I just tell them I think the Romans' Josephus et. al. wrote the New Testament and Jesus was a nobody; that usually confuses them long enough for me to make my getaway.
What YOU'RE talking about, no idea; I don't discuss things with rattlesnakes.

I much prefer discussion (where I'm learning something) over debate (where I'm witnessing 2 sides so sure of their point of view that nobody learns anything.) That's my feeling. I avoid posters who only want to keep asserting the same point of view, over and over, not really expanding anyone's understanding of the issues. I prefer discourse over discord.

Why can you not do both ?

No, I won't debate nor discuss.
I don't believe and I've heard every lame excuse for why I should, I've even been assaulted for it.
There's nothing to talk about, literally.
I sort of study history and from that perception I might have a conversation, but it will be like talking to an archaeologist in a western school talking about Chinese folklore. Like you can study Nazi's and not be one, likewise you can study the Cathars, or the Sufi or any other mystic belief system without actually believing any of it.

I neither debate nor discuss. I merely ask for evidence in support of claims made. That asking annoys the crap out of religious types, and can result in the hysterically absurd "You can't prove that God doesn't exist!".

There is nothing to discuss or debate
Atheism is a moral standpoint that values truth over fantasy and delusion
Theism is a power position, based on either a horrible truth or a damnable lie
In either case theism is evil exploitative, destroys lives and sanity, steals, covers up up for paedophiles, causes wars, and is invariably run by fucking monsters
If you want to discuss that, then yes you need to take SIDES... you are either for it or against it, if you are fully informed and are still for it you are a horror of a human being and need to check in to the nearest prison or lunatic asylum because you are sick, deluded or out to con people.

Being theist or atheist most likely involves personal experiences. I guess that's why it is often hard to discuss religion objectively.

I agree, however some people one cannot discuss anything with as they are incapable of it.

Worship of Brahma and Vishnu are foreign to me so I would welcome a discussion in order to better understand Hinduism. A discussion with a Hindu about Christianity would be vastly different than a discussion two between westerners about Christianity. Discussion is a good thing. I have found it easier and more beneficial to have religious discussions with atheists and agnostics than to have the same discussions with evangelical or nondenominational Christians.

Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, has and still does lead to more senceless violence, homophobia, misogyny, racism, and freedom crushing laws than any other device l can think of. What is it we should debate, the facts and the history of religion? They are plain and obvious.

I'm in full agreement. Debate mode is great for the choir but not so great for everyone else. They are turned off so begin closing their mind in reaction. It's a muscle reflex so not really their fault. The caustic actions of our FR seems to be having a much greater success rate for pulling people away from Christianity than any arguments made by an atheist. I think that's because both sides make definitive statements of fact that have no indication of being true so both come off as ridiculous. When I realized that I reevaluated my atheism and found myself very comfy with an idea that transcends both sides. Humans are simply what we are, poor communicators and thinkers, so there's little reason to expect prolonged success with survival. Accept it and live this moment as your best moment. Not "as if" it's your best but your actual best. We'll see what the next moment brings and be awed.

Religion should be treated like a pathology, and studied like a bug under a microscope. Discussion of findings is welcome. But informed observers can disagree about interpretations. And the world is full of deluded people. Some debate is probably unavoidable.

I strive to live an evidence based life. I am only interested in evidence to support a Theist claim, or any claim for that matter.

The real issue is how one identifies with the topic to debate/discuss. Being immersed in the religious experience - only a guess here on my part - seems to make some think they are actually way better in some way and when I just will not come around to their way of believing, things just seem to go south. They get pissy and I'm just puzzled by their anger. Having a pony in the race makes a difference.
A real conversation can happen if one stays away from "you" statements/claims. Otherwise it just seems to deteriorate.
When asked if I am religious the one thing I do right from jump is state, Man invented religion, "God" (yeah, I use air quotes-not always but sometimes) had little to do with it. Religion is a human construct, that's why there are so many of them. I then say no I am not religious.
If asked if I believe in God, it depends on the circumstance. When I was working I had a couple of bosses ask me that question. At the job I really liked all I said was, "Well, where do you think all this around us comes from?" The reply was nuanced with the tone (like, well what else could one possibly believe?) and he was happy and left me alone. Yeah, I felt put out BUT I also felt by his tone if I said NO out right he would have burned me at the stake as a witch. So, there was that.
At the job I was getting ready to leave I said NO. He eventually cooked up some reason to fire me. Win, Win for me, I get un-employment benefits but if I'd quit no benefits.

If a religious nut tries to tell me how good and loving their Christian religion is I tell them to ask the descendants of Archibald Aitkenhead . They invariably look blankly at me as they have no idea who he was.
As a young student in Edinburgh he was the last person in Scotland to be executed for blasphemy so obviously he has no descendants.

Or Not.

Debating something that is made up does seem inappropriate. Discussing it can lead to it's end though.

Maybe we should be doing NEITHER ?
There is no point in either debating or discussing religion.
Religion is a mental sickness that just needs treatment, and should be listed in the DSM-5

Is the debate between nursing homes and orphanages? Discussion about one can have similarities of helping the other.

Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

I have a killer point to silence the other side. Constantine arranged for the 66 smaller books we know as our bible to be put into book form complete with beginning and end, and this happened some 300 plus years after the time of Jesus. This is a fact. To add variables you have to go into ancient Jewish writings that had nothing to do with Christianity as we know it today. People put so much stock into "the truth of Revelation" but that book barely made it into the known canon. Believers hold onto what Jesus was said to believe from the OT but Christians forget that Jesus was a Jew.

People can argue this back and forth if they want to but it proves nothing. Jewish people do not even see the OT writings in the same context that modern Christians do. Once I make this all known I refuse to argue the point. The "what ifs" or let's suppose" and "maybe" about it are all pointless. Either that or others are filling in points around things I've written above.