I think this is a very reasonable takeaway and summary.

Personally, I do not think there is a particularly convincing case for a "curse of Ham" that can be made from Scriptural or anecdotal evidence. But I also have no reason to get hung up on this point because no one is arguing for turning the curse into a "rule of duty." When Jesus prophesied his betrayal, it did not, therefore, give Judas license to do so. Similarly, even if Africa is cursed to a life of subservience, it does not give other races the privilege of invading and ruling Ham's descendants at will. As I understand it, Mahler holds that this "curse of Ham" exists, yet is cautious of extrapolating a moral command from this belief. This relegates the issue to little more than a differing interpretation of a single passage in Genesis. It's simply not relevant. Notably, even antebellum South Christians did not think that the "curse of Ham" was sufficient grounds for their pro-slavery position.

The debate on miscegenation is an interesting issue, but I've honestly never heard the positive case for it.

Mahler asked Sey if he was so proud of his Ghanaian heritage, why wouldn’t he want to marry a Ghanaian and pass that on to his children? Sey’s answer to this was insufficient if given at all.

As far as I'm aware, the only favorable case for miscegenation relies on the "benefits of multiculturalism" and other bogus sociological claims. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for Sey to explain his case for setting aside premarital cautions and the normative duties of the fifth commandment, but it was nowhere to be found in the debate. I have already critiqued him for this in the past, so I am unsurprised that he would forgo the reasoning for his position yet again.

I'm not sure what an anti-Christ-is-King believer and anti-Christian Nationalist such as Samuel Sey was hoping to gain by condemning Mahler to hell—even after they had already established various areas of agreement. It was certainly strange when Sey condemned Mahler for asserting that race is real, just moments after expounding on 1 Peter 2:9 ("But you are a chosen race," "a holy nation") for the same reason. The effect was jarring, to say the least.

I honestly don't understand the appeal of this transgressive "denouncement game," particularly in the context of a debate. As Douglas Murray's disaster on Joe Rogan has proven, the posturing, pseudo-intellectual drivel that would have impressed other generations is now gross and demeaning by today's standards. Why certain members of the reformed camp choose to play into that caricature is beyond me, especially after they witnessed firsthand what it did to #BigEva.