You don't. See the first (introduction) video from the Alt-Right Playbook. Basically, there is a real risk that even if you "win" the argument, the red-pill derp just gets angry and takes it out on a convenient female target. The energy is better spent finding ways to counter red-pill ideology that don't involve engaging directly with these people.
Rejecting discussion and any dialectic process seems inherently anti-intellectual and is a good way to look inarticulate and weak.
Defend good ideas, point out the contradictions in bad ones, and don't engage when people act immature. Refusing to engage bad ideas doesn't make them go away.
My mother threw out a statistic about police killings that she got from Fox that I was able to counter in five seconds with a Google search and a WaPo article. She said she still believed Fox. Our relationship had already been strained due to politics (summer 2020) and I nearly cut the relationship off because I was so appalled by her politics. The solution was to stop discussing those topics. It's not as straight forward bad to reject discussion as you are suggesting.
As I said, if someone is acting immaturely, and doesn't care about the validity of stats, it's time to stop engaging. I can see why you would take that route.
In general, when there's an audience, engaging and giving another side toa discussion might sway people observing.
If one side gets into the habit of never rebutting arguments, many people will get the impression they can't rebut them.
Most people aren't hyperfocused on politics, and won't be paying attention to the news or delving into the issues on their own time.