How about this method :
We have been over your method before.
You cannot tell which is moving.
All you have is a dodgy, poorly controlled experiment and your own subjective claims about it.
While in reality, the angles are the same regardless of which is in motion and thus the 2 produce the same effect.
You are focusing too much on the room in the background, where in one the entire room appears to move while in the other it doesn't.
Set it up with a nice black background, and have the camera and light on tracks. Make sure they are moving before the camera starts to capture.
I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. Why bother to make such a nonsensical statement.
Because it isn't a nonsensical statement.
The nonsensical statement is that you can tell which object is moving from a simple visual observation of the relative motion.
You are still yet to explain how you can tell which is moving.
There is no need to
Yes there is. You not liking that doesn't change that fact.
Us knowing that Earth is round or rotating doesn't magically mean any old observation can show that.
The sole reason we know Earth is rotating is because of all the extra evidence for it, evidence which is not just star trails.
The earth's rotation can in fact be seen and you know this to be true.
No it can't. If it could you wouldn't have bothered appealing to any additional evidence nor would you claim you don't need any more.
Debates normally work by each side presenting their evidence, to date you have presented none.
Again, that is ONE specific style of debate.
Another, far more common in my experience, is that one side (the affirmative side) puts forwards a proposition and needs to justify it. The other side (the opposition) just needs to show that the affirmative side's proposition is unjustified, i.e. that the affirmative side hasn't justified their claims.
In fact, most modern legal systems rely upon this form of "debate", where the prosecution (affirmative) has the burden of proof for their claim and the defendant (opposition) just needs to show that the prosecution hasn't justified their position. The defendant doesn't need to show they are innocent; they just need to show that the prosecution hasn't shown they are guilty.
Even in that one style of debate, the opposing sides don't just present their evidence and leave it at that. They also attack the evidence/arguments presented by the other side.
main interest for some reason is to attack me!
Attacking your argument is not attacking you.
Attacking an argument is a key part of debate.
You are the one preaching to us about how it is apparently impossible to tell that the Earth is rotating despite the ton of evidence available now that shows conclusively that it is.
No, what is being said is that you cannot use that simple visual observation to conclude the Earth is rotating.
The Earth is rotating through 360 degrees every 24 hours. That is true, factual and known. Whether you like it or not.
No it isn't. That is a common misconception.
Earth actually rotates through 360 degrees once every ~23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
If you follow a distant star (i.e. not the sun), that is how long it takes for it to return to its old position.
The sun, on average, takes 24 hours, because Earth is moving in its orbit as well.
This is what you said earlier in the discussion...
If you want to look at what started this part of the discussion, look here:
I can actually see it turning.
You claimed that you could see Earth turning.
That simply isn't true. Instead all you observe is the relative motion between Earth and the stars.
You cannot tell which is turning from this simple observation.
You cannot see Earth turning, there is other evidence which shows Earth is rotating.
Do you understand the difference?