No you didn't. Maybe it's what you meant, or maybe it's a post-hoc rationalization, but it isn't what you conveyed via conventional definitions and implication.
Normally I wouldn't bother going on with such a wearying discussion, but your point was precisely about intellectual honesty and thus this is exactly on topic.
Let's review. I said,
I do know that [Super Mrs. C] not engaging with your points is not a particularly bad example of intellectual dishonesty or cowardice. It's ambiguous.
"particularly", used as a modifier, emphasizes or, in the case of "non particularly", de-emphasizes some other descriptor. It can be used ironically or to fully negate ("this cow manure smells particularly lovely" or "North Korea is not particularly democratic"), but the standard interpretation is as a strengthening or lessening. However, some things do not admit this kind of strengthening or lessening: "the light switch is not particularly on" makes no sense, at least for a rocker switch. Qualitative differences do not admit fuzzing with "particularly". It's inherently a statement about quantitative differences.
You reply:
I maintain, Rex, that all intellectual dishonesty is bad. There's no "particularly bad" - if it is intellectually dishonest, then it's bad. An intellectually dishonest person is an enemy of truth.
You give no less than four indications in a row that you are talking about qualitative matters only. First is a logical statement equating two things: "intellectual dishonesty is bad". In the context where I have explicitly accepted that intellectual dishonesty is bad (by saying "not particularly bad"--this means that it IS bad), when you state intellectual dishonesty = bad contrary to my point you can only mean that you're rejecting my claim that this intellectual dishonesty = small bad. Then, you explicitly reject my graded phrasing: There's no "particularly bad". Then you repeat the nuance-free equivalence. Finally, you reinforce the point by using strident language ("enemy of truth" as opposed to "works against the truth" or "no friend of the truth" or anything mild).
So, this seemed super clear to me. You could hardly have been any more clear save by saying: I reject that there is any relevant difference in degree between any sort of intellectual dishonesty. Every kind as bad as every other.
You did not say as you did later that no intellectual dishonesty is negligibly bad. (I disagree with this too, actually, because I don't think that in all cases you can find a clear demarcation between intellectual dishonesty and and not. But I wasn't arguing for it being negligible, just not-warranting-such-a-response.)
Thus, I replied,
I completely reject the idea that every type of intellectual dishonesty is equally bad.
and just in case you were reading the "not particularly bad" in the ironic or negating senses--not that this made much sense given my other points--I explicitly told you that I was using the conventional meaning / implication.
You objected, and clarified your position (i.e. distinctions matter but every type of intellectual dishonesty is bad enough), but also stated:
I very clearly wrote: all intellectual dishonesty is bad. I did not say all intellectually dishonest actions are equally bad - that clearly is not what I wrote.
No it isn't what you wrote, but as I document above it's a very clear implication. If you had meant that you thought this was bad enough, you certainly could have said so then instead of making the same point diminishing or eliminating distinction four times in a row. If you'd clarified and then asked if your clarified position was reasonable, that would have been one thing. But you defended your original statement.
So, naturally, I objected to your defense of your statement:
How can one interpret there being no particularly bad and yet maintain that degrees of intellectual dishonesty matter?
To which you respond with assertion by fiat and changing definitions:
Easily... by doing so. There's no conflict between the two of those things. I made it clear that there is no negligible level
But "negligible level" isn't what is meant by "not particularly bad"! If I say Pace picante sauce is "not particularly spicy" I don't mean that it's spiciness is negligible; I just mean it's no Tabasco. If I say clotted cream "does not have a particularly strong flavor" I don't mean it has negligible flavor, just that it's no Vegemite. Beer is "not particularly alcoholic"--you can get drunk anyway, even though it's not vodka.
Now, I'm happy to accept your clarification, but I am not at all happy to accept that your original statement clearly meant the same thing as your later ones. One wouldn't think it was worth such a fuss, except, wait--you would, because you're the one who just claimed that all intellectual dishonesty is worth calling out. Not admitting a flaw is indeed intellectual dishonesty--maybe it was an honest mistake / misunderstanding originally, but as you continue to dig in it becomes increasingly less so. (I think it is "not particularly intellectually dishonest" but also "not negligible" and worth pointing out precisely because the issue at hand is intellectual dishonesty--under almost any other situation I wouldn't bother.)
Much ado about almost nothing, but your original post was 100% about intellectual honestly. Hopefully this clears things up.
P.S. No, nobody should read Nietzsche on atheism if you want a (reasoned) debate about, say, whether God exists. Argumentation isn't Nietzsche's thing. Even less than Dawkins. Lots of emotionally evocative prose--far more moving than Dawkins--but he would lose a debate to Ben Shapiro if it was scored only on facts and logic. Bertrand Russell and Daniel Dennett lay out decent arguments.