I didn't say that.
Sorry, you're correct. I shouldn't have paraphrased. You said, "Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits."
I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence.
Fair enough. But the belief in a flat earth also comes with some extraordinary baggage of its own. In order for it to be true, nearly every field of science would need to be dramatically rewritten. The reason a globe Earth is so prevalent, is that it is remarkably consistent with what we know of other sciences. So when you suggest that the Earth being flat requires less evidence because you're witnessing what appears to be flat, you're also discarding a stunning amount of very successful scientific theory regarding almost every field that is compatible with a globe Earth, but not with a flat Earth.
As an example, I was once contacted by someone who believed the (global) Earth is expanding. It turns out, there's a surprising number of people who believe this. This group, over several decades, had developed a completely new set of physical laws to explain every aspect of reality. I was amazed at the depth of their work - this was countless hundreds of thousands of man-hours to put together all these videos, papers, etc., to show that this was the true model of the universe. But what was most amazing to me, was that all of this hinged on the idea that oceanic plates don't subduct beneath continental plates, and yet, nobody was putting in any effort to prove or disprove that idea. Instead, because they felt that their expanding Earth model was
intuitively true, they focused all their efforts on things that would support it, rather than the crux issue that could settle it.
Likewise, you may intuitively feel that the Earth is flat, but in order for that to be correct you must also believe in a conspiracy across cultures, time, countries, and untold individuals - And, you must also believe that most of what we understand about science is not just wrong, but somehow internally consistently wrong.
All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.
Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."