Getting back on topic about the article, what do you most hope readers will take away from this article? Do you want discussions like the one you had with FemurLemur? Something else?
I certainly didn't write the article in order to have discussions like the one I had with FemurLemur, I wrote it so that I wouldn't need to have them. Basically I wrote it so that the reader can learn to stop focusing on the superficial things that don't really matter, and start focusing on the underlying principles — such as the obstacles.
Okay, here's my suggestions for revision to make that more likely, then. (Although, I think your revisions since the last time I read the whole article, have already helped some with this issue.) Obviously, though, if you feel like any of these suggestions misrepresents your position or eliminates important info, then take it with a grain of salt.
1. I already mentioned changing the title to focus more on the "obstacles" rather than "deck types," but if you don't like that, what about changing it to put the focus on moving beyond the "deck type definition" debate (as you say, the more superficial elements)? I mean, is an "infinite number of deck types" any different than deck types no longer being that useful? Maybe modify your "Beyond the five types" subtitle to be the title for the whole article?
2. I would more explicitly suggest that this perspective encourages redefining how we think of the archetypal deck types. Rather than seeing them as determined by the number of actions, or level of synergy, or whatever other thing people use, your perspective demonstrates how it's useful to think of the deck types as common answers to the obstacles. This way if people have incompatible ideas of "engine" or "slog," they clearly know that's not what you are talking about.
3. I would remove references to terminology and your disagreements with it, unless it's absolutely necessary (e.g. your issues with "combo"). I think you could still show how the obstacles suggest other common strategies such as the "golden deck" or "stockpile" without as many criticisms of "combo."
Maybe you need to keep it in the "beyond the five types" part, but does it need to be in the intro, too?
4. I would tone down the language about the stupidity of engine/bm hybrids. I think "stupid" will just generate resistance and cause some people to try to come up with "hybrid" examples to refute you, even though that completely misses your point. (why is stupid better than "ineffective" or "unfocused"?) Also, I'd take more opportunities to tie this back to the objectives (right now, the only reference is implicit in the word "solutions").