This is just my opinion but I don't think it helps the debate when accusations of lying start flying or when posters imply that the other is stupid or insane. Mazzy might be capable of a more reasoned response, but there are 3(?) things that I think condition her responses and why she says the things the way she does:
1) She is responding to multiple responses to her posts, which might make her feel like she has to respond to evryone and subsequently not take the time to think about how she responds or really to what the poster said.
2) Some of the responders, apparantly in frustration, either because of #1 or because of the nature of the debate itself, have implied a lack of intelligence or sanity and this might have caused Mazzy to respond in kind. Not saying she can't be intransigent or abusive herself, but that presenting replies that aren't so openly dripping with sarcasm might lift the quality of the debate.
3) She does present herself as a creationist, and debates can easily devolve into arguments that one side might feel is disparaging to one's deeply held belief. If it is ego or whatever, it takes two to fight. Making it a fight, instead of an attempt to be understood and to understand, corrupts the debate and hurts feelings.
We can help her engage in the debate, imho, if we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I think the soft approach really is more productive here. Give the benefit of doubt, that the person is not lying or insane. Understand that people can suffer from cognitive dissonance. Provide her with the quotes where she says one thing, and then another, but stop short of calling it lying.