Mark agrees with this, but Carla never disagrees. Carla’s argument never disputes that historians should try to convey an understanding of past events—the issue is just the perspective they use to do so.

Neither speaker agrees or disagrees with this claim. Mark never even mentions objectivity, and Carla never says whether or not individual soldiers can be capable of objectivity.

Mark seems to agree with this claim, but Carla doesn’t take a position. Carla’s point is that historians shouldn’t try to convey a personal perspective of past events, whether or not that’s actually possible.

Mark agrees and Carla disagrees, making this the point of disagreement. This is the conclusion of Mark’s argument, while Carla’s conclusion is that historians should focus on a general, objective perspective instead (meaning they would not use an individual perspective).

Neither speaker talks about the possible use of fiction to supplement historians’ accounts of past events. Fiction doesn’t come up in this discussion at all.