One ministry I'm a particularly big fan of is Stand to Reason, the ministry of Tim "Mr. B" Barnett. A popular, and helpful feature of this ministry is "Red Pen Logic", in which Mr. B finds examples of bad thinking online, and swiftly shows the flaws in it in quick time and space. A great example can be seen in the header image, where Mr. B assesses The Watchtower's answer to the Deity of Christ.
The Deity of Christ is a well known, and, as expertly demonstrated by Mr. B, easily defended doctrine in the Christian faith. To reject the Deity of Christ, you not only have to reject centuries of Christian tradition preceding most anti-Trinitarian cults, but even the clearest teachings of Scripture itself. You simply cannot claim to be a Christian if you do not confess Jesus as Lord, and cannot claim to know the Bible if you aren't at least vaguely aware that it clearly says Jesus is God.
We are often told "there are many interpretations of the Bible". Usually, this is by those who hold to a very specific and indefensible interpretation of the Bible. Like, for example, the aforementioned JW interpretation of the Bible with regard to the Deity of Christ. But notice, the JW interpretation is indefensible. There is simply no sensible way to interpret the Bible as rejecting the Deity of Christ. Most hilariously, whereas JW.org cites Philippians 2:9 to defend the idea that Paul did not think Jesus was equal with God, Mr. B points out that a mere 3 verses earlier, Paul explicitly says Jesus is equal with God, yet didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. The Scriptures the official JW website uses to disprove the Deity of Christ actually proves the Deity of Christ!
This is not at all uncommon. It is true, unfortunately, that there are many interpretations of various Scriptures. But this is never the fault of Scripture itself. Sometimes, as with the Watchtower, this is deliberate. The organisation promoting an interpretation knows their interpretation is wrong, but for frankly Satanic motives, peddle it anyway. Sometimes, as with your average JW, this is a result of deceit. They have ascribed too much authority to this lying organisation, and as a result of either plain ignorance, or a lack of due diligence, have swallowed the lie. There are examples of people who, through plain ignorance or lack of due diligence, have simply misunderstood Scripture.
But absolutely none of these interpretations are a justification for lacking due diligence. Those who argue "there are many interpretations of Scripture" are usually defending one of the bad interpretations. Someone who is confident in their interpretation, like Mr. B, will instead say "you have misinterpreted Scripture". A JW cannot come out and say "there are many interpretations of Scripture", for 2 simple reasons.
First, notice that one way or another, he does claim to be confident in his own interpretation. The argument you are using to cast doubt on the clarity of Scripture, therefore, counteracts the confidence you have in your own interpretation! Either Scripture is so unclear that it can support both our interpretations, and therefore you should not be so confident in yours, or Scripture is so clear that it clearly supports yours.
But that is the second problem: It never does. Sure, when you cast doubt on the clarity of Scripture, you might well be able to stop your opponents opposing you (at the cost of a stalemate), but the moment you acknowledge that words have meaning, especially in a document so authoritative as Scripture, you must wrestle with the fact your own interpretation does not fit those words. Ours does.
Because of this, next time someone says some variation of "there are many interpretations of the Bible", know that you probably already won. They have abandoned their confidence in their view, and tacitly admitted that your interpretation is stronger. This works with all heresies. It could be an anti-Trinitarian heretic trying to deny Christ, it could be a Liberal trying to defend their immorality, it could be a Roman Catholic trying desperately to cram Mariology or the Papacy into Scripture, it could even be an atheist trying to divide and conquer; no argument that depends on the Bible being unclear can stand, simply because the Bible is not unclear.
Sadly, there will never be a shortage of bad thinking, online or otherwise, for people like Mr. B to correct. But praise be to God, because His word is not open to a wide range of weird and wacky interpretations, there will never be a shortage of ways we, like Mr B, can correct them.