On the subject of controlling the calling of witnesses, let's take a look at the facts:

The witnesses that the R's wanted to call were not relevant to the impeachment charges. Biden, Biden, and Schiff were not witnesses, either direct or indirect, to the charges that Trump blocked a military aid payment and the coverup of it. The R's wanted to rant and rave and misdirect, distract, and deflect, even to the point of accusing the D's of not calling "direct" witnesses, whom Trump had blocked (with the full-throated approval of the R's) in an act of obstruction.

Now, the witnesses the D's want to call in the Senate trial are the "direct" witnesses that the R's so woefully lamented as being necessary, but missing, from the House hearings. This amounts to continued obstruction - even witness tampering - because why? Because they all know that the direct witnesses will be so damning that all of the previous deflection and distraction to save Trump will be for nought.

Honestly, is this just a matter of "partisanship"? If you believe that there is not a serious false equivalence in that, then what do you believe reality to be? Are "both sides" in every dispute always equally right and wrong?

I have heard that many judges adopt the notion that the only fair judgment is one that neither side is happy with, which I see as a cop out from performing due diligence in their sworn duty to uphold the law. I think it is more rational to expect that one side is almost always more right than the other. And that matters.

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller