Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

Pro has used this round to shift goalposts and accuse me of knowing nothing while contradicting his own definitions, which forces me to summarize and restate my refutations which he seems to have misunderstood or simply ignored. 1- Preincarnate Jesus and Immutability ArgumentP1- Immutable means unchangeable through time, always in a static state, unalterable. [Point of agreement & well-cited definition]P2- Immutability is one of God's traits. [Point of agreement]P3- Preincarnate Jesus incarnated. [Point of agreement]P4- Incarnation requires a change of form/ It is impossible to incarnate without any changes. [Undeniably a change of form took place so Jesus could be also in human form when he incarnated]Conclusion: Preincarnate Jesus was not immutable nor shared that trait with God.This is undoubtedly my trump-card in this discussion. I can stop arguing here, but I'll continue out of courtesy dealing with some of the other objections my opponent raised.On ObedienceI'm going to just quote my opponent here. Pro says, "Concerning obedience. I believe that in the Trinity there exists a relationship of functional subordination and ontological equality." So we should follow my opponent's personal belief without any examples from scripture? If this debate is based on scripture, I win. I have showed that only Jesus appears to be obedient with not one act of obedience from the Father.On Personhood and NatureHere is where my opponent got unbearably intellectually dishonest. My refutation was simply that the verse doesn't say anything about God's nature, as in the nature defined by my opponent himself. I'm going to repeat Pro's definition: 'Nature means "totality of qualities/traits in a person" In God, this is omniscience, eternally, immutability, to name a few.' So basically, Jesus could have God's goodness and personality but not his immutability, and thus have a slightly different nature. The nature we're speaking of is what my opponent defined as nature in the first round: qualities + traits. "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son... who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." [Hebrews 1:1–3]I'm sorry, but I don't see one good reason to assume that this is talking about all God's nature; immutability, omnipresence, etc. If my opponent doesn't offer any reasonable evidence his personal belief can be dismissed without any. "Express image of His person" has a different meaning that "exact copy of God's nature."On GoodnessIn a desperate attempt to claim that I've somehow proved him right, my opponent misinterpreted my claim that Jesus and God are equally good. I said that the Hebrew 1:3 says that Jesus has an "express image" of God's goodness(doesn't mean he is equally good to God e.g radiance light analogy)."Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10:18 This is a vague verse. Jesus either meant that he is not God, or he actually meant that they are unknowingly admitting that he is God. We have no way of establishing which meaning is more supported from the context, and "no one is good except God" is an exaggeration that can be understood for emphasis purposes. Many Prophets in the Bible are considered good. "Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God." [Genesis 6:11] I have delivered the knockdown punch above with the immutability argument. If my opponent doesn't refute that by objecting to some of the premises, he surely loses the debate since I established with logic and scripture that an immutable preincarnate Jesus cannot possibly incarnate, and thus if my opponent accepts incarnation he should concede that Jesus lacks immutability and thus is not homoousios with the Father.