As one of the "generals" of the abstract-first army (hmmm. platoon?), but also someone who has thought deeply and long about teaching and teachers, let me give a perspective.
I have built up a teaching philosophy and that philosophy both informs and is informed by my (and others) teaching practice. Some of that has been captured in patterns, so I don't have much, if any doubt about the philosophy.
However, I think those occupying the "other hill" have also done the same. That is, they have built up a teaching philosophy that both informs and is informed by their practice.
I think that those practices differ between the two camps, but each of them is, I expect, a consistent and coherent whole. For this reason, the students of those of us with different philosophies will do fine. Not a problem. And that is the goal.
Far worse, I think, is to not have a philosophy at all. Then teaching can devolve into just chaos. So, having these discussions can, and I hope does, help beginning teachers adopt a consistent and coherent philosophy that both informs and is informed by their practice.
I think that as long as we (including the mods) insist on the "be nice" rule we will be fine as a community.
I have respect for anyone who commits to teaching. There is no "higher calling" in my mind.
OTOH, I'll lobby like crazy.
One of the limitations of this format for this question is just its length. It is difficult to lay out a philosophy and how (and which) practices work with it in pundit length posts. There is a lot to say and not much space to say it. Thus, the "back and forth" puts the whole thing together from pieces not unlike (specialized) lego blocks. So one post will lay out an axiom or theorem of the philosophy and another will show how some practice follows or doesn't that axiom. Books can be written. Some have.