The Earth is quasi spherical in shape and not flat.

Take it how you like.First I would like to point out that the images you tried to create didn't match the source you gave....... It was all gibberish at first until I saw the source.The geocentric model of the earth1) Shadows would still be the same.The earth still has day and night in this flat earth (probably because it's flat and we have day and night). >> Many claim that two sticks in different place would produce the same shadow in a flat earth. Here's why this cannot be true. Let's say you're in your kitchen which is obviously flat, and you have one fan light. If you put two sticks in different places and distances from the light, they will produce different shadows. This is the same with earth. It makes perfect sense.>> "The sun is a spotlight. It shines a down illuminating a set area. If you are outside the spotlight, you can't see the sun ie it is night. Light is two-way. If you can't see it, it can't shine on you. Sunset is merely the sun no longer shining on you" (1). Here is the explanation. The sun doesn't actually go under the earth for sunset. Even if it did, the earth would still be flat. And it is flat.2) You could easily still go a few miles and see different stars with our flat earthWe do it every day for starters, but since that's not enough logic, I'll explain.>> The stars still rotate around the earth on a flat earth, so it's not like the galaxy is all of the sudden still. My opponent asked how it was possible, I gave an answer. Therefore, my argument stands.3) Lunar eclipses are impossible with a round earth.First, the moon doesn't ever go under the earth so this is impossible for the actual shadow of the earth to produce it.>> The earth's atmosphere reflects light from the sun (2). An experiment was done to prove that the earth's shadow could not possibly be cause by this refraction. In the experiment, the light was directed away from the surface of the moon rather that not it excluding the possibility if the shadow of the earth causing a lunar eclipse (2).>> The surface of the moon is completely visible through the whole eclipse eliminating the shadow theory of the lunar eclipse (2). If the shadow of the earth were on it, you wouldn't be able to see it. It still shines during the eclipse, so it couldn't possibly be the shadow of the earth. Therefore, a lunar eclipse is not caused by the shadow of the earth, thus making my opponents point invalid.4) The horizon argument is flawed.First, if a ship actually went down on a spherical earth horizon, it would gain speed going down the slope and fall off. Since that doesn't happen, the earth must be flat. It makes perfect sense.>> Senses can trick you. You can not use something that can trick you as evidence; therefore, you're argument is invalid. It's like saying everything tastes like chicken, so everything is chicken. That is a false statement. Only chicken is chicken no matter what your senses say. Since you can be tricked into believing something tastes like chicken, you cannot trust your senses. Going back to my point about the sun having a certain range of lighting. If you climb higher, you are getting nearer to it. By getting closer to it, you would be able to see it again as my opponent said. 5) We would fall off a spherical earth.>> Can you honestly believe people are on the side or even on the bottom side of a spherical earth? What are we ninjas? I don't believe in ninjas that can walk on walls or on the roof and defy gravity. My opponent apparently believes in ninjas. This is a reason to vote con. Have you ever tried to stand on a large ball? I have provided evidence of what happens when you attempt to walk on a ball. http://www.youtube.com.... One does not simply walk on the sides a ball. It just can't be done. If the ball was popped and flat, it's easy to walk on. This is why the earth is flat.>> Besides this fact, water would fall off, planes would stall, cars would not have enough traction, buildings would not have strong enough foundations, and the list goes on. Have you ever seen a building built upside down suspended above ground? I think not.6) Oh dear...You are assuming it SHOULD be round meaning there was a purpose to the universe, thus implying a creation of the universe. The Roman Catholics are the only religion to prove what earth would be with a creator. It is flat according to them. You agree with intelligent design; therefore, you agree with the a Roman Catholics. This means you agree with the flat earth agreeing with me. Thank you.I should've expected such a weak sauce argument. Just because other planets and celestial objects are round doesn't mean earth is. There are living organisms on earth. There are not living organisms on other planets. This is why we are an exception. It makes perfect sense. Life couldn't be sustained on a round planet. We would fall off. The galaxy is flat. You don't seem to have a problem with the galaxy being flat, but then we say earth. You all of the sudden deem it not true. Check your logic.You cannot argue the truth. The earth is flat. That is all. I await you're rebuttal.Sources:(1) http://forum.tfes.org...(2) http://www.sacred-texts.com...