@Halcon:
Not that it's wrong to try... but yeah.
But this argument persists because it's somehow viewed as a fundamental condition (either to believe or not, depending on the group) of Christianity.
In other words, this argument is "unending" and "fruitless" because, win or lose, there's no fruit to be claimed at victory.
Also, nobody defines terms. I'm not talking about defining the Trinity itself. Rather, define "person", "essence", "death", what it means to be "fully" anything, what it means to be "the son of" anything, etc.
Those terms should be talked about first. Both sides quote the same scripture at each other, using these terms, and then mic dropping each time. The other side reads the arguments in the context of their definitions, and simply concludes they the people making the arguments are stupid.
On and on and on..... weeeeeeeeeee