..and why isn't the FE side "winning" a single thread in the Debate forum?
Scrolling through pages after pages of the forum, I see the remains of many great threads that utterly destroy the FE myth. In most of them all the FE questions, misunderstandings, and objections have been addressed. I get that there are only a few flat-heads left here to reply to forum posts, and we're all very grateful for your efforts, but you'd at least hope to see some threads where the RE side is losing...
I think you're misunderstanding how it works.
Flat Earth is considered to be a fact. It's the starting point. Any arguments that appear to cast doubt on Flat Earth are inherently flawed.
There's a constant insistence that FE advocates are thinking for themselves and are not willing to just accept propaganda. They say this, but watch how they operate and it works quite differently. Ask a FE advocate what evidence would convince them to change their mind, what experiment could be carried out that would prove the point, and they'll insist that there can be no such evidence. Flat Earth is a fact, not a theory . It can't be disproved.
So the more ingenious the proofs that the Earth is not flat, the more deluded the proponent must be. There is no meeting of minds possible.
Consider the nature of Flat Earth belief. It's a way of getting emotional satisfaction at the expense of understanding the world correctly. It allows a sense of superiority and cleverness from people who don't get such feelings from their normal life. Note how self-satisfied they are, how they almost pity the people who haven't got the same understanding. They won't give up this emotional satisfaction just to be part of the ordinary crowd.
In a way, the people who think they can "win" an argument against a Flat Earth believer are almost equally deluded. That is not going to happen. It's quite possible to function in society as a Flat Earth believer. Nowadays, there are all sorts of people who believe all sorts of things. The number of people who need to accept that the Earth is round in order to do their jobs is quite small - pilots, navigators, surveyors, geographers.
The important point to realise is that if FE believers were susceptible to evidence, they wouldn't be FE believers in the first place.
There was a good post about using airline miles and times to prove the flat earth could not exist, and the argument against accepting it came down to that no one knows what any distance on earth is!
This was because distances are calculated on a RE model, therefore if you cannot come up with a way of measuring distances that are independent of a Re model, all measured (and also calculated distances) are false.
I did manage to show a way, using a speed measuring device that is calibrated to the earth (flat or not) and it has since gone very quiet.
Most of the difficult questions are met with a wall of silence, or the argument is sidetracked with some minor point scoring attempts, which detract from the questions asked.
There are some really weird assumptions as well, it was stated by one FEer, that he reserved his opinion of my integrity because he thinks sailors are not honest! (I am a seafarer not a sailor, there is a difference!)
I too am aware of the very few FEers who debate on this forum, so have to question if it is actually a valid forum?
Finally on this point it is rather ironic that FEers are so adamant that their own preconceived ideas mean that any other idea is to be discarded when this very thing is warned about in EnaG chapter 1!
Given the amount of evidence, observations, and carefully collected data, could anyone maintain the world is flat?
“None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character.”