This debate seems to be almost entirely rhetorical - it reads like a disconnected list of quick-hit soundbite talking points which are supposed to misdirect and disguise, not reveal, the true moral beliefs of the participants.

I don't think either of them is being straightforward or honest about their true positions - it reads to me more as if they're starting from their positions, arguing back from them, but at the same time trying to spin and hide their honest opinions because they wouldn't be acceptable in polite company.