bulmabriefs144, I don't think "winning" a "debate" necessarily accomplishes anything (it could happen to or it could not, usually not). I simply overinvested in part because you were easily convinced earlier, which put me in a sort of mental binary mode (meaning a personal quirk rather than a "justification") where I thought arguments (to be clear, this doesn't mean "fighting" to me) using facts and reasoning made sense to present. When you skipped over lots of things I said I tried to impress the points. I don't like it when I respond to essentially 100% of what one person says, paragraph by paragraph, but the other person purposefully refuses to acknowledge lots of key things I say (this is clearly undebatable and constitutes truth rather than any "hostility" or attempt to judge you as being bad, so please don't take it as more than an explanation), presumably because they're personally inconvenient to acknowledge in some way (from my perspective, by default, in the general case of this type of thing happening). I realize I was slow to adapt to the lack of progress.
Anyway, you say you want to "learn", not "debate", but it seems to me that how one judges the things I said to fit one (let's say "explain" instead of "learn" since it's coming from me rather than to you for the purpose of this sentence) or the other ("debate") is a personal choice that can be based on for example how "strenuous" "discussion" can be before it turns into a "debate". I did link to various information but you mostly didn't acknowledge it (among other things), while I tried to respond to everything you said every time (resulting in lots of text from me, increasing your problem or however you would categorize it). I realize this "burdened" you, but it's rather one-sided to categorize things as though you were just looking to learn and I was just looking to debate. If I was looking to learn I wouldn't simply ignore key things "against" my initial view, but I don't really care what in particular counts as what to you as long as you accept that I can't accept that your categorization of me is fair. I've tried to explain this but it feels like you view anything I say as hostile to the point where any explanation of my thoughts, given that they don't naturally favor you, seems like continued "fighting", "debate", and so on.
I have tried to disengage by acknowledging the uselessness of my efforts, the likely negative "public" perception they received, and so on, but you seem so far unable to accept that I believe I had reasons for what I did other than malice (as I would define the following) in the form of a thirst for "debate" in the same sense that I accept that you apparently had your own, dissimilar reasons for what you did. I don't expect to understand your reasons perfectly nor for you to understand mine, but please just let me have my reasons. I realize that you feel like it was a debate rather than a learning experience, whatever that means to you, but it feels differently to me. I'm sorry if my explanations disfavor you and make you feel as though you must defend yourself further from "debate", but I don't mean to do anything but as neutrally as possible explain my perspective (the steps that led to this waste of time, very likely more on my part (and therefore presumably "punishing" me more than you) than yours considering how much I typed in total), for I can't simply leave it at your apparent categorization of me as merely some errant debater that popped in.
For what it's worth, I know that you are also trying to disengage. I simply feel like you're reading unnecessary hostility into what I'm saying, when it's simply impossible to explain myself without mentioning the things you did which I reacted to, admittedly not in a very useful way. I understand that you felt and feel hostility, malice, "debate", "fighting", or whatever negatives you may or may not ascribe to me, but I assure you that I merely became annoyed as you purposefully didn't react to various things I said WHILE I stayed in a mental binary mode that was assuming that you could process what I was saying usefully, which was incorrect of me. This combination was of course irrational on my part, but such things happen to humans.
Okay, so you say you can't disengage well (let's say this is your "personal quirk" as minorly related to mine above). Well, it's over now (hopefully). As for "fighting", if this is all you think of it then that's unfortunate, but I realize you weren't looking for what I gave you and therefore don't need me to continue with the arguments on the main topics (which I have not been doing). Hopefully this explanation is sufficiently acceptable to you. I avoided this level of elaboration earlier because I hoped it was unnecessary and because I realized that elaborating upon the things you did which annoyed me (which is necessary to fully explain myself, and not an attempt to get you to apologize to me or to think poorly of yourself in any way) could easily not be received well, but hopefully you are able to tolerate it, and my apologies if not.