(Pro) Spherical vs flat Earth (Con)

R4 Defense"Many instances have been recorded of lunar eclipses happening when both the sun and moon were above the horizon. They call them selenelions. This would be impossible if the earth were directly in line between the sun and moon." EdlvsjdAlright, I've never heard of a selenelions before, but here goes anyways. " When you consider that the sun and the moon are on precisely opposite sides of our planet during a lunar eclipse, it may seem geometrically impossible for an earthly observer to see both celestial bodies at the same time. However, the refraction effect means light can be bent enough to place the sun on one side of the sky, and the darkened moon on the other.This effect is known as selenelion — pronounced "sell-a-NELL-ion," to rhyme with "hellion" (though "sell-a-NEEL-ion" may be an alternate). To see it, you have to be at just the right place at the right time. For Americans, that's when the moon is setting and the sun is rising. " [12]As you can see this is a rare occurrence that involves an optical illusion. Which is also seen with many other flat Earth arguments in this video. [13] A set of cheap conjurer's toys to the rational mind. "Other celestial bodies are spherical. ..This observation does not impact the resolution. Thus, this experiment is assumed to be a red herring until proven otherwise. It is very similar to saying that since the billiard balls are spherical, so then must be the table." EdlvsjdThis is a bad analogy fallacy. "also known as: bad analogy, false analogy, faulty analogy, questionable analogy, argument from spurious similarity, false metaphor)Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument."[14] The problem with the billiard balls compared to table analogy is the table is so dissimilar that the analogy is ineffective. A better analogy would be comparing the white billiard ball to the other balls. Looking at the other billiard balls they are spherical, therefore it is safe to assume that the white billiard ball is spherical, without directly looking at or feeling the white billiard ball."Ships and the horizonThis is the reason Aristotle postulated the earth was a ball in Ancient Greece, but this was before the time of binoculars and other telescopic devices. Next time you go to the beach, bring some binoculars with you. Start watching the ship when you can still see it, and after some time, yes, the ship does appear to start dropping below the horizon, but, this is only an illusion. Pull out your binos and magically drag the ship backwards over the curvature of the earth! Bring a telescope to make it come back twice!" EdlvsjdThe problem is that you may not have performed the experiment correctly. So, I can grab a binoculars and watch a tiny boat disappear and then reappear when I zoom in somewhat. Then, watch it disappear again, and zoom in more and watch it reappear. What does that prove?All this proves is vanishing points, then when an object is too far away we can no longer view the object. This is not the same as the Earth's curvature. If the boat disappearing from view was a vanishing point, the entire boat would disappear at once rather than the hull first and the sails last. [15]Watch this video to see what is wrong with the sail boat argument. [13] Finally, if you watch the video provided by my opponent to the end, you see the sail slowly sinking behind the horizon, just as expect even with the telescope. "Magellan and planes circumnavigationThe flat earth, or at least the parts we know about, is circular, with the north pole at it's center, circumnavigation just means going in a giant circle around the north pole, the fact that no one can circumnavigate from north to south is evidence of this. The map is the azimuthal equidistant map for future reference." EdlvsjdThis is only evidence of severe weather. There is not too many harbors nor airports in those temperatures. "Photos from space." EdlvsjdThere are many counter arguments to the photos from space. An entire debate could be devoted to this subject. Here are a few websites that think the Earth photos were legitimate. Nation geographic, snopes, rationalwiki, and entire forty four minute long documentary. [16][17][18]"Given the overall context of the moon landings and that of the Space Race with the Soviet Union, there are many, many reasons why people would come forward to conclusively prove that the landings were faked: political gain, monetary gain, pure fame, and so on. Disproving the landings by a first-hand account, or evidence (such as a sneaky photograph of the studio used or something more concrete) would be relatively simple. However, this still flies in the face of what is known. Man-made objects are still on the moon and transmissions came from the moon, there is no "faking" this.[45]" [19]These conapricy theories fail to take into account man-made objects and transmissions from the moon. Too many people would have to bribed or silenced. Overall, the difficuty of pulling off this conspiracy is greater than landing on the moon. "Rotation of the earth.The earth has not moved an inch since God created it." EdlvsjdWhich God? How would God come into existence anyways? Since the creator must be more sophisticated than the creation this leads to the problem of infinite regressions. The idea of God creates more questions than answers."Furthermore, if mass has been accumulated at the equator as my opponent claims, since liquid is more readily moved than land, the entire equator would be void of land mass. " EdlvsjdThere is also more heat at the equator to evaporate said liquid."The Michelson Morley experiment proved lack of motion, as did Aireys failure. Due to the former experiments unbelievable results, Einstein was quoted saying : "Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment"" EdlvsjdA lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. Otherwise, God would have been dis-proven a long time ago. "This is an asanine statement. The theories are based on the assumption that the earth is a ball, or assuming the resolution. The argument should be dismissed as fallacious. There's a better creation story, and modern science is hiding it in front of your face." EdlvsjdHow do you know those theories are based upon the assumption the Earth is a ball? My opponent hides behind the God argument again. "The egg shape my opponent and the Koran could be metaphorical for round, which I support, a flat, round earth. " EdlvsjdThere is many ways to interpet religious scriptures. This could be metaphorical, but neverthless I've haven't seen any flat, healthy, whole, and untouched by humans eggs. I will end here. My opponent continues with a violation of the round structure. I cannot respond without breaking the rules myself and turning into a hypocrite. My opponent has posted a defense that should be saved for round 4. This is only a minor violation, I suggest just reposting this in round 4. ""Just because anyone can perform the experiment doesn't mean the experiment impacts the resolution. Thus, this experiment is assumed to be a red herring until proven otherwise."" EdlvsjdThanks for the read. Sources12. http://www.nbcnews.com...13. 14. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...15. http://drawsketch.about.com...16. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...17. http://www.snopes.com...18. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...19. http://rationalwiki.org...