I'd love to get into a real life discussion/debate with these sorts of people.
If you refer to arguing with people who have little chance of changing their mind, I do it all the time online. Ranging from the racist subs on voat, the vegan subs on reddit, and other "mystical belief subs". The problem is people assume a single argument is enough to spark change. People become defensive and cut off in the course of an argument they are losing, and resort to commonly repeated phrases and terms to defend themselves. What debate does is ignite a spark, and if the fuel is there, it will grow into something more, even if it takes months, or even years, to do so. Arguing with pigeon's are absolutely worth it, because the pigeon, after strutting around on the board, does understand it didn't really win.
It's like a brickwall of nebulous, ever changing logic. You would argue point A, they'd argue point B, you'd get them to understand point B is dumb, they'd start arguing point C with bits of point A sprinkled in as long as it supports them. Then they'd grab random ass talking points to back them up on certain things like "regulations won't improve industrial farming because that same logic allows municipalities to put fluoride in the water for mind control and promoting bone spur growth." Yes. That was a real argument. No, I don't understand what that means.