I recently re-watched the debate between James White (Trinitarian) and Roger Perkins (Oneness Pentecostal):
Trinity vs. Modalism Debate: James White vs. Roger Perkins
While I would side more with White than Perkins (e.g., the personal pre-existence of Jesus; the distinction of the persons of the Godhead), the debate does show the logical, linguistic, and biblical problems of both Modalism and Latin/Creedal Trinitarianism (e.g., notice the question-begging and special pleading White engages in during his presentation and especially the cross examination periods). As one brief example, Perkins raised the issue of the Amplified version's rendition of Gal 3:20 and θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν as "God is one person," White brings up the fact that the translators are Trinitarians, so hardly a non-Trinitarian theology can be imputed to such a meaning. However, White and others (correctly) point out instances where the New World Translation deviates from Jehovah's Witness theology. Would White really accept a response from a JW who dismissed such passages based on the fact that the translators were JWs, so the passages cannot be anti-JW in their theology? Of course not.
For one article (among many) which is representative of my "take" on Christological issues, see:
Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus
