The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

Rebuttal I: Bedford Experiment.Con says my source, and I, are wrong about light curvature. I'm curious about his explanation. My source does in fact give an explanation of my claim:"Because the density of air in the Earth's atmosphere decreases with height above the Earth's surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward..." -my source.Rebuttal II: Acceleration /Balloon Experiment.My opponent claims the fish-eye effect is obvious... However, it's clear that the Fish-eye effect was removed, as the whole video lacks it. In fact, the only evidence of such an effect is when you see the curvature of the Earth. If Pro is going to link to a source, he should pick a video. Giving us a Youtube Search is not meaningful.I find Con's water refutation silly... My case still stands. Basic physics teach that the gravity of the sphere points inwards, not downwards. So water at the bottom of the sphere is pushed inwards towards the sphere still... He concedes that gravity holds water in place.Rebuttal III: Antarctica.Con's claim is contradictory... He said an article claimed X amount of oil... But as soon as I found contradictory sources, he claims the Government doesn't let anyone in... But that's wrong none-the-less... Many people go to Antarctica for research. Far too many to keep it a secret. In fact, over a few thousand people live in Antarctica during Summer (1). And then there's the 56,000 inhabitants of Greenland, far too close to the North Pole for Con's theory is stand.[1] http://www.antarctica.gov.au...Rebuttal IV: Motion of the Earth.DroppedRebuttal V: The Sun.The distance of the Sun wouldn't prevent the rays of light from spreading apart... In fact, the further away the Sun, the further apart two rays of light would be. Con' s case is built only on a profile picture showing 3 "rays" of light from the sun only works because it excludes every one for the trillions of possible rays in between.Rebuttal VI: Blue Marble.I'm not entire sure what being a composite image has to do with it... Mostly because he doesn't prove it changes anything... I didn't bring up it being composite because of its irrelevancy. A composite image can look the same as any other image. Con would have had to PROVE it was faked, not just say it was because it "could" be."It seems like you are in complete denial, I saw the word sex."You saw clouds doing what clouds do. One picture out of the billions of cloud photos in the world is pointless.Argument I: Size of the Conspiracy."astro-nots get a fat check for life"On what grounds does Con continuously make these claims? What evidence is there of this "fat check for life?" And if a normal guy claimed the Earth was flat, it'd be easy to make him a fool... But if Buzz Aldrin said so, it'd be nearly impossible to stop the impact, and call an American hero crazy.Con's theory is ridiculous... Ignoring the fact that a flat Earth could exist with aliens, or the fact that this presumes the voters even believe in the Bible, or the fact that politicians find religion more beneficial than harmful... Consider that EVERY politician uses the existence of Jesus to get elected... There is simply no evidence that this theory exists...Con forgets he must PROVE his case. Not just say it... And he still doesn't refute the issue about having to keep a secret among hundreds of thousands of people... Including thousands of years of explorers, and hundreds of years of people freely exploring any area of Earth. In fact, millions of ventures are made around the world every year, and Con hasn't proven how the Government keeps the "truth" hidden.Argument II: Arguments for a Round Earth.This argument which proved the curvature of the Earth was dropped.Conclusion:Con failed to prove the Earth was flat... Instead claiming it could be... maybe... He established no offensive prrof, only defensive claims (which is insufficent for meeting one's BOP)...