Hmmm. I've kind of grown fond of you over the years, but I'll try to be neutral.
I think you were entirely fair (as always), you were clear in the point *you* were trying to make, although that's typically a major issue in all debates in terms making sure the other side *hears* you clearly. You always do well in my experience of citing the specific post where you believe the ball got dropped from your perspective, and you did so again in this case too.
If you noticed, I 'tried' to warn Justa that you weren't necessarily promoting any particular cosmology theory, nor dissing any particular cosmology theory either. You're a little difficult to 'pin down' in my experience in terms of where you're coming from, and the nature of your motives. It took me awhile to see where you were coming from.
One of biggest mistakes I made when I first started debating publicly is "assuming" the other person held certain beliefs. It took me quite a while to really learn to treat everyone as an individual and to 'listen' and 'ask' before making a lot of assumptions about peoples motives. I think Justa "assumed" some things early on that actually didn't apply to you as a unique individual.
In many circumstances, and in fact on most "general" topics that I debate, I'm typically in the majority position, or there are plenty of others that share my views. If I'm in error, it's typically on a minor point, not the whole theory itself.
EU/PC theory happens to the be one exception where the numbers aren't in usually in my favor on the internet to start with, *and* the mainstream astronomy websites do a really ruthless job in some cases of weeding out all dissenters on a regular basis. The rule system over at Cosmoquest for instance is down right draconian.
In that outnumbered scenario, it's hard to know exactly where people stand, but you can be pretty sure that most of them are shooting scientific bullets at you from some angle or another.
I'm not sure if it quite true, but I've come to see you as pretty neutral toward the science itself. From your perspective, you're just making sure the conversation stays "honest". You're a bit like a referee in that way.
You also have some pitbull tendencies that I find down right admirable if one expects to be a good public debater.
You can however be a bit intimidating in that way. You also tend to pick your battles very strategically, and very methodically. Going into the 'specific battle' that you've chosen, I've noticed that your odds tend to be pretty high. I've had to concede several points to you in fact.
You're like a "newbies" worst nightmare.