Nowhere do I say or imply that my position is the only correct one.

You boiled down OPs entire argument to "he just didn't pay attention", even when he made very good points in the discussion between you two. That is arrogance.

However, just because there is no "objectively correct" reading, interpretation, or opinion about a text does not mean all readings are equally valid; they still have to back themselves up with evidence and reasoning.

Which OP did. Your continued assertion that he did not is what makes you arrogant.

However, I happen to think at least 80% of the points OP brings up are lazy and not genuine issues.

And I disagree. You are not the end-all-be-all judge of what is valid and what is not. You are just another guy with an opinion. I don't see how you can possibly argue that the majority of OPs points aren't at least discussion-worthy.

for example, when Homura goes to fetch Sayaka's soul gem, and yet for some reason has to start and stop time up again when it's established she can just stop time, grab it off the truck, and walk back without having the undo her time stop -- that people have brought up that I have agreed exist but that don't, in my opinion, detract that much from the experience of the show overall

So if you acknowledge this plothole, why do you not acknowledge the other far bigger and thematically crushing ones? Because you're in denial? I know you've established that you think OP has no argument, but I assure you that he does.

Outside of this thread I have, on multiple occasions, pointed out how objectivity is a buzzword for pseudo-critics who want to sound authoritative and even argued against the notion that there can be a separation between "enjoyment" of a show and "critical appraisal" of a show.

What does that have to do with anything? You think this is worth mentioning because I used the word in a sentence?