IT would have been a big waste of your time as well. He just argues for the sake of argument because of his acute case of TDS.
Once a post is created, copy-paste is no big deal. Last time, I focused on one aspect and one aspect only: His assertion that Trump got a fair trial.
On no less than three separate occasions he tried to devolve into other arguments on other points. I repeatedly wrote, in response: "I will not answer that. I will not debate someone so completely out of touch with reality, as I correctly have observed you are. If you wish to address anything, please stay focused on the overall thrust of my message (that it is pointless to debate or in any way argue with someone who believes that Trump had a fair trial. The legal points to address are, once again:... etc. etc. etc.
He finally responded that my points were subjective, which of course is nonsense. They are legal points that are agreed upon by every serious lawyer I have spoken to, and several I have read.