SuttaCentral
Yes, like this:
“And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven’t I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, ‘Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness’? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.”
MN 38
Well, again, this is a quote from a very specific context, isn’t it?
In the MN38 we have the case of a fellow who after i) taking refuge in the Triple Gem, and ii) making the (huge) effort of abandoning the householder life to take on the robes somehow comes up with the very wrong idea that there could be something like a separate consciousness entity (viññana) which transmigrates from one life to the other.
This is not the only occurrence of such weird situations in which one who apparently takes refuge in the Buddha and his Teaching and Discipline (Dhamma Vinaya) ignores the fundamental axiom of not-self (anatta) and brings into a contemplative life the wrong assumption of there being something within experience which is not not-self.
And yes, whenever situations like this seem to have happened within the early Sangha the Buddha is definitely depicted in the EBTs as getting quite strong on his words. He is definitely doing so from a place of deep wisdom, direct knowledge and compassion - all in all he is a Buddha!
The problem is not with the quote but with how one perceives the quote and how one sees the quote as a basis for personifying himself the Buddha and assuming he/she does have the right to admonish others with harsh words or assuming that through winning others through debates he is doing anything similar to what the Buddha would advise or appraise.
Many things seem to be implied here and I think it is time to get some understandings clear. When I created this topic I did so with the intention of inquiring through skillful conversation whether the approach of teaching others through debate is 1) the right one for a forum like this, and 2) is what the Buddha really wanted his non-awakened disciples to invest their time in.
First of all, I think it is time to help ourselves polishing up our understanding and perception of the actual purpose of this forum, in which people from different backgrounds come to “discuss early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day.”
As per the above, the proposal of this forum no way makes it a setting similar to the single-pavilion park of Queen Mallika where the Buddha and his awakened disciples would apparently go to meet to refute wanderers of other sects , of course with a sense of compassion and generosity in terms of opening their eyes to the good Dhamma.
Another important consideration is that, being a online forum, where people from all different backgrounds may come to anonymously read and take part of the discussions and conversations about EBTs, this “place” is far from being a community of contemplatives seeking guidance to straighten and deepen their insight and headed by a Samma-Sambuddha - the environment in which the events of MN38 seems to have taken place.
We are at best a bunch of human beings curious about what the EBTs have to teach us and truly interested in finding out what kind of nice and beautiful things we can take back from the EBTs to our lives and our individual cultivation/development (bhavana) of the path (magga).
I cannot speak for yourself, but I am a householder and am miles away from having put together the level of renunciation and true aspiration needed for a contemplative life to be kick started. And I assume this is the case of most of the people frequently coming here seeking to “discuss early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day.”
Knowing myself, and where I am, I do, out of compassion for myself and others, try to take the words of advice from the Buddha as seen in MN20 on how powerful can be the cultivation of states of non-conflict.
I therefore try to use this forum as an aid to develop the path factors of right thought, right speech and right action, at the same time I explore and share my fascination with the EBTs and, maybe, do a little of what needs to be done in terms of shaping up the sort of right view that will allow for insight and vision to take place in my heart.
All that said, in my opinion, the problem with debates is that these are necessarily based on stirring up people. And I know myself well enough to say that I never learned anything while or after being stirred up. This may have been the way or approach of ancient Greek philosophers but can’t be found in EBTs.
As well, I don’t think anyone can find a quote in the EBTs in which the Buddha either teaches people through stirring up or says that it is through stirring up oneself and others that the insight and vision needed for the liberation born of dispassion and disenchantment to take place. Actually, suttas like the AN10.2 show us the very opposite:
(9)–(10) the knowledge and vision of liberation is the purpose and benefit of disenchantment and dispassion;
(8) disenchantment and dispassion are the purpose and benefit of the knowledge and vision of things as they really are;
(7) the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the purpose and benefit of concentration;
(6) concentration is the purpose and benefit of pleasure;
(5) pleasure is the purpose and benefit of tranquility;
(4) tranquility is the purpose and benefit of rapture;
(3) rapture is the purpose and benefit of joy;
(2) joy is the purpose and benefit of non-regret; and
(1) non-regret is the purpose and benefit of virtuous behavior.
