Destroy Yourself

My god, the odds are against me. XDNow before we begin let us define "flat". Dictionary.com defines this as "horizontally level; level, even, or without unevenness of surface", etc. [http://www.dictionary.com...] As such, the sources I address will have to prove that in order to be true.1. http://www.smarterthanthat.com... This is a source known as "Smarter than that". They list 10 reasons why the earth is flat: the moon, the ships and the horizon, varying star constellations, shadows and sticks, seeing farther from higher, riding a plane, looking at other planets, existence of timezones, center of gravity, and images from space. The source is very credible, however, its arguments are flawed. Firstly, note how it completely ignores the topic of what precisely constitues "flat". Nextly, even its arguments are flawed themselves. The source first notes that the shadow of the moon of the earth is round, and that earth must be spherical. Despite such, there is nothing to suggest that a sphere cannot be horizontally level. Think about it logically: a round sphere can be so stretched apart that it seems to be mostly "flat". The source does not even address if Earth is enough to constitute for a perfect sphere, so that argument is out. Nextly, the author addresses that ships appear into a field of a vision due to a "horizon". However, once again we think about it and we question about the nature of "flatness". It IS entirely possible that there is a bump on a flat surface that prevents you from seeing the ant. But depite the bump, if it is only one ant high, then that is nothing. This argument is clearly flawed. Following this is varying star constellations, saying that Aristotle claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” However, is Aristotle trustworthy himself? As https://forbiddencomma.wordpress.com..., "Aristotle was wrong about physics. He was wrong about chemistry. He was wrong about biology. This proto-Freud was wrong about psychology. He was wrong about basic human rights. He was grievously wrong about astronomy, much to Galileo’s future sorrow." The article links to many many points where Aristotle was incorrect. It is especially the astronomy detail that proves my point: the author can't just assume that Aristotle was correct about a spherical earth. Then, the author says that the shadows would be the same if you have a flat earth. But one again, we're speaking about OVERALL. It is impossible for anything to be PERFECTLY flat to the molecular level. No such thing exists. We are presuming that the earth is overall flat. As I said before, if you have a small curve, it does not prevent a surface from being flat. The author's 5th argument is then "seeing farther from higher". However, this is a bit illogical. He displays diagrams instead of pictures, which is suspicious (is it that difficult to find a "flat terrain"?), and he provides no explanation for precisely why you cannot see further from higher up from a flat surface. His "Ride a plane" argument claims that you can see a curve, however, that STILL DOES NOT PROVE that the earth is NOT flat! He then says we can "look at other planets" is completely empty as well; his only true argument was that Galileo found that the planets orbited the other planets, repeating that the observations showed our planet is spherical, but this proves NOTHING. The author's 8th point is also mislead, because he assumes that the ONLY way for distinct timezones was if the world was spherical.... but if the earth was flat, and it had two sides, wouldn't it still be able to fulfil the dark/light theory? It would simply need to turn around an axis to alternate the two sides, wouldn't it? The author's 9th point is about the flat plane and how about gravity would pull you toward the middle of the surface. However, there is nothing to refute that "middle" of the flat surface is "down" for us. There only is a change of perspective. Finally, the author has "images from space". However, photos can be easily manipulated by photoshop. In addition, the photos are only 2-D and cannot prove anything other than the fact that the earth looks like a circle from the moon. I will now refute a second, shorter source.2. http://fusion.net...This source teases B.O.B. by seemingly refuting a scientific proof, then essentially repeating most of the arguments made by the previous article. (To see my refutations, please reexamine them above). I will note readdress those other arguments, however, I WILL address the scientific evidence. Note that the article only lists ONE man who tried to prove the earth was flat and noted ONE refutation. What kind of argument is that? (The author also states: "Often, Flat Earth believers point out that the Earth could be both flat and round, but when one remembers that the Earth is also spinning, that logic falls apart." --But never explains just why the earth cannot be flat and round and spinning!) There are far more articles that prove the earth is flat. The English Mechanic is a famous one: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...; the key point being that "... the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon. My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd." The article claims that the crux of what was wrong with the first scientist was that "As sunlight travels to the Earth’s surface, it’s refracted by the planet’s atmosphere, which causes the bulk of light moving horizontally to bend downward at an angle matching the exact curvature of the Earth. This phenomenon can cause one to perceive the Earth as being flat. " However, note that he never states what WOULD have sunlight looked like HAD the earth been flat, which is clearly bias (as he does not provide evidence here for why the other scientist was correct, rather, only for why the flat scientist was wrong). As such, we cannot fully trust this source of information.Finally, let us have a third source. http://news.discovery.com...This source also alludes to B.O.B., but draws from ancient sources instead. It lists Pythagoras, Aristotle, then concludes with "simple observations". Firstly, he states Pythagoras's argument, "The moon, he noted, was also a sphere, so it would follow that the Earth is round as well." This is completel illogical. The sun is a star, so is therefore also earth? There is no logic behind this. Secondly, I already noted Artistotle's untrustwortiness, and all his arguments are only reiteration of old ones (round shadows or different stars). The source claims "overwhemling evidence", and even though the source is from Discovery News, just two people doesn't seem like overwhelming to me. --Ah, and also, opponent, please send a message to me, would you be willing to negotiate the beginning rules and only discuss the sources in this round within the following rounds? I think 3 sources each round would be too redundant.