I do not know when I have seen trained disputants do the like of that before.

The nine merely furnished their own opinions, founded upon--nothing at all.

In the other dispute ("Did Jesus anywhere claim to be God ?") the same kind of men--trained and learned clergymen--backed up their arguments with chapter and verse.

On both sides.

Plenty of verses.
Were no reinforcing verses to be found in the present case?
It looks that way.
The opinion of the nine seems strange to me, for it is unsupported by authority, while there was at least constructive authority for the opposite view.
It is hair-splitting differences of opinion over disputed text-meanings that have divided into many sects a once united Church.