1. Nitpicking. Some word was used incorrectly, some particular value was mistated, a single bit of the argument is argueable and used to justify ignoring the rest.
Well, I mean, you can’t have a debate with a bunch of false stuff, can you? You could always restate it some other way, right? Do it in future debates.
2. Validation. Anything that we have not personally verified is stated as originating as coming from "The Conspiracy". Many apologies, but there are many branches of knowledge to explore and, regrettable though it is, we do not all have the time or resources to independantly verify everything that we learn.
Not really. We state that because it comes from someone else, we should look at it skeptically, until we’ve seen undeniable proof. For example, I’ve seen the sun in the sky, so I think there is light coming from an object in the sky.
In the case of RE, we have our own evidence (such as Rowbotham, and the fact that the Earth literally *looks* flat) that states the contrary to your evidence.
3. Alternatives. To accept some bit of science or explanation, but give your own explanation of it, without justification, i.e. gravity. Poor, poor gravity. Depending on the topic and what you need, it can do SO many different things. Explained? Pish posh.
Well, I have yet to see a person explain gravity well enough in the RE model to convince us. And anyways, we’re not saying that gravity is wrong, but that the acceleration we feel isn’t gravity. It’s like a person in a spaceship; they feel “gravity” but it is not so.
4. "The Truth". You know the Earth is flat, thus things MUST be as you say. Otherwise, the you'd be wrong, and that is obviously impossible.
Yes, logically, if you’re right about a fundamental fact, then everything should be changed to fit it. Otherwise the undeniable truth wouldn’t be true at all. Note that this is in the mind of FE’rs. To RE’rs, all these changes look foolish, but if you truly believe in something, you just have to make it fit…
5. "The Conspiracy". No matter how grave things look, you always have Deus Ex Machina to fall back on! Honestly, why don't you just say a wizard did it?
Because wizards don’t exist. Or at least, I’ve never seen one…
Much mroe plausible that NASA did it.
You'd have much better luck convincing others you weren't mad if you would just, at times, maybe when it's obvious, admit your wrong.
Instead of saying we’re wrong, I think we usually come up with other explanations once one fails, to further the scientific cause
Or, don't even do that! Just admit you don't know!
We speculate the intricacies, so that we have a complete explanation. For example, the spotlight Sun was the only way to explain sunset/rise. This arouse from speculation, and it has proved to be a good theory and a good explanation. There may be others, but what we don’t know, we speculate about until we have concrete theory to use, and change, in the future.
There can be no true discussion until you cast away the chains of absolute conviction. Absolute conviction binds us. We "know" we're right. Thus, no matter what, we can't be swayed. Evidence has no meaning. Useful when it falls to our side, discarded when it doesn't.
Evidence has meaning. What we say is that if one thing’s right, then everything else contradicting it must be wrong. This forum is based on the framework that the Earth is Flat, much like how the Bible relies on the fact that God exists.
Accept at least the possibility of being wrong. Then, finally, there can be true discussion.
When we’re wrong, we come up with alternate explanations, as stated before, or fix previous ones. It’s tedious, but after all, it’s furthering the scientific cause.
P.S. It's been a while, how are things?
Not directed at me, I suppose, but the forums are getting bigger!

P.P.S. Before the inevitable "There is no question here, how should we respond?", respond by telling me whether you feel my position are valid or not. Do you feel that your arguments are fair, and I'm the one nitpicking? Or why do you thing my points are wrong?
Your position is valid, but overall doesn’t make much sense… Our arguments are fair enough. Both sides nitpick, of course. Your points are wrong mostly because, essentially, this whole forum builds upon one fact: that the Earth is Flat. One might call this a thought experiment, but the thing is, it’s just as hard to prove that God isn’t real.