My problem with round earthers is that their rebuttals to "specific" arguments made by flat earthers are not adequate.

It is one thing to say that satellites and Foucault's pendulum prove that the earth is round, but if someone makes an argument (as in the linked article) that the visible peak of a mountain should be 900 meters below the horizon, and the round earthers response to that is some poorly exposited fact about refraction, it doesn't help the round Earth case in the eyes of the flat earther who raised that point.

A better response would be to include some references to some facts about atmospheric refraction in addition. Hopefully the flat earther might understand it.

So in effect I am not actually a flat Earther, but round earthers should be able to explain observations which are not consistent with round earth expectations better.