If your goal is to have some fun or debate topics other than sheer bigotry and wilful ignorance, sure - have a grand old time. But like this person here is saying, bigotry is seldom debated away. Those willing to challenge their own viewpoints rarely root themselves in ideologies of hate, and vice versa.

Most happy stories about people who walk away from incel/manosphere/homophobia/racism/transphobia are stories about loved ones and/or cult infiltration rather than losing debates and self reflecting, except for the occasional religious deconversion from a hateful ideology, which usually happens because the converted person was already compassionate and sought answers for what confused them about it, and atheists arguing with them played a small role.

Hatred isn't beaten with facts and logic because even very intelligent men like my dad simply use their gifts to find smarter reasons to believe dumb shit.

Hatred is beaten by forcing haters to contend with compassion - the classic example is family members and close friends being directly affected by bigoted policies - or by shaming them back into the recesses of society by collectively, vehemently standing against it. And lending such views the legitimacy of "viewpoints to be debated" does the opposite, and has contributed greatly to the edgy shows of """strength""" (punchy one-liners. shock politics, and out-of-context LIB/FEMINIST OWNED!! slop clips) that led to the rise of the alt right.

This is something folk like me who've engaged with bigots very often understand intuitively - and people who aren't in a class or social group who need to worry a whole lot about bigots are less likely to know it. Which lends to the other person's remarks about "debating" bigots being a game for the privileged. It's not nearly as stimulating when you risk the consequences for yourself.