Hi guys. New to the forum. Although I'm 100% sold on flat earth, I sometimes like to play Devil's Advocate and almost try to argue the opposing side's viewpoint with the best arguments I can think of. I think this is important because it's natural to have confirmation bias and see all incoming information as supporting our point of view, without giving a thought to the possibility that there could be another interpretation. This obviously applies to all controversial issues, not just flat earth. I also think doing this allows us to solidify our case for the flat earth, making it more air-tight and allows us to be more effective in discussions with our ball-earth friends and family members. I was actually banned from Eric Dubay's forum for taking this "oppositional" stance. I hope the same doesn't happen here.
On to my question. Is there a way to be more certain that the horizon is always at eye-level? How do we know we're actually looking straight ahead and not slightly tilting our head down unconsciously in order for our eyes to meet the horizon? This is more of pedantic issue to me as I'm convinced you can always see the horizon head on, but I'm more thinking about how to answer a ball-earther who brings up this argument.
* when you see in the distance a horizon it doesn't mean its a curve connected to 180°. That means its not directly connected to 360° and anyway, if where on a globe the 360° should by doubled to 720°. X and Y should have curves. But sit at the beach on a high rock or mountain and you'll see that the sea never bends at any point at the sides. So the horizon bending doesn't satisfy in formulic way when aplied on x and y