I like to comfort myself by imagining that both of you are paid actors who make a living sowing discontent on Lemmy to prevent any chance of mainstream success for the platform.
Sadly, my rational assessment of the human condition compels me to believe that you are both entirely genuine, and just extremely confused and solipsistic. If you are indeed engaging in good faith, then I would pose the question of what you hope to accomplish by engaging in these idiotic, endless faux-debates.
Realistically, there is no arbitrator here; you are both entirely able to move the goalposts, recruit spurious evidence, ignore counterpoints, and generally make a mockery of a legitimate debate. Furthermore, you have a miniscule audience on this platform, greatly limiting the possibility of influencing third parties. Therefore, the only possible outcome of this interaction would be the outcome which has already been repeated ad infinitum on Lemmy and social media in general, namely the mutual exchange of insults, poorly constructed arguments, and badly sourced data.
What an interesting way to spend one's life. As I said initially, it would be less painful to witness if I believed that you were accomplishing something such as the general suppression of Lemmy as a social media platform by creating a climate of negativity and conflict (even though I oppose that goal).
But realistically you are probably like the vast majority of people in that you are hopelessly incapable of judging the impact of your actions on the world and/or yourself, and you simply prefer to follow your baser instincts rather than take a step back and consider if there might be a more efficacious method of achieving your purported goals. Gives major punching a brick wall energy.