There has yet to be a single legitimate flat versus round earth debate.
Why do I say so? Because every single one has granted the globe proponent the ability to appeal to the authority of their own source. If all images and videos of outer space allegedly taken from outer space are to be assumed real, then there can't be an honest conversation, much less a resolution via debate.
It would be like debating the existence of a deity but with a stipulation that skeptics cannot question the veracity of the claims made by its priesthood, who are said to have seen their god while atop a high mountain. If claims to divine authorship of scripture cannot be challenged then there is no room for skepticism. Obviously, such constraints render honest debate impossible.
Globe proponents refuse to take into account the role special effects, photoshop, video editing, and false witnesses have in the formation of their belief. Therefore, their own ignorance and visual illiteracy are a protective mechanism. This is analogous to "faith" in the religious context, where believers can ignore inconvenient facts and discrepancies by trusting their source harder.
The globe proponents already concede the debate when they handwave away questions about the video content from space agencies that regularly discredit the existence of outer space. The fact they ignore evidence means they aren’t even honest with themselves and their own perceptions or are incapable of discerning real from fake, which raises the question of their qualifications for defending their model.
As of 2024, the only tenable position is shape agnosticism.