the fact that a Google search brings up nothing but computer animated images of the satellite. It would be like posting this and wondering why someone wouldn't believe in the picture.http://www.debate.org...My opponent doesn't seem to understand the scientific method. Images on a computer that can't be empirically validated through objective reality and this leaves substantial doubt. If it is 9:30, as the images state, what is illuminating the satellite? Shouldn't it be fully eclipsed by the earth's shadow by 9:30? "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."Good try, but the source of heat in space, or anywhere for that matter isn't a few particles that may come into contact with the satellite. Common sense tells us the source of heat is the sun. You know, the (supposedly) big ball of flaming helium that your planet is supposedly flying around? The same source of heat that heats up those "very few particles concentrated" would heat up the very large hunk of particles in the same area, you think? Also, due to those very few particles of whatever, the heat wouldn't radiate away from the 2,000° blob of glowing hot metal, as this is how radiators work, and is an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Since even they are the same temperature as the "satellite" there would be no way to cool the satellite, which also has added heat from added various indesctructable electronics onboard. So the satellite, that can't steer itself, can't cool itself, can't repair itself, can't be seen (other than through computer simulations, and a grainy screen shot on someone else's telescope) and, as my opponent ignores, has more probable explanations, should not be taken as scientific evidence that we are all monkeys on a spinning ball.My opponent then links to some satphones as a last ditch effort to save this sci-fi fantasy, sneakily posing as reality.http://lakdiva.org..."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...;Aside from this being a straw man, I have to ask my opponent, how does he know that this data is true? How do you know the information isn't being misinterpreted or presented under false pretense. I realize that pro has put great FAITH in the words of these men. But the information isn't infallible any more than if I were to quote Bible verses as proof of something. We aren't in a creation(God created everything) versus big bangism (nothing created everything) debate here. We can objectively measure the earth and it's waters PRESENTLY, there is no need to ask someone's opinion on how old rocks are etc. to try and prove a point. This is an appeal to authority/ strawman fallacy."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."Maybe pro ignored the refutation, and cherry picked the last round. I have given a logical reason that we shouldn't compare lights in the sky to the ground beneath our feet. This is a false analogy fallacy. I'm reminded of a George Orwell quote."Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either."My opponent can assume whatever he likes. It is up to the voter to decide if this "evidence" stands.On eclipses, he Is shown many eclipses are on record that contradict the heliocentric explanation. He responds:"He just shows some video of a particular type of lunar eclipse perfectly explained by atmospheric refraction ON A SPHEROID EARTH."So, without practical and testable (scientific) evidence to support the claim, "atmospheric refraction" has, according to his drawing, caused the light from both the sun and moon to be bent in opposite directions, AND has caused the shadow to come from and follow the opposite direction as well, So even That The earth Is Clearly Below Both The Sun And The Moon, The Shadow Is Coming From Above. I Hear "Optical Illusion" And "Atmospheric Refraction" To Try To Excuse This Very Blatant Error In The Heliocentric Model. This Is Conjecture. Not How The Scientific Method Works. You Don't Change The Facts If They Don't Support The Theory.In conclusion.My opponent seems to have forgotten altogether what the scientific method is. Objective, testable, repeatable, scalable, practical, experimental.. these are the scientific method. If we lived on a spinning ball, there would be numerous experiments we could perform to confirm this. Since the only "evidence" my opponent has to believe this is highly speculative and assumes nearly everything including the conclusion. His circular logic is blatantly apparent in all of his evidence. The earth supposedly produces a round shadow on the moon (because it is a spherical planet). Satellites "orbit" the earth (because it is a spherical planet). From this "evidence", I've no reason to believe that the earth is anything but a motionless, possibly infinite plane, as my research, experimentation, and common senses tell me.https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.