I think there are a few separate issues here.
Meta discussion should be on meta.
I pretty much agree with Pat here. I wish things hadn't escalated quite as much, though.
If I understand right, posting a question here instead of continuing in the comments there might have resulted in a completely different outcome. In this case, it seems there's a conflict between then-meta.SO, meta.B&CG, and the general once-answer-per-user precedent here, which played out as a conflict between Pat (and some others) and you (and some others).
In any case, as the disagreement in the comments showed, we have something to discuss, and I can understand a moderator being exasperated when we refuse to use the tools given us for having that discussion. So unfortunately, I think we pretty much backed Pat into a corner. By discussing only in comments, we were basically declining to have a real discussion, at which point I think he was within his rights to act based on his own views.
In any case, I do think this would've all been simpler if we'd come to meta sooner like Pat asked.
Should you have had two separate answers to this question?
tl;dr: meh, I don't really think so, but if you want to, it's acceptable, no rule against it.
A sentiment I've seen a few times: if the question needs multiple answers, it might not be a good question. There's certainly some truth to that here: the question aimed for a yes or no answer, but it's not really a yes or no question. Slow play is always going to have gray areas.
In that spirit, I think it would've been possible to avoid the whole issue by writing an "it depends, sometimes yes sometimes no" answer. You'd still be able to make the same points, and I think it would be a better, more complete answer than either one of them on its own. You'd convey something more fully thought out, rather than the split answers which have trouble coming to any real conclusion. You'd avoid people rebutting one answer with things you said in the other. Bottom line, you could make your point about the question not having a single clear answer directly! Seems win-win to me.
On the other hand, that's all stuff about how I think you could best write your answer, and that's not really up to me. There's a way in which you can write answers to the question such that they become mutually exclusive and thus should be separate answers. If you want to present it that way, I suppose it's okay.
Is it worth moderator enforcement (answer deletion)?
I do think it would have been better to write just a single answer. But is it a big enough deal for a moderator to step in? I waffled a lot about this. My first preference would of course be to come to consensus and avoid the whole issue (via a meta discussion on meta).
Failing that, I think I lean toward no. If you want to provide two answers even though it might be less helpful, that's your choice, and I can always downvote if I think they're unhelpful. As mentioned above, there's no actual rule against it.
That said, if this kind of thing became a pattern, I would lean more toward enforcement; if we have people systematically presenting their answers in less helpful ways, trying to artificially chop them up into distinct pieces, that's probably not great for the site.