I totally agree with you. Good thing that it wasn't what I was supposed to debate there. You seem to want to change the subject too. The subject is very simple "does God exist" I don't have to prove that something is independent to prove it's existence. I never had to and never will I have to.
By definition, existence means to have actual being or to be real. In order for this to be the case, it must exist outside and be independent of a person's mind, otherwise it cannot have actual being/be real.
For example, Darth Vader does not actually exist. Even though there are people who dress up as Darth Vader, who take on his role for movies and the like, he is not an actual person. He is dependent on people to keep him in their imaginations. If every human being who had ever seen or heard of Darth Vader were struck with targeted amnesia, then he would vanish without a trace.
Whereas George Washington actually existed. There are historical records of him, things he did in the world. If every human being who had ever heard of him were struck with targeted amnesia, he would still have existed, and the things he did would still have happened.
Ps: I am not saying they were wrong in their judgement.
I'm saying that like you they made a mistake on the subject of the debate. They both thought the debate was "Does god exist independently?" and argue from that point when I was arguing from another point, closer to the subject.
No, you just had a different idea of what the subject of the debate was than they did (when you act like every person who had a different idea than you was mistaken, that comes across as arrogance). The 'mistake', if mistake it was, was that none of you made sure to be on the same page before you began it. So instead of blaming them for making a mistake, take it as a lesson to be learned from.
I would have judge the same thing if I was them. I would have also agree to change my verdict upon realizing the assumption I made on the subject. Even if it was only to retract it and maybe even suggest the two debaters to create a new debate this time making sure they are debating the same thing.
But, that's me.
So why didn't you suggest that? The way you came across (and to a degree, are still coming across) is that you were correct and everyone who didn't agree with you was wrong.