Thank you for all of your explanations; I agree with all of them partly. V_n's especially is well-thought out and phrased. I realize
why Gautama does what he does, as in what his intention towards Saccaka is, and I accept that ultimately Gautama's intention is good, of course. I'm not an end-justifies-the-means person though, and that's the part that gets me. It could very well be just a facet of the translation, after all there's only so much you can do on that front, but anyone who resorts to rhetorical techniques like that sounds rather like a crusading christian fire-and-brimstone missionary.
No, the Buddha isn't directly threatening him of course, but he doesn't need to. It's as if someone were to say, "well I'm not smashing your knees with this baseball bat if you don't pay up, but...I can't guarantee what my associate here may or may not do." Instead of resorting to that sort of imagery, the text should instead simply pose the question to Saccaka, "so why's it so important for you to be right here?" That'd do just fine. Saccaka doesn't have to admit anything, and he certainly doesn't have to be verbally bullied into it. If his youthful arrogance does him more harm than good, well whoopdie-doo. He certainly wouldn't be the first or last person to be youthful and arrogant, and absolutely everybody cocks up. Who knows, maybe later Saccaka would think back and go, "know what, I was a real dick to that nice Gautama, and my argument doesn't make too much sense in the final analysis. Why
can't I admit I'm wrong? Why can't I be more like he is, and end debates in a pretty low-key manner instead of resorting to imagery of divine wrath and punishment in order to semi-coerce the individual I'm debating into conceding the point?" Then while resting peacefully in his abode the Buddha could suddenly wink to whoever was around him, saying, "see what I did there?"
Do I think the actual Gautama said these things literally? Meh, who knows. Probably not exactly, and I have a feeling he was way too chill to really put things that way. That I don't care about. I don't care about if it's literally what happened or not.
What I'm more argumentative about is the way that the people who've carried on his teachings choose to frame statements/debates of his, because the nuances of how you phrase a statement
are very important. I care about the way it's presented.
This has been my rant, and it's been enjoyable.