Gave the debate a full watch and I have an immediate thought about why pinesap would debate the Dimonds instead of an explicit BoDer.
An explicit BoDer would have destroyed pinesap more definitively in a sense. He couldn't have hidden in the way he did because he tries to use Trent how Fr. Jenkins (or a strict Aquinas BoDer) would have defended
explicit BoD, the Dimonds couldn't capitalize on the greatest contradiction in his position because they believe BoD is heretical.
The debate between pinesap and an explicit BoDer would be...
1) Explicit BoDer attacks loose EENS and say that Trent only taught explicit faith and that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation.
2) pinesap word salad about Pius IX/XII yada yada
3) Explicit BoDer says sure whatever (he can accept or deny what pinesap's premise, depends on if he wants to play word games or not) but Trent infallibly defined BoD as explicit
4) pinesap is trapped (there are a few lines of argumentation from here that work nicely and he can't really do anything at this point)
Debate over. There are a couple of intermediary steps I won't reveal because I would prefer an element of surprise if pinesap ever debates me on "implicit faith"
Worth noting another pinesap position
As a new convert from Orthodoxy, a reverent Novus Ordo is beautiful. To me it's more preferable to well reknown Eastern Churches' liturgies.