I edited the quoted text below so it could be read. Is this still what you meant to say?
When it comes to the concept of a flat earth I'm just learning to walk. I do not know the flat earth theory that explains how it all works, but having trusted the earth was round for nearly all my life without relying on what I would now consider to be sufficient proof, I no longer consider [it] a good theory [or] to be the all it's cracked up to be, preferring instead to trust in the evidence and follow it where ever it leads.
My point is, does flat earth need a theory that explains how it all works exactly to be accepted as a fact, when there is already sufficient evidence that it really is flat and despite not having a theory as widely accepted as another theory that has a 500 year head start and unlimited resources committed to kicking the "burden of proof " can down the road far enough for one generation at a time to settle for just the theory until inter planetary travel is available to all and finally settle the debate for good?
I think debating the other side is futile, as the "how does that work" question sets a trap where you are forced to explain something that makes no sense until you look at the supporting evidence to people who cannot distinguish between fact and theory. Time spent debating only other flat earthers could ultimately bring about the only theory without flaws, but flat earthers are so hopelessly outnumbered by a noisy and opposition armed with copy and paste that it will be hard to make the theory heard and therefore appreciated. I think that the greatest asset for the flat earth is irrefutable supporting evidence and if enough irrefutable physical evidence alone keeps piling up, people will be forced to accept it as truth. andEven if it no has [doesn't have] a plausible explanation/theory, anyone smart enough to be swayed by the body of evidence will get involved in working on the flat earth theory and slowly transfer resources from the opposing theory to this one. It makes sense to me but it is just a theory.
Anyway...
"sufficient evidence that it really is flat" Can you provide some of this evidence? I've never seen any.
"I think that the greatest asset for the flat earth is irrefutable supporting evidence" This would be absolutely true if any "irrefutable supporting evidence" actually existed. Your problem is that there is no evidence, irrefutable or otherwise. If you think you have some, then, by all means, pony it up!
"How does that work?" is a trap? This may be your problem; you just want to discard any irrefutable evidence that is inconsistent with your model and run with only the evidence that supports your model only (if such even exists, which, so far, none has been presented). If you're starting with the premise that the Earth is flat, then that's your working hypothesis, or model. If observations aren't consistent with your model (sunsets, to pick just one common example), and you can't explain them, then why do you think your model is better than the one that
can explain them?
Your only chance to "bring about the only theory without flaws" is to let people challenge it and find its flaws, so it can be improved. It certainly is easier to argue with someone who doesn't want to find any flaws in your theory, but it's not productive at all. Sorry. If that's what you really want to do, petition whoever decides these things for permission to post in the "believers only" forum.
Your "theory" is that the Earth is flat. Your problem isn't the absence of a theory, it's the absence of
any unambiguous evidence in favor of that theory. If the Earth were flat, there would be plenty of that, but, since it's not, there is none.