I crumble like a stepped-on hill of wet sand when the raised volume and interruptions start. Then I avoid that person forevermore. I can't take confrontation.

I don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't want to hear what I have to say. When you yell at and\or interrupt me, you make that clear. People who can't stay calm when they hear ideas they don't like strike me as worrisomely unstable and make me very nervous. Yes, I know this applies to most people. No, I don't talk to many people in meatspace.

Needless to say, I don't go around instigating debate and try to keep my heretical mouth shut as much as possible.

I like the idea of using facts like a Louisville Slugger.

direct and sarcastic !! i know my stuff by heart so it is easy !! i know how treat ppl well i think

Well, I'm an attorney (no, no, please hold your applause) so I have some formal training and experience in discussing things with people approaching a topic from a competing point of view. Here's a bit of what I've learned from arguments about a wide variety of things, applied to religious discussions:

First of all, if you're trying to (for instance) convince a theist that there's no such thing as God, forget about it. You're not going to do it. The more aggressively you attack, the more defensively they'll respond, doubling down on insisting that they're right.

So you may find that an aggressive, direct challenge is actually counterproductive, because no one likes to be told "You're wrong." They especially don't like to be told, "You're wrong, you fool." If they feel insulted by something you've said or the way you've chosen to say it, it's much more likely you're going to get an emotional defensive response, and now there will be zero persuasion taking place.

Secondly, an "argument" demands a particular intellectual posture from both participants. This posture requires an assent to the validity of logic and evidence as the tools by which one's proposition are validated. Lots of people don't know how to think logically. Lots of people don't know what constitutes evidence and even if they stumble upon evidence they aren't particularly conscious of what it's relevant to.

I'd caution you to not be so arrogant as to believe you're immune to those intellectual deficiencies just because you're the non-theist in the discussion, and I'd also caution you to not be so arrogant as to believe that your religious interlocutor lacks the ability to use these rhetorical tools. You can get yourself into a lot of trouble in an exchange by underestimating your counterpart and even more trouble than that by overestimating your own abilities. In an "argument," being cosmically right isn't enough to prevail. You must convince.

The other part of "argument" that a lot of people either lack the ability to do or refuse to do is flexibility. To consent to an "argument" indicates that you are willing to change your position if your interlocutor is able to sufficiently validate their position with evidence and logic. So-called religious arguments only rarely meet that definition, and we non-theists are as guilty of this as our theistic counterparts -- what could a theist possibly say, prove, or demonstrate that would get you to change your mind and start believing in God? Nothing, of course, and that's the posture that they have about you too.

Which brings my to my third and last point: respect. Why would you bother to have a debate, argument, discussion, or any other kind of exchange with someone you don't respect, or who doesn't demonstrate an appropriate level of respect for you? Why would you expect them to continue the exchange with you if you don't demonstrate a modicum of respect for them? If I'm disagreeing with someone and I get the idea that I'm not only disagreed with but disrespected to boot, I'm all done. I declare myself unconvinced and pronounce the discussion over.

The only reason to continue at that point is the sadistic pleasure of shouting at the other person. Perhaps it becomes a contest of who can come up with the cleverest or cruelest insult for the other and maybe you enjoy that sort of thing. Have fun, I guess, but that's not a debate.

I am happy to debate as long as people can at least get somewhat persuaded to follow the rules of logic and rational thought or admit that something is purely based on their emotions.
But once there is too much irrationality going on I lose interest. Such "debates" then start to feel like talking to some mechanical speaking doll at some point. Utterly uninspiring and a waste of time.
I also tend to avoid debates where people start using rhetoric tricks - I have no interest in rhetoric wrestling either.

OK, there is one exception though: sometimes I talk to religious people, usually the really fundamentalist ones, out of an odd mix of morbid curiosity and expectation of hilarity. Listening then sometimes feels like watching some kind of clumsy cute animal fail at a very simple task.

I don't really. I discuss, I ask questions, but I really don't have much interest in debate. It tends to be two people so focused on making their claim that neither is really truly listening to the other. Bystanders judge by conviction of the speakers rather than the points or proofs offered. People get more wrapped up in the struggle than the reasons for it.

Again Huxley invented the Agnostic word use creating a 3rd irrational position casting a pox on Atheist Darwin and bible believers alike. ...again it is a non-sequitur using the phrase "believe in" AND THE GIBBERISH SOUNDS gott gawds god are undefined. ..alleged adjectives with no extant object. ....100% irrational to debate existence of non-existence. ...zero evidence exists for any supernatural claim accordingly Atheists are free from the delusions of theists

I try to vary depending on the individual & the situation & place. I do tend to be a bit of a pit bull, & I'm trying to moderate that. I'm watching some of the "Street Epistemology" videos on YT & reading Peter Boghossian's "A Manual For Creating Atheists". Anyone know of any other good material in this vein? BTW, I've always liked, & often use, your "I'll think for you" retort when I get the "I'll pray for you" send-off. Depends on the situation, if it was meant as a sincere emotion to something I'll usually just say "Thank you", but after, or during, a debate or "argument" I'll use the "think" line.

I don't debate anymore. Now I just tell them when I have some holy epiphany I will get back to them.

I rarely debate with Christians since they're really just trying to convert me. Once they realize that isn't possible, then they just want to be on their way.

However, I've noticed the same with some atheists. Some atheists are so terrified of anything "god" they can't eve capitalize it as a proper noun. Debating with them can be just as useless. They have that same dogmatic, making even a conversation difficult to have.

I guess I'm a little sneaky. I tend to pose questions they can't easily answer and then leave them to mull it over in their minds.

I refuse to debate irrationalism. ...the sounds gawd gott gods are gibberish non-words void of meaning accordingly one cannot debate non-existence existing. ..I walk in and out doors needing zero door beliefs. ..."believe in" is a non-sequitur. ...Agnosticism means we CANNOT KNOW while it is the Atheists who are concluding zero evidence exists for alleged supernatural claims

I say burn baby burn and I always keep a supply of logs close at hand, after all I have zero tolerance for stupid.

i wing it

"I'll think for you", Hahahahahaha
I personally avoid debates because I find it useless, fundaMENTALists are not open to new ideas, especially if they contradict their core beliefs. If I must debate, I just use facts and hope one day it'll sink-in.
I refuse to argue with closed minded people, it's futile.