>I respect your interpretation

What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.

Why do you keep pushing for that? I just want to highlight data and different opinions and let people make up their own minds. No need for me to impose my views.

Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.

YOU happily gave YOUR opinion that there was no sexual assault involved:

>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..] The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.

Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.

And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.

Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.

That's just your imagination and your over-eagerness to pick up a pitchfork. Of course sexual assault should be punished, nobody disagrees with that. I find you jumping to conclusions so quickly and your tendency to identify me as a bad guy so quickly, to be absolutely abhorrent and shameful.

Look, it's really, really simple. Just answer a very basic question:

Whats your interpretation of her social media post when taking into account the panicked crying? Does it change your opinion of her claim being ambiguous? Yes, or no?

The fact that you have repeatedly dodged that question is what will cause myself and other readers to jump to conclusions. Nothing else.

If someone claims that WW2 was an elaborate hoax (to pick something uncontroversial), and you present them evidence, and they say "that's just your interpretation" - what would you think of that person?

Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.

No man, not every report needs to have a personal opinion. Journalists are expected to be objective and neutral and only present facts and different views. Why can't I do the same?

I didn't say "that's just your interpretation" (implying I am downplaying that opinion), I said "whatever interpretation you hold is fine, it's not up to me to decide" (implying respect). That's something totally different.

>No man, not every report needs to have a personal opinion. Journalists are expected to be objective and neutral and only present facts and different views. Why can't I do the same?

Oh, come on. You offered your opinion. You presented yourself as an authority (which is somewhat fair, given you are a native speaker). But, your opinion can only be seen as biased if you won't even respond to a well-intentioned, well-reasoned, and completely factual counterpoint.

Any idiot reading this can see what you're doing. It won't work. It's so obvious that you are engaging honestly.