The Earth exists as an oblate spheroid

Thank you to Death23 for accepting this debate. To the reader: pro is correct in saying that I don't want them to meet the definition of an oblate spherical earth completely, just a very close approximation when you look at the Earth as a whole. NASA says so:Right off the bat, I run into a major problem with this source, and not just because there is a logical fallacy in the wording (appeal to authority is the logical fallacy at play. I can say "Obama thinks that cheese pizza is the best", but the validity of my claim is only based off of who made the claim, not the scientific evidence behind the claim). What pro's source has a problem of doing is acknowledging that an [oblate] spherical shape of the earth is not a requirement for climactic zones or for the differential heating of the earth, though I do concede that this is one possiblity. A possibility, not having an objective reality, as shown in the definitions that my opponent has accepted. Pro's source has this picture, which shows most of the solar radiation coming to the equator: s://sealevel. jpl. nasa. gov. .. ; alt="" /> but a spherical earth is not a requirement for solar radiation to come to the equator the most. If the earth was flat and the sun orbitted above it, then you would see the Sun's radiation coming down continously at around the equator. Here is a diagram of a possiblity of how differential heating can occur on earth: As you can see, the sun is moving above the earth at roughly the equator, which disproves the necessity of an oblate spherical earth for differential heating. The source also says that climactic cells and wind cells require a flat earth, but let me give you a diagram that I made in less than 1 minute on MS Paint. What this means is that the heat from the equator will go to the nearest cold area (hot -> cold is how heat works), and that a spherical earth has NO impact on whether this phenomenon exists or not. I know that this is not a refutation to my opponent's source or argument, but I know that this will be brought up when he is defending himself against my attacks. The sun will move more "north" or more "south", depending on what season it is. Because it is known that during summer in the northern hemisphere, there is more light, please refer to my diagram (this will require moving the page because of the size of the image): Video from ISS:First, I thank my opponent for setting the link to be at an exact time, this helps me see what point he was trying to make. However, no matter how good this looks, this does not mean that this video is true. I could provide you with a video of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and say that pegasi and unicorns exist in the real world. My claim is equally as valid as yours is, because you did not directly say how this video proves anything at all. I can edit a video to show my father being John Fitzgerald Kennedy, but that does not mean that he actually was. Moon picture:And here is a picture of the milky way, but that does not mean that we went outside of the milky way to capture an image of it [1]. Perhaps this picture you gave me was just a rough estimation based on outdated information of the earth? Galileo:What caught my eye is this image [2], from the source that you provided. There are not four earths, so this image must have been doctored or edited in a way to display for images of earth. What this means is that your entire source displaying images of the earth is false, because if there is one false image that was edited intentionally, then who is to say that none of the others were edited intentionally to lie to the public? Evidence of the earth being oblate & NASA indicates it:Did you forget to fill these out before submitting? If so, that is okay, but if you did then you cannot bring these points back into the debate. Radii:What this could potentially mean is shown in an image that I created myself, because it is hard to explain this idea in words. The distance between pole one and pole two (pole one is called center) can be called the 'polar' radius. The distance between opposite sides of the equator can be called 'equitorial'. My opponent's fact of distance does not help his case to prove that the earth is an oblated sphere. Credible Astronomer:Where's the proof of his claim? Again, President Obama is a credible source, but that does not mean that he can decide what kind of pizza is the best without any sorts of research. And should an astronomer really be worrying about the shape of the earth? Astro- relating to stars; a studier of the stars. Geo- relating to the earth. A geologist should be making this claim instead of someone who is meant to study something unrelated. This is comparable to a very credible heart surgeon telling you about the economy. .. we have no reason to believe this claim of his, even if he is credible in another field. Systematic Errors:I am not sure what this means. If I cannot decipher the meaning of this claim, then I doubt it is any help to your case. [1]. . http://dockastronomy.wikispaces.com...[2]. . http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...Thank you to Death, it was fun making these pictures and writing this out. I have successfully refuted my opponent's entire case (or lack of a case, because he did not provide any logical conclusions from his sources, only gave me sources), and his sources (which was basically his case).