Do you really see this as a debate in which there can be winners or losers? If the truth of theology is to be determined not by the truth, but by the skill or numbers of the participants than the truth will be the loser.
Isn't this more accurately an argument, not in the modern "quarrel" sense, but in the sense of a classic Thomistic or Platonic argument, as a collective endeavor from different perspectives to ultimately reveal the truth?
It is neither a debate or an argument when you begin with the premise that you win until proven wrong and then establish yourself as the judge. Most would call that bloviation. If you are truly interested in revealing the truth I would request that you state that, and not proving yourself right as your objective.
What I have been reading of Daniel1212's posts is he's trying to get across the perspective that stpio is the one who is doing the bloviating by insisting "bias" is the reason why others are not agreeing with him. When Daniel repeatedly tried to explain why he referenced Catholic sources - to show stpio was not reinforced by the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism to his claims - he got more of the same. I see Daniel's explanation about the point of why he would use such sources as a kindness rather than a self-assured debater whipping up on a newbie.
Rather than present yourself as the arbiter of what is or is not a debate vs. argument, why not weigh in on the topic of conversation?
I am certainly interested in revealing truth - and for the Truth to be victorious- which requires objectivity, and more than superficial examination and analysis, which i present for others to judge, but when the other party asserts we need to be subject to Rome, even though the prophecies he publicly promotes have no official sanction, and dismisses reproof by his own, and requires his interpretation and choice of Bible be accepted even when the church he promotes does not, then it appears he is the one who sees himself right regardless, and is the supreme judge.