All of his arguments made sense to me, though were not very compelling. I didn't get the sense at all that he was trying play word games or avoid the topic. For instance, his entire point about it not being a sacerdotal priesthood and propitiatory sacrifice in the earliest Church Fathers directly relates to the EO conception of the very word "priest." Dr Bob wasn't committing the word concept fallacy, he was explicitly trying to point out the different meanings and saying he rejected that definition and held to the definition he gave in his opening statement.
Likewise, when he was asking about if EO priests die, the monarchical priesthood, etc. it was to establish in what sense they actually participate in the Melchizedekian priesthood as contrasted with the "general priesthood" of all believers. Again, this was directly relevant to the topic as it goes to the difference between your definition and his.
It seems like you thought he was going to claim there is no such thing a priesthood and were frustrated because he didn't. But your very description states "The topic of today’s debate is whether Christianity teaches a special, clerical, and sacramental Priesthood distinct from the general 'priesthood of all believers.'"
