I think treating flat earth theory as a rational argument to debunk is appealing, but ultimately unproductive.<p>There was an interesting article some time ago: <a href="https://jameshfisher.com/2019/01/20/my-parents-are-flat-earthers" rel="nofollow">https://jameshfisher.com/2019/01/20/my-parents-are-flat-eart...</a>, which casted the human perspective on the problem: at the root, believing a conspiracy theory gives self-importance to the believer, and it's, in a way, "fun".<p>Considering this perspective, this phenomenon belongs to the class of problems whose easy angle of attack is the technical (rational, in this case), and the difficult one is the human.<p>I'd argue that if one thinks that a flat earther is metaphorically a brick wall, and consequently a fool, opposing technical arguments against it is equally as foolish. It's actually the other side of the coin: yelling arguments to a wall is the mirrored human problem, in my opinion.<p>In conclusion, I think it would be more productive to think more about why this belief is appealing to people (and why it's spreading), rather than proving it's false.