Your first sentence nitpicks the word "truth" and ignores the spirit of the point. Your second ignores my point about the validity of Newtonian mechanics and, in the process, detracts from your own point about approximations instead of absolutes. It's also wrong for what it's worth - again, NASA used computers to get us on the Moon. Computers need not be digital.

I don't really care what your opinion is of my ability to debate in a civil fashion. That you are incorrect is not an opportunity for me to persuade you; your arguments are simply a vehicle for convincing the onlookers reading the back-and-forth. And to be blunt, when you're resorting to nitpicking words, ignoring points and comparing Newtonian mechanics to anti-vaccination, I also don't really care about abandoning civility.

And if I'm being honest I do get a certain satisfaction from challenging your examples in such a cavalier fashion, because they're frankly silly and incomparable. Considering the stakes (compromising herd immunity, implicitly defending harmful ignorance) I am all-in on censorship and abandoning decorum.

But you're free not to debate with me if you consider me gauche or impolite, just as Amazon is free to censor all the videos on its own platform.