The earth is a not a spheroid

Forfeit in the debate results in all arguments going extended and no answer/rebuttals. I prefer PRO

Alright guys nice debating.
Here's my voting.

Arguments

Pro is arguing that the earth isn't a spheroid because water surface is flat and this is the only argument for the resolution in the opening round. Con says water surface appears flat because like ant on balloon, walking along balloon seems like walking on flat surface, but balloons are not flat surfaces similar to the water surface of the earth. If the balloon can be mistaken, so can the earth...this analogy made it very easy to understand how Pro's only argument that "water looks flat" is explained by a spherical earth. Pro says "The ant on a ball is a valid analogy, when the ant is on the surface." Pro concedes that Con's analogy is valid, which makes me think that every time I've looked out on a flat ocean vista, I'm just a tiny old critter trying to traverse this water covered balloon of an earth. So Pro says asks why unedited amatuer balloon footage show an eye level and flat horizon, even at over 100,000 feet to which Con replied with the live stream from the ISS from the Official NASA Website which impressingly shows a quite spherical earth.

My vote is hanging on this last point, because if Pro doesn't give me any good reason to doubt NASA, the live video I watched from NASA's actual website seals this up for Con. So Pro has to dig deep and...he plucks out the idea that NASA is using a fish eye lense. Con says that in the live shot they are not using fisheye because of the lack of perturbations from each angle, so I clicked on this link twice to see the ISS at different times of day and Con was correct, what one would usually see from a fisheye lens is a perturbation of the different angles and you simply don't see that on this live feed when you actually look at different angles at different times. The earth is clearly a massive sphere being captured by the ISS camera. As for Pro's "100,000 feet" footage, when Con said "if you look closely, you can actually see the curvature," he was right...it took me like three close watches, but the curve is definitely there, and this was Pro's own source. Even though Con forfeited two rounds, which is why they're being hit with conduct, they managed to convince me with their sources and valid analogies that what Pro was telling me about water doesn't refute a spherical earth at all, and Con showed Pro's source to prove curvature right along with Con's source.
I have to buy that water surface looks flat like surface of balloon to ant on balloon...look at live feed of a spherical water covered earth.
Arguments to Con

Sources

Con's ISS live feed is near insurmountable, and the fisheye point was won by Con BECAUSE of the source's credibility when I went to inspect it. It was used by Con to make his case that one can easily see the curvature of an earth covered in water and one need not worry about fisheye lenses, because the ISS provides other angles that are not fisheye perturbed. Pro never battled that point and what was worse is that Pro's source Pro used to show a flat earth when looking from 100,000 feet showed a little curvature and Con mentioned that. Since Con's ISS feed proved a curved earth and Pro's 100,000 feet source proved a curved earth, Con wins sources for using them to make his case and because Pro used sources counter to his claim Con wins sources.

Conduct

Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited twice, which is viewed as poor conduct. Pro on the other hand kindly posted every argument maintaining proper conduct throughout.

Con forfeit twice. This is poor conduct and evidence that Pro's arguments were convincing.

Pro argued well, but the arguments still fail to convince me because the claim being made was very specific and most of the arguments were simply implying that Con (and by extension his sources) are lying. I'm no fan of NASA, but even if they are lying, that by itself doesn't prove Pro's claim. It seems he got too busy attacking his opponent to remember the original point of his claim. Plus, most of his citations were screenshots he took himself and I'm definitely not seeing the same thing in those screenshots that he was. Sad that Con forfeited at the end.

Why would nasa lie they have no reson to

The whole basis of this argument by the Pro is that NASA is lying. Even if they were there are plenty of others space agencies. There all also lots of private companies. If you still say they are all lying then this is a conspiracy theory, not an argument of fact.

Though Pro seems to have not learned kindergarten science, they constantly provided higher quality sources, facts, and arguments than Con, while Con rebutted all those sources and facts by playing the “What if?” game.

Conduct to Pro for Con’s forfeit.

Conduct to pro for forfeit.

Arguments to con. Con raised the argument that effectively the earth is very large, and as a result gives the appearance of being flat. Pro concedes this is a valid argument, and then suggests that this can’t be the case as balloons at altitude show no curvature - proceeding to show a video of a high altitude balloon that clearly shows curvature. This means con shows evidence to support an argument he claims is valid - and which refutes his position. That was devastating for pro. This was pointed out - and pro dismissed this as being from one camera (which he should have clarified) - however curvature is clearly visible in both the left and right hand aide camera.

Most of the remaining arguments from pro concern arguing about fisheye lenses. This argument can be discounted as pro makes no effort to explain his reasoning or providing any justification as to why his claims are true - specifically he claims that all video evidence can be explained by a fish eye lense, simply because the fish eye lense will curve images - he himself posted a video of a fish eye lense curving and straightening lines - as pro makes no effort to establish how fish eye lenses can produce the images he claims they can, merely establishing that they distort, this argument can largely be ignored.

As a result of pros self refutation, and lack of establishing much of a sensible argument to support his position: arguments go to con.

Sources go to con too: while con had a source that didn’t claim what he said, his source didn’t refute his position. Pro posted a citation that not only showed the opposite of what he said it did, but showed the very thing he said would invalidate his position. The remainder of pros sources appear to be mainly conspiracy videos - which inherently casts some doubt on the veracity of the claims.

Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up.

The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this.

Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.