The city of Chicago being visible from the opposite shore, proves the earth is not a sphere.

Indeed, he doesn"t appear to have even acknowledged anything I said in my previous round at all. Instead of offering an actual argument, PRO insists on returning to a combination insults, and an outright denial of reality. Lets look at the arguments PRO has made to support his position thus far. 1. )PRO claimed that the atmosphere behaves as if looking through a glass of water. This is obviously false:[1][2][3] 2. )PRO claimed I have not provided an explanation of how light can bend round the earth. This is obviously false:[4][5] 3. )PRO claimed that objects that are magnified cannot appear higher in the sky. This is obviously false:[3][6][7][8] 4. )PRO claimed that magnification causes objects to appear lower than they are. This is obviously false:[3][6][7][8] 5. )PRO claimed that objects that appear higher in the sky will always be inverted. This is obviously false:[3][6][7][8][9][10][11] 6. )PRO claims that Looming only occurs up to 10km distance. This is obviously false:[9] 7. )PRO clams that Chicago is NEVER viewed "appearing to rise over the horizon". This is obviously false:[12] 8. )PRO claims that I have not provided examples or experiments showing effects different than he claims. This is obviously false:[10][11][12][13][14] 9. )PRO has asserted that all the images that I have provided thus far show inversion. This is obviously false:[3][7][10][11] 10. )PRO claims the Faralon islands did not appear to be raised. This is obviously false:[3][7][8] 11. )PRO claimed that the image of Chicago appears as it would as viewed over a flat sea. This is obviously false:[15][16] 12. )PRO claims that the image of Chicago appears with little or no distortion. This is obviously false:[17][18][19] 13. )PRO claims that calculating, or describing would happen if the earth was a sphere is all invalid because it assumes the earth is a sphere. This is obviously false:[20] 14. )PRO claims I "asserted" that this is a mirage; whereas I supported this claim with evidence. This is obviously false:[21] 15. )PRO claims his news article proves that the image of chicago is more common than a mirage. This is obviously false:[22] 16. )PRO claims the image of Chicago is definitely not a Mirage; whilst also calling it a mirage. This is obviously false:[23][24] If I included this many obviously false claims in a debate, I would be embarrassed. It is not often that a debate occurs where the combined sum of everything one person says is refuted by example and evidence; and yet this is what"s happened here. Importantly, much of what PRO has said so far is not just wrong it is trivially and so obviously wrong that I simply do not understand PRO"s reasoning to bring it up in the first place. This obviously includes the "silver bullet argument". PRO claimed we never see Chicago rise from the horizon as you would expect if this is a mirage. We do: We see the very evidence PRO himself states should exist if this was not really chicago. PRO has now spent 2 replies trying to act as if this evidence was not presented. Indeed, it seems the combined sum of arguments, evidence and refutations that are systematically presented and demonstrate conclusively that one person is wrong, is flat out ignored by the other. I don"t say this lightly; I implore readers to go back and check PRO"s debates where none of the listed items I mentioned, core to his position, are addressed by PRO. Readers should specifically note PRO's rhetorical tactics. If one notices, he simply hurls accusations. I have noted the arguments for which he has no data, and are refuted by evidence and simply asserted. I have noted the arguments of mine he has not acknowledged, and I have provided a scientific rebuttal of his position in my opening rounds. PRO however denies all these, and responds by saying I assert things, I am denying things, and I am not being scientific. It should be obvious who the guilty party is with regards to assertions, non-scientific arguments, providing no justification, ignoring arguments; etc. This is clearly revealed by even a small reading of the debate. Indeed: PRO is using these accusations tactically: by accusing others of committing the logical errors he himself is engaging in PRO makes it harder for CON to point PRO"s arguments are without merit; assertions, gish-gallops, and woefully under justified without sounding like "he-said-she-said". Either way, I will spend no more time angrily ranting about how wrong my opponent is, and how he doesn"t follow science: I invite all readers to see through his rhetoric and follow this line of questioning: Did PRO establish that he has "ruled out mirages" as being an explanation for this image? Or did CON show that PRO"s position here is clearly unsupported by science or facts. The answer is clearly and obviously No. Did CON establish that this image of Chicago matches all the necessary requirements of a mirage? Did CON establish that light can bend around a globe using science and examples? The answer is clearly yes. Therefore, any readers must necessarily vote CON. [1]. http://www.pbs.org... [2]. http://www.debate.org... [3]. https://upload.wikimedia.org... [4] CON: Debate Round 2: Paragraph 3 + 4. [5] CON: Debate Round 3: Paragraph 2 + 3. [6] . http://s44.photobucket.com... [7] . https://upload.wikimedia.org... [8] [9] CON debate round 3: Parapgraph 17. [10] [11] [12] [13] . http://www.history-of-the-microscope.org... [14] . http://i44.photobucket.com... [15] CON round 2: Paragraph: 10 [16] . http://i44.photobucket.com... [17] . http://s44.photobucket.com... [18] . http://s44.photobucket.com... [19] . http://s44.photobucket.com... [20]CON Round 3 Paragraph 3. [21] CON: Debate Round 3: Paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 [22]CON: debate round 4: Paragraph 19 [23]PRO: Round 2, Paragraph: 8 "Yes, we see some mirages at times" [24]PRO: Round 3, Parapgrah: 16 "the image is not a mirage, or image inversion, which is what mirages are. "