I have not noticed any difference in the amount of emotionally charged language used by the two sides of this issue. Few people of any position discusses it calmly and rationally. So this characeristic does not seem like something that will be any help in determining which side is correct.
I have noticed that lately you only seem to point out illogical or otherwise flawed posts when they support the globe earth position. This suggests that, rather than objectively seeking out the more logical position, you have emotionally chosen a position and are guilty of confirmation bias.
As with most issues, I get hostility from both sides ... because I'll argue against and reject arguments from either side without respect to positions and to persons. Then I invariably get the criticism ... from both sides ... of needing to get off the fence and make up my mind, to side with one camp or another. I rarely feel compelled to join a camp. If one side's argument is good about one thing, then I accept that, even if I reject several of their other arguments or points.
So, for instance, on this issue, theologically I disagree with (at least the dogmatic) flat earthers, whereas scientifically I'm undecided but leaning flat earth, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. I have seen videos where they have used lasers, GPS accurate to within centimeters, sound beams, etc. to demonstrate a decided lack of the mathematically-expected curvature of the earth over certain distances. Now, if those results are not COMPLETELY FAKED AND FABRICATED, then I do not see how they can be debunked. Refraction doesn't fly anymore when you're talking about GPS, lasers, and sound beams.