Note:

The process of true Bayesians coming to agreement bears precious little resemblance to a typical human argument.

;

You've been willfully ignorant and willfully misinterpreted me

You have a bad model of me.

Either you are being irrational or Aumann is wrong

Aumann's Agreement Theorem only applies to perfectly rational agents in particular idealized circumstances, as much as it's used colloquially hereabouts as though it says anything about humans.

And yes, I'm being massively irrational. I am a human. You are also being massively irrational. If you have figured out how to stop doing that, then please let us know.

your above fallacies

I did not see any fallacies. Given that I am an expert on logic, I expect that you're just using the word wrong.

your disdain for debate and your rejection of "convincing" because it's apparently associated with debate is incredibly stupid.

I'm still unsure what you mean by "stupid" on the object level.

For humans, being in debate-mode tends to be a bad idea with respect to truth-seeking. Once you start arguing for a position, it is very difficult to update your beliefs on new evidence.

If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins. Entering into debate-mode or being rude is a great way to discourage rationality in both yourself and any respondents.

Please stop being stupid.

Please stop being rude.

Note: we have community norms against exactly one of these.