I 'require' what would/should be standard in any debate - what you started to do in our formal debate on 4forums (
here, for those that care). I'd have to agree with EpicDude, it's somewhere where you are lacking, especially when it comes to dealing with criticism of your views. Here's the list I try to follow (to varying degrees of success...):
1. Make claim/assertion
2. Back claim up with evidence and/or reasoning, in the same post as you make the claim (or when challenged to, if you forget/don't bother).
3. If it could be unclear as to how evidence supports claim/assertion, explain your reasoning to go with it.
4. If evidence is challenged, either provide more evidence or dispute the challenge, on whatever grounds you see fit.
In the quote above, you've made two claims. However, that's almost as far down the list as you've ever got - in this thread/forum, at least. You haven't posted much evidence that directly supports your claims (certainly none on the 'scientific consensus'), you haven't explained how your evidence shows your claims to be correct (like that previous quote from answers.com, beyond the explanation Dude provided) and you haven't responded to any criticism of your position beyond an ever-growing 'ignore' list and various insults about 'flat-earthers' etc.
In short:
you need to provide more evidence,
you need to explain it where needed and
you need to respond to criticism/opposing evidence with reasoning of your own rather than outright denial. Apart from that, you're making for interesting reading!