What makes you think that our models or arguments don't evolve from time to time? Do you think that Samuel Birley Rowbotham believed in the Universal Accelerator?
No idea. He believed the moon was translucent so who knows what other crazy stuff he believed. He was wrong about pretty much everything.
While we're here, UA is a rationalization. It's a fudge you use to replace gravity - which is ridiculous it's Physics 101 to measure gravitational force with the Cavendish experiment
Things do change over time. Occasionally there will be something that needs to be rethought about. Most of the arguments posted here on a daily basis just aren't good enough or clear cut enough to compel change, however.
That's just not true though. You just don't understand the arguments, or maybe you pretend not to. My thread about long shadows was ignored by you and all the other flat earthers:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.0This proves that the sun is not where you think it is at sunset. And it is proof as others have acknowledged. You not understanding the proof doesn't mean it isn't sound. It doesn't necessarily prove a globe earth by the way, but it does prove that the sun is not where your current model claims it to be at sunset.
If you think you can design an experiment which casts long shadows with an object on the ground and a light source which isn't physically close to the ground then I'd like to see it. You can shout perspective all you like. Shadow angle depends on the PHYSICAL relationship between object and light source, not perspective. And if you believe light travels in straight lines then it doesn't matter how far the light source is away, the angle remains the same so the shadow length remains the same.
So this is an example of an argument which, if you were as open minded as you pretend, should change your model because the current one demonstrably doesn't work. Your two options to fix that are:
1) The sun being in a different physical place to where your current model supposes
2) Light bending in some way so it appears to be.
Those really are your only two options. But you pick the thirds which is "Laa, laa, laa can't hear you".
Nothing is preventing us making conclusive arguments, you are simply not understanding them. Or you're pretending not to.
Your psychology is a mix of:
Dunning-Kruger - you think you understand things which you really don't
Cognitive Dissonance - your identity is so wrapped up in the flat earth movement you cannot admit to yourself you are mistaken about anything
Confirmation Bias - you cling on to any scrap of evidence which you think shows you may be correct and ignore the tsunami of evidence and proof which shows you are not.