Addressing the simulation 'prove it isn't' rebuttal.
The evidence is that when you see something, the default assumption is that it's real, not that it's an illusion. You are trying to take Occam's Razor and over-apply it to make your side axiomatically true but dear flat earther you have much to learn.
Inside this source you will see how Jupiter appears on an extremely effective telescope. I am unsure if it is a depiction or pure 'photo' somehow taken into the scope but this is considered 100% real by NASA.
In case you were unaware, Neptune is also ringed but its ring is just thinner than Saturns and doesn't have clutter all around it to appear as a clear-cut ring in depictions of it.
That is how Neptune looks through an extremely advanced telescope capable of seeing that far into the sky.
To suggest that these being spherical has no bearing on the shape of Earth because we are in a 'simulation' is very misleading. If we are simulated, it would be natural to assume that our Earth is a spherical planet like those we are seeing through telecopes in our sky, not that we are the only flat thing and they are just there. Pro's case is extremely counterintuitive and makes leaps in logic that do not add up.
You ignored the point that a simulation/flat earth is more likely by default and then tried to gaslight me into dropping the point myself while appealing to the audience's presuppositions that are based on assuming NASA is trustworthy and that we aren't in a simulation by default.
NASA is trustworthy, you have to prove otherwise. You have given 0 motive for them to lie so far and not explained why no other space agency or even insider astronaut with a conscience either exposed them as a competitor or as a whistleblower.
You have not explained anything about your simulation, you have told us that we are in a simulation and apparently that this default Earth to be flat.
Assuming it is easier to create advanced artificial intelligence than it is to fully model an entire universe and knowing that it takes more energy and space to model an entire universe, the second most common types of simulations are bound to NOT be entire universes but instead simulations of life/intelligence which can be made to appear like universes from the inside to an extent.
Your say that it is axiomatic that simulators would be lazy and try to make things as easily as possible. On the other hand, you say they went through the extravagent effort of designing a hoax that we'd fall for due to intricate patterns in the sky that appear to be stars and planets, sun and moon rotations too and that they'd arrange for a space agency to come later on (nowhere near the start of the simulation or civlisation) to reinforce it. Even without the actual space missions of NASA, without the confirmation of the Earth being a sphere from the outside of it, we still have the ability for other astronomers whether aligned to rival agencies or standalone people that own telescopes to expose NASA for lying about what they see through it. Yet, not one has ever done so. This means that either the simulation creators are not lazy and put extremely high effort into maintaining the illusion and hoax for us or your entire axiom is wrong and we aren't even to assume we are in a simulation.
I am confused where you got the following premise from:
For every universe that is capable of harboring advanced lifeforms, there are multiple simulations making the simulations more numerous than actual universes.
This seems completely concocted out of nowhere, you never justify this core premise that you built your entire case on. You have to prove we are simulated before proving the simulators are lazy but not lazy all at once.
=======
Gravity cannot be explained period. All we know is that the math can work up to a point but physicists are forced to make up particles and other excuses to actually explain it and they haven't figured out a made up mathematical model that works quite yet.
In your depicted reality we are pulled or pushed (it could be a push in your reality, yes?) down to the surface of the Earth for absolutely no physiologically perceivable reason. In the depicted reality of physics, the following is true:
Gravity is a force which tries to pull two objects toward each other. Anything which has mass also has a gravitational pull. The more massive an object is, the stronger its gravitational pull is. Earth's gravity is what keeps you on the ground and what causes objects to fall. Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the Sun and what keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth. The closer you are to an object, the stronger its gravitational pull is. Gravity is what gives you weight. It is the force that pulls on all of the mass in your body.
So, there is more explanation to gravity in the Round Earth model than there is to you in yours. You have this irrational magical down force that is not proportional to anything in any way nor is it explained why the simulation needs that setting. Why would lazy simulators have gravity? Why would they then let birds evolve or us to build planes, hot air baloons and paragliders etc.? It seems very contradictory.
The graviton doesn't support flat Earth theory at all because the Earth isn't a ball with the mass we say it has proportional to its gravitational pull, if there is gravity in the flat Earth model then why is it based on graviton instead of just a simulation setting like you suggested or implied in Round 1?
====
Does this happen with every mountain or just certain ones? Are you going to provide photographic evidence of this happening with at least 51% of the Earth's mountains? How do you rule out when it's an optical illusion or just the terrain from a certain perspective?
It is more likely to explicitly be visible and undeniable only with very tall and sharp mountains as opposed to more gradual and hill-like ones because you'd need to be so far that you explicitly see the top part of it and not the lower, rather than so far it all is over the horizon is too vague to specifically see.
The way to rule out the optical illusion argument is that firstly you have never proven it's an illusion and secondly there are examples where zooming in with extremely complex cameras etc does not make things appear at all.
Let me give you an example involving windmills:
The windmills and way they are appearing 'above'
The problem is though even there a mirage happens. The mirage is that fake reflection you know how the windmill arms seems to float and 'reflect'? That is truly an illusion but the poking out at the exactly right distance and proportional height isn't.
Rather than spam with more photos, which you will say are due to the illusion or which have huge mountain ranges where the ones in between make it seem merged and unclear (many mountains are shallow they aren't all pointy cone type formations), I will let you prove otherwise. As in, can you please prove that things over a horizon are fake?
For instance, in this legitimate photo ^ what was the sun doing other than going over the horizon?
PLEASE WATCH THE ABOVE VIDEO OR IF PRESSED FOR TIME... Skip to just before 2 mins in to grasp the real hardhitting point.
In that video it is proven that zooming in does get back upper parts but not lower parts of things over a horizon. Even if this is partly due to a mirage effect, why is it the top is literally visible but the middle and bottom of the ship isn't? The reason oceans are used is that oceans are one of the only places in our world where nothing is between us and a faraway horizon in terms of visible blockage.
====
You're relying on the audience to take your word for it. You're going to have to demonstrate that.
I will drop that point as I am trying to avoid super-high planes or such where it's irrefutable the Earth is Round. I realise now that the debate demands that I am to state that without direct confirmation, we are to presume the round earth model over the flat earth one. The stuff you are asking for is kind of direct proof. In case you didnt know the horizon is still in place on a plane, you don't see 'more' of the sun suddenly or whatever, instead you still see it's over the curvature during sunrise and sunset but the light shows. That would not be true on flat Earth unless you can explain it. As in the sunrise and sunset you see higher up on planes and helicopters does not show the 'ball' of sun earlier it shows the light sooner (or later in contrast on sunset). This is because it really has gone over the horizon and curvature for real. There is very little proof of this as it would have to be contrasted from views below. What I am trying to explain is you can see more of everything in theory higher up, yes? Yet you can't see things actually over the curvature.
Let me make clearer what I am saying. In the Flat Earth model, you say that the sunrise and sunset are also illusions (we believe this in our scientifically verified NASA-backed super peer-reviewed model too). The illusion for us is it's actually Earth rotating around itself that primarily drives the sun's appeared movements in the sky (it's partly the Earth going around the sun too which leads to different daylight hours in different seasons). In contrast, the Flat earth model suggests that the sun is circling and out of view.
I see no rebuttal to the constant days in Antarctica.
The neutrality favors neutrality.
This means 'more likely' is false. Neutrality means equal likelihood.
Daylight hours and seasons
Pro hasn't explained how or why these function in flat Earth at all.
This type of argument is strange to me. If we’re in a simulation which tells us it’s round, why should we then dismiss what our senses inform us?
ty for the vote
By all means a pretty straightforward vote if any of you care to vote on it.
The debate is up you delectable little ding dong.
Can you challenge me to this? I'd like to debate this with you