I appreciate your answers, but I'm not very clear on whether or not you agree/disagree with my characterization, how many of LiYang's claims you have investigated, and whether or not you would be willing to debate under those conditions you outlined. All of your answers only indirectly address the question. E.g., answering "If I now debated your stance on weed with the conditions that you outlined, would you agree to debate me?" with "Isn't that what already happened?" isn't providing sufficient clarity and is not actually answering the question.
I understand the need to elaborate and to address what you think I'm perhaps asking, but you got most of it wrong, and through needing to interpret what might or might not be going on in my mind, the conversation moves frustratingly slowly, as I'm left without clarity on your actual stance.
At any rate, I appreciate the conversation. I'll be moving on now :)