No, Everything that would be different between FET and RET and is relevant to the questions being debated should be part of the debate topics.
And those two statements should be either synonyms or you're making a needless 'stay on topic' remark which is pretty irrelevant in itself. Any differences between models are grounds for comparison, grounds to see which does it better, and so is relevant to the debate. Deciding that two things are at odds on a topic but, nope, that's going to be put above debate is just silly.
So, I still fail to see why we need compare irrelevant topics. Insistence on that borders on straw-man tactics.
And observations thousands of light-years away are quite irrelevant to either the shape of the earth of to the Heliocentric vs Geocentric question.
And again, they are relevant to the forces appealed to in order to explain the heliocentric solar system, so whether or not they're directly relevant to the shape of the Earth doesn't matter when they're still kinda important to what should be under discussion.
Why are you making this about heliocentrism and geocentrism when it's about RE and FE? Geocentrism and FET are not remotely the same thing.
Yes or no!
I answered. The problem is you had a pretty clear example of a leading question, hence needing to clarify. Stop ignoring everything anyone else says just because you want to disagree with it.
But, yes, you should be prepared to debate all things relevant to the workings of the Earth, Sun, moon, planets etc. Shocker, that includes principles and phenomenon that are also relevant elsewhere.
That doesn't follow, that's what I'm saying. 'Experimentally verified' is not the same thing as '100% true.' It just means we haven't found anything at odds with it in local space; it also doesn't preclude something entirely different explaining all the same things and more. Thus if what should be the same application of those same laws doesn't work, that is a good indication that our understanding is incomplete. That's why people like talking about things like the transit of Venus, something that wasn't fully understood until Einstein came along and demonstrated that we needed to rethink our understanding of some things.
The problem is that the FE/RE debate isn't just based on one thing but you're treating this as if it's the sum total of what's offered. They'll use arguments like this to demonstrate scientific understanding does need to be refined, and they'll propose alternative physical laws that they claim answers the problem. But that goes in conjunction with dismissing the arguments you'd use to claim FET is too big a change/too unreasonable.
You can kind of view it as two steps. The first step is arguing against supposed disproofs, making a model in line with all observations, whether or not you believe they've done that. Then the question of whether FET has more explanatory power is plainly incredibly relevant, and their claim is that it does because RET can't fully deal with all of mdoern cosmology, and the important thing here is that to an FEer the first step at the very least has already been achieved, that's why they're an FEer, of course they're now concerned with the second.
REers being able to explain seeming contradictions with, at the very least, hypotheses is something I'd argue is good advice regardless.
The fact RET is incomplete is not some glaring flaw you need to cover up like an insecure teenager on a first date. All science is incomplete, that's what makes it science. Persisting in this misrepresentation of the facts encourages the idea that the unknowns are actually a problem when they're
not, stop peddling this anti-scientific pandering attitude and grow up. RET can take honest scrutiny.