Seriously, WTF? The lesson of "Arguments aren't soldiers" is not that meta-ethical or object-level moral debates shouldn't happen. It's that you shouldn't back an argument just because you agree with the results.

In the quoted part I was objecting to your language not the content. I disliked how you used "defending someone". The second paragraph was where I thought I engaged your argument. I notice that I am confused. Most of your comment is flying over my head right now, can you please rephrase what you wanted to say with it?