You repeated yourself yet again.
I told you awase/musubi is part of Takemusu Aiki, Christopher Li gave you his version as an effect of Aiki, Dan Harden said it is not inyo but can be a form of it...
... and yet you persist with this strawman that thinks 'awase = aiki'.
In person there is no debate indeed... I think you haven't trained with Alexander Sensei, in which case how would you know that he is practising a form of modern awase?
No, I haven't trained with David Alexander. I'm sure I would enjoy doing so. If I get the opportunity, I will. However, when he states this:
"As an analogy to AWASE, consider trying to stop a train that is coming down the tracks. Standing on the tracks and trying to stop the train by physically overpowering it will not be expected to work. However, running next to the train, jumping aboard, moving to the engineer's compartment, overcoming the engineer and applying the brakes will produce the desired result of stopping the train. This is comparable to AWASE in that no attempt is made to directly oppose power, but control is gained by merging into the power and disabling it."
Then that tells me that how he is defining awase is not the definition of Ueshiba's aiki. It tells me that those two are not the same. And by most accounts, how David Alexander is defining awase is the Modern Aikido definition and that example is also used to define Modern Aikido's aiki. So, when you say, " awase/musubi
of Takemusu Aiki", I have to respond, no, it isn't. Not going by what was posted. It wouldn't fit with Ueshiba's aiki. Modern Aikido's version of aiki, yes. But those two are functionally different.
As always, in my opinion and experiences.