Because I laid those out in detail at c/Christianity. I'm happy to provide complementary truth to a person who might be interested in receiving it, but he didn't want truth to be shared in either direction, he wanted to lay out his imagined truths and then to declare himself victor by fiat, which he has now done. I wanted to agree on terms by which we could jointly arrive at truth, which he flatly refused. If he refuses all alternate definitions, propositions, and questions, he's the one controlling terms of debate.

Just to give you a little context, I could freely lay out the case that the RCC, while it teaches in no uncertain terms that you can lose "sanctifying grace", does not in any place seem to teach authoritatively that you can lose regeneration. Rather, it teaches that regeneration presupposes faith and that there is false faith, which logically entails that some appearances of regeneration are false, which logically permits that you cannot lose regeneration. This explains all the Bible passages that imply this, which Catholics have to reinterpret when they look at them because of their plain meaning. However, why should I waste time developing this teaching additional to sanctifying grace doctrine if there is no one to hear it? I freely teach this for your benefit, but I proved there was no benefit in teaching anything to him because of his method presuppositions that prevent him from accepting truths by that path.

I did disagree on two points: I told him I never called him names, to which he replied by interpreting my words with false equivalence, defending his putting his interpretation of my words in quote marks as if I ever called him that. Plus, I told him I disagreed on Hebrew roots because thousands of Catholics in Jerusalem (the St. James Vicariate) share my view, and he said that they weren't really Catholics, that they ought to be investigated for excommunication. So if he will slice up his brothers so freely, and his pope and his bishop whenever they disagree with his interpretation of what truth has been established, it's no surprise how he treats me.

I then showed that all points whatsoever are only in dispute because he sets himself up as his own authority instead of submitting to God's authority. So the conclusion of the debate is that he's revealed where he stands: he affirms his authority to judge as infallible rather than God's authority to reveal his judgments infallibly. He cements this by his declaring me an enemy and son of satan and (just now) demanding, as the sole term of peace he would permit, that I call myself a "Jew" when he's defined that to mean a denier of Christ. We all know who asks people to deny Christ.

Would you like to join with me as a second witness in approaching him?