No. You've understood far more than most lurkers, or participants. However, you say: deliberate misunderstanding is a poor debating strategy, and this isn't quite true. In a short debate, it's an excellent tactic, very similar to stonewalling. In an untimed dialogue, it does become a transparent device, and loses its effectiveness. It can, however, wear down all but the most determined opponents.
I agree that while it does tend to wear on the participants, for (some of) the lurkers following the discussion, especially those of us (i.e., me) who find it relatively easy to identify and click on underlined words, it damn-near completely invalidates that particular poster's credibility.
Or perhaps I err in assuming that those particular individual posters keep lurkers in mind...