Look, you seem to view debate in a fundamentally different way than I. When I come to a debate, I don't think "I'm right, they're wrong, I have to prove it to them." I think "They have one perspective, I have a conflicting one. If we talk about our respective perspectives long enough, one of us may learn something." There are times when my "opponent"'s perspective is one that I once held before learning something which made me change my mind; in these cases, I am a bit more insistent, hoping that they will learn what I did and either change as I did, or at least reevaluate their perspective. I very, very rarely hold a solid position on a subject. I have called myself an atheist, but by no means should that imply that I deny the possibility of gods. Mine is a neutral position, with all possibilities holding a certain probability. Generally, the most probable is adopted tentatively as a sort of default/filler position. In this case, there are thousands of suggested gods, each with their own probability, but a universe as complex as ours without a god is just plain more probable than with, just like how "Mary is a librarian." is just plain more probable than "Mary is a librarian and literate." It doesn't matter how silly an illiterate librarian would be, more assumptions lessens the probability of something.
I should hope that this would at least in part explain that I have no vested interest in converting you to my perspective. I am not personally trying to change your mind, that can't happen. I am trying to present alternative viewpoints and reason that you might consider when making decisions. This is one of those cases where I at one point held a fundamentally similar position. When I looked at that position from a new perspective, namely in considering the probabilities of the various gods weighed against one another, I realized that there was no rhyme or reason behind adopting one over another beyond what one grew up hearing. Faith didn't matter, because faith was equally good proof for Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Jupiter, Quetzalcoatl, etc. What they taught was irrelevant, as Aesop's Fables teach a lot of good things, but that's no evidence for talking animals. The number of followers was irrelevant for obvious reasons, as was the strength of conviction amongst them. The third party physical and historical evidence for each was negligible, so why jump to one conclusion over the others, when I could live my life just as well as "Neutral", if not better. Despite claims to the contrary, an absence of belief is not a belief in absence.
Again, when I come to a debate, my intention is to face my perspective against another until one of them fails by their own merits; I don't particularly care which one, though sometimes prior experience makes it easier to guess which will prevail. It's like smashing two sticks together until one breaks to see which one is stronger. My issue isn't that you won't change your mind to mesh with my perspective, it's that you won't eve consider the opposition. You are hiding your stick, announcing it to be just as strong, if not stronger, than mine, but unwilling to put it to the test. Whether or not I misrepresent you, am an idiot, or have had any positive contact with you, facts are facts and information is information, no matter where it comes from. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No number of ad hominems you throw at me will change the probability that I am either.
Even if you have often said, I am misrepresenting your position(which you've never provided any evidence in favor of; I simply try to flesh out what you mean, heavily drawing on direct quotes, when you refuse to do so yourself) such a claim is irrelevant. You know what your actual position is, and you would be able to see through any misrepresentation, but the information and perspective I provide are there nonetheless. The real, final decision is made in your head. In my stick example, it doesn't matter what I claim your stick is made out of, be it balsa or rock maple; all that matter is what happens when they collide. Further, I don't think any of my central points have hinged on what I have represented you as thinking. Most of them have been broad remarks decrying unmoving belief in general, regardless of what your individual beliefs may be.
In closing: You don't know everything. I don't know everything. We learn by introducing new information and changing our minds. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, at least be capable of change.