Men and women are in most cases very different mentally and emotionally. For most women, if you engage in an all out debate with them, you will appear to be a clueless asshole who doesn't understand people---when really you are a clueless asshole who just doesn't understand most women. You will have more influence on their opinions and attitudes if you relate with them instead of debating them to intellectually defeat their positions. They want you to relate, not debate. They are emotional beings primarily rather than reasoning beings like men.
"Men debate. Women relate."~anonymous
"They have zero interest in what you know until they know you care about them."~anonymous
I say MOST women, because there are exceptions. Just as there are female porn addicts, programmers, mechanics and engineers, there are a minority of women who reason like men do, and can hold their own in a rational debate with the best of them. Libertarianism and individualism is a sausage fest, with very few women, and for the most part those women appear to be less run by emotions and security than the average woman.
The ultra-police-state-loving statists are made up of mostly average, emotionally ruled women---along with that crunchy minority of feminine men who think and often dress like women. These women and feminine males value security so much that liberty terrifies them, and thus their thoughts and beliefs about liberty become, you might have noticed, irrational. They'd very often prefer to be secure than have freedom for themselves or others. While ignoring the nightmares that resulted from that position all through history---they imagine that putting security over individual liberty will make their society more secure.
If you are interacting with masculine men, debate is understood clearly as locking horns to see whose positions will dominate in society. Debate, along with breaking balls, is often the very way in which men relate. Most women have very little understanding of this masculine ritual---and instead just think men are too stupid to relate to people properly.
But in a way they are right. For men, debating is relating, but to be debating well, to do it right---men have got to stop being concerned with 'winning (which is ego and weakness, the inability to admit one's errors) and instead focus on finding out what's true exclusively.
It is ego and weakness when your position is defeated to to start accusing the guy you are interacting with of making unspecified "logical fallacies." If you were not lying about that, you'd counter the actual fallacy by pointing out exactly how and why it's false. Men who emotionally are incapable of admitting their position has been falsified are the people who use the words 'fallacy' and 'semantics' rather than facing the truth. They lost. You can tell they lost because they used the word fallacy instead of correcting the fallacy, or called the difference of opinion merely semantics instead of explaining the claimed difference vs specifically how ontologies match.
To claim you didn't really lose, when you just lost, makes you a poor loser. And such poor losers are very close at that point, quite often, of having their side of the debate devolve into pure ad hominem attacks. I've even seen people turn into psychotic stalkers. They'll start studying the last several years of the other guy's posts, looking for some way to hurt or report the rational bastard who made them face the absurdity and error in their irrational intellectual identity. The feelings toward the one who falsified their religion rise to the level of obsession and hatred.
Counter-intuitively, ironically, when you give up your religion the moment it is shown to be logiclly indefensible---when you are willing to prostrate yourself and bow down absolutely to the truth that dethroned your dogma, you gain the truth and thus become a far more powerful debater, with a much stronger more easily defensible position. By being willing to face and admit it immediately when you've been shown to be holding an irrational viewpoint---you are suddenly able to embrace the more rational, and it makes you a stronger man, better able to influence other men.
Admitting defeat, and correcting the revealed errors, makes you a head man, rather than an excuse making lying beta male, a sore loser who can't admit defeat and therefore never gets any stronger. And THAT, being a strong centered man who places authenticity and honesty over gain, loss and ego---THAT---will make you better able to win over not only the masculine master debaters---but also the feminine relating emotional beings of this society.
The successful defense of individual freedom is won, ideologically, before it is ever won in other ways. If you don't want to have your ass handed to you, put truth before victory. Get stronger. Make it only about the truth. Stop making it all about winning, if you really want freedom.