I think you are right that there is no consensus.
But the law does not require consensus. A baby is a natural born citizen of the US if 2 things exist:
1) The baby is born on US soil to parents who are US citizens, or if not US citizens, are under the jurisdiction of the US.
2) The baby is born on US soil at that time NOT under the control / jurisdiction of a hostile military presence.
Item 2 happened in WW II when Japanese troops temporarily occupied Aleutian Islands.
Item 1 depends on soil and jurisdiction and the only way foreign citizen parents are not under the jurisdiction of the US when on US soil is if they have presented diplomatic credentials to the US State Dept.
Jurisdiction: the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends
That means US soil. And no diplomatic credentials.
There is nothing more to debate.
There is some more to debate. You have explained a common understanding among many people, which is appreciated.
But there is more to debate, as to how Obama and Kamala were elected to positions in spite of not meeting the criteria for natural born citizenship, and how Vivek and Nikki Haley are campaigning for president.
In other words, why is there no legal impediment, no legal authority to prevent unqualified candidates from running for office? That specific aspect of this should be discussed.
“There is nothing more to debate.”
There is still the matter of whether the law will be enforced.
That law was already ignored by the courts in 2008 and 2012.
Then, in 2020, an election was blatantly stolen - and the courts ignored that too.
Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.