People have discussions, sometimes heated. Sometimes people discuss maters in good faith, and one can have a productive talk. In other cases, they do not discuss in good faith, often this happens when their position is weak, and they either consciously or subconsciously know it. The big thing that tends to happen is that the “discussion” goes on and on. By keeping it going, the person with the weaker hand forestalls losing the discussion, often with things being so confused when it ends they they view it as either a victory or draw.
Of course, there are lots of methods to lengthen arguments, name-calling, changing the subject, moral equivalence, emotional outbursts, and so on. Often, there is s dose of projection in there somewhere. All of that is crap. If they are not engaging in good faith, don’t put up with it.
What to do instead? When your case is good, just state it calmly, let facts and logic be your guide. When the other side attempts to drive you off via distractions, just walk away. From the manosphere perspective, this is an alpha-type maneuver. So you get that benefit, which is good.
The other side might try to convince themselves that they won because you walked away, but deep down they know better. They will probably go on living the life of cognitive dissonance, but maybe a seed was planted for the future.
Exit question — In how many cases is “not playing their game” effective?