Well, okay. Here is the "debate". The first stickied comment links the essentials in a slightly readable order. u/CrusaderPepe is free to comment but my pinging him when blocked won't help him any.
It gets very repetitive, but the main line is (1) Pepe lists propositions he thinks we disagree on, (2) I get him to define his words precisely, which he'd previously refused, (3) I agree with his propositions, (4) he gets upset because he wants to argue but he's also shut down any point to arguing anything else because he admits no other definitions, (5) I explain that he's not debating and ask for his final terms, (6) he demands that I deny Christ because he's so confident of my wrongness, (7) I take offense at that point and conclude I have not successfully won him over privately as I'd hoped.
My closing statement: "Jesus Christ is my everything and without him I am nothing. Since your only acceptable term is for me to deny my Lord, your answer clearly shows that you are not interested in evangelizing and converting Jews as you claim; rather, that your freedom to demand a confession of me, tantamount to denying my Lord, proves my final conclusion correct, that you have offended Christ's body and are no better than Nero or any other persecutor who demanded such recantations. (Didn't you see the end of That Hideous Strength where the final demand of the tyrant is to stomp a crucifix in the face? See also Japanese history for the same.) To assist your understanding, let me clarify that I do not judge you to be an antichrist or in any wrong standing in any way with the church at large, but I do judge you to have offended against my conscience and therefore I must submit my judgment to God as revealed through the church at large. Jesus instructs me to approach you with a second witness. I too have gotten what I wanted out of this debate: a swift determination of your actual stance without your wild equivocations blurring the central issue."
Well, okay. Here is the "debate". The first stickied comment links the essentials in a slightly readable order. u/CrusaderPepe is free to comment but my pinging him when blocked won't help him any.
It gets very repetitive, but the main line is (1) Pepe lists propositions he thinks we disagree on, (2) I get him to define his words precisely, which he'd previously refused, (3) I agree with his propositions, (4) he gets upset because he wants to argue but he's also shut down any point to arguing anything else because he admits no other definitions, (5) I explain that he's not debating and ask for his final terms, (6) he demands that I deny Christ because he's so confident of my wrongness, (7) I take offense at that point and conclude I have not successfully won him over privately as I'd hoped.
My closing statement: "Jesus Christ is my everything and without him I am nothing. Since your only acceptable term is for me to deny my Lord, your answer clearly shows that you are not interested in evangelizing and converting Jews as you claim; rather, that your freedom to demand a confession of me, tantamount to denying my Lord, proves my final conclusion correct, that you have offended Christ's body and are no better than Nero or any other persecutor who demanded such recantations. (Didn't you see the end of That Hideous Strength where the final demand of the tyrant is to stomp a crucifix in the face? See also Japanese history for the same.) To assist your understanding, let me clarify that I do not judge you to be an antichrist or in any wrong standing in any way with the church at large, but I do judge you to have offended against my conscience and therefore I must submit my judgment to God as revealed through the church at large. Jesus instructs me to approach you with a second witness. I too have gotten what I wanted out of this debate: a swift determination of your actual stance without your wild equivocations blurring the central issue."