After a certain point, these discussions feel like two interlocutors both trying to use Socratic questioning to bring the other to their viewpoint instead of discussing their actual disagreements. Is there any point to this, if we're not going to establish actual commonplaces on the things we're talking about, i.e. fictional worlds, player authorship, split PC vs. player decision making and so on.
I think it's pretty clear the disagreements there are fundamental, and going for them directly would grind conversation to a halt, so why are we having a one-level up conversation?