Hahahaha! From globe teacher to globe politician, and now globe comedian!! 
Marvelous!
I aim to please.
Don't lie, I didn't dismiss the magnetic NP expeditions, I told you they are BS because they are.
That's an utterly brilliant sentence - thank you.
You didn't even know what you were sending, you just ASSUMED! I told you we need to explore that area I highlighted, DON'T flip that on me when you're the one dismissing Arctic exploration and the best your cult can come up with for an excuse is that no exploration goes on because it's pointless or dangerous.
I have mentioned more things that are wrong with your beloved cartoon globe model, you can look at my previous posts. And there are of course many more. Since I'm not here to please you and that's not the topic, I will ignore your request.
Well, people reading this will probably interpret that as you not actually having anything decent to offer. Your call.
But I already told you the big one, which is that there are no tangible measurements of the globe - and I will repeat this until the day I "die" because it is a fact.
What evidence do you have to support that claim? There are people navigating all over the world using globe earth measurements, with flawless precision. Civil engineers build large-scale structures, pipelines, cables etc, all with the same precision using the same measurements. You can track aircraft and ships flying / sailing all over the world and their travel times correspond perfectly with the globe expected distances. If there were discrepancies, that would be a perfect observed flaw in the model for you to raise - the problem you have is that there just aren't any.
Ultimately the globe model does generally work because it is derived from reality.
Well, yes it does, and yes it is indeed derived from reality.
But it is nothing except MATHEMATICAL MODELS and EXPLANATIONS, which AREN'T reality.
Nobody is saying that a model is reality. What we are saying is that we can build useful mathematical / computer models of the earth, and indeed physical processes, that we can use to help us understand and predict the world around us. A map is ultimately a model - it will have certain limitations, but as long as it's accurate to a certain level then it will be useful. For simple work we can model the earth as sphere. That might be helpful for some analysis, but it might be overly simplistic for more precise use cases - for that we need to include its slight 'bulge' around the middle - it is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere. Likewise, we say it rotates once every 24 hours. It actually doesn't - it's a tiny bit less than that, and that difference might matter in some situations. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing - models will always have some simplification involved, it's just a question of what level of fidelity we need.
There's a reason why we aren't allowed to explore Arctic and Antarctic freely, on a mass scale. It would debunk your model very quickly (not that it hasn't been debunked already).
Your obsession with the Arctic and Antarctic is odd. They are both extremely inhospitable places, which means that not many people get to go there, but they still can and still do. It's similar to the bottom of the oceans - not easy places to be. But there is plenty of evidence available to you without needing to go there. Why not start at home?