As per the ‘big picture sutta’ quoted above, the foundation of the dependent origination of knowledge and vision of liberation - the aim of anyone truly invested in the path (right?! 
) - is the strengthening of virtuous behavior - through right thought, speech, action and livelihood - and the mental state of non-regret if allows for to arise.
Again, this is beautifully aligned with the MN20, another big picture sutta in which the Buddha teaches us that the path he is pointing us to develop is all about cultivating states of non-conflict.
Now, addressing the elephant in the room - the usual occurences of people coming to space like this and one way or the other proposing or pushing for pernicious views like the one which has arisen in the Bhikkhu Sāti of the MN38 - my personal ‘weapon of choice’ would be to limit myself to point to suttas like the one aforementioned and say:
"Hey friend, look at this/these interesting EBTs in which the Buddha gets very explicit with disciples saying stuff not aligned with the Four Noble Truths and its respective enobbling tasks.
Friend, it seems the Buddha was not very found of people misquoting him (or saying that it is aligned with the Dhamma he brought us back) suggesting things completely incompatible with dependent origination such as that consciousness (viññana), one of the khandas, can be said to transmigrate through births. This is not what he said and not what his Dhamma should be making visible to you as you understand and practice it!
Friend, maybe it is better you take some steps back, give another read to things more fundamental and essential to the practice - like the Four Noble Truths and its respective tasks - and then seek to see and understand for yourself what the Buddha pointed us to see and understand for ourselves."
Although after being told the above the fellow may still insist with his pernicious views, it is his/her choice - we can bring horses to the well but not force them to drink right?! - at least this is done in a way of non-conflict.
Hence, by not stirring up him/her and in a friendly way bring to her attention the fact the Buddha was not found of such distortions to his teaching, there might be a chance that he will have an interested look at the quotes presented and something may click, towards the north of right view. Thus, the horse is brought to the well, not thrown at it, and may eventually get thirsty and drink himself the pure water it now has in front of it. 
P.S.: Sorry for the long reply. 
Beside the quotes so far shared, it is worth as well calling our attention to the ten topics of conversation found in the EBTs (e.g. AN5.97) as having been encouraged by the Buddha:
Note that the topics come in a certain order.
That is not by chance. It instead suggests the expected gradual evolution of a contemplative disciple and how as these things happen in the hearts of a group of Bhikkhus or Bhikkhunis the conversations will naturally change to reflect the stage at which most of the individuals are along the path.
I love the debating about debates. What fun!
Another issue that arises with debates is the polarized advocacy situation it usually involves or results into. And advocacy on topics of Dhamma does somehow put one in the position of teaching it.
It is therefore paramount that we quote here - for the sake of reminder - what are the five qualities the Buddha stressed should all be present in oneself who teaches the Dhamma:
“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?
“[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak step-by-step.’
“[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].’
“[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak out of compassion.’
“[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.’
“[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak without hurting myself or others.’
“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching.”
Source: SuttaCentral
Thanks @DKervick for point us to Snp4.12 :
Convinced of their own theories,
Comparing others to oneself,
They get into more disputes with the world.
But by leaving behind all theories,
They don’t have any problems with the world.
Another nice passage confirming how one should understand debate and wrangling argumentation in the context of development of virtue is found in DN2:
“Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, engage in wrangling argumentation, (saying to one another):
‘You don’t understand this doctrine and discipline. It is I who understand this doctrine and discipline.’
‘How can you understand this doctrine and discipline?’
‘You’re practising the wrong way. I’m practicing the right way.’
‘I’m being consistent. You’re inconsistent.’
‘What should have been said first you said last, what should have been said last you said first.’
‘What you took so long to think out has been confuted.’
‘Your doctrine has been refuted. You’re defeated. Go, try to save your doctrine, or disentangle yourself now if you can’—
he abstains from such wrangling argumentation. This too pertains to his moral discipline.
Just for the record, @Pasanna, could you kindly provide us a with link to the Chinese text you referred to as t1670b2.2 in this topic?