This is a good exposition of the "debate" between FE and RE models. In reading the comments, I noticed one thing: several commenters appear to believe the Moon is always visible at night, perhaps because of the common association of Sun = daytime and Moon = nighttime.
In fact, the Moon is NOT always visible at night. When it is a new moon or close to it, the Moon and the Sun appear very close to each other in the sky. So, logically, when the Moon is new or close to Sun, the Moon will not be visible in the night. You can see thin crescents before sunrise or after sunset, but once the Moon sets, you will have a moonless night.
As a rule of thumb, a half-moon (first quarter or third quarter moon) will be 90 degrees from the Sun. So, if the Sun sets at 6 pm local time, a waxing half moon will be visible for about 6 more hours until it also sets around midnight. In that example, the sky will be moonless from roughly midnight to 6 am in that location.
There are computer planetarium programs, such as Stellarium, that you can use to model these motions.
"This is a good exposition of the "debate" between FE and RE models. "
There shouldn't be any debate at all if people would acknowledge the facts:
Your senses and natural science tell you that we are not living on a spinning globe. Nobody would assume so hadn't he/she not heard of the "spinning globe" theory.
The authorities who claim that we would indeed be living on a spinning ball - despite what our senses tell us - fail to prove it.
Well, I disagree with your points.
#1. Natural science does tell us we are on a spinning globe, as this has been an accepted part of physical science since the Renaissance in Europe, and even prior to those times. Using the principle of Occam's Razor, it was easier to explain natural phenomena with a round earth orbiting the Sun, especially as more precise measurements became possible, and not with a flat Earth orbited by the Sun.
As for the senses, they can be unreliable, as Ernst Mach tested in the 1800s. For example, when you are flying in an airliner, can you sense you are moving at nearly 600 mph?
#2. They have, repeatedly. But many people like you remain unconvinced, either because they don't trust the authorities (and no other reasons) or because they refuse to question their own assumptions.
There should be no debate between RE and FE models, because FE is patently wrong.