Abandon the fallacious „marketplace of ideas” concept, for it has been deviced to disarm you into the never-ending impotent and futile attempts of „reasoning” with The Other. In order for it to happen you need at least three conditions to be met and for all of them to appear together is extremely unlikely, so stop wasting your time.
1. First of all, for authentic, meaningful debate there has to be at least similar intellectual prowess. Main modern gównoprogressive assumptions of today’s world are of egalitarian provenience; meaning, that The Other ALWAYS arrives to you as an equal partner for a rational discourse. That is of course blatantly false – a capacity for purely abstract, rational reasoning is EXTREMELY ill-distributed and on top of that requires a lot of philosophical training.
2. Even if unlikely happens and you end up with someone who is capable of abstract thought and logical reasoning, that DOES NOT automatically mean you are engaging a RATIONAL person. There is plethora of objects in the world around us and even more ways they can influence with each other, which makes us swim in the ocean of potential interactions we’d call „facts”. Out of that ocean, what make us choose what is a fact (has meaning) and what is not (is meaningless) is anchored solely in the value structure of the ego. That value structure is mostly inherited though; meaning that it is most of the times NOT a product of a conscious effort.
What you end up with then are people who are becoming „attracted” to certain core ideas/believes „instinctively” first, without any deconstructive/questioning process being involved. Then, said core belief becomes entwined with an ego, as more and more ideological structures are being integrated to it and around it (ways of explaining the world and ourselves in it) and thus the „personal” investment is being made. In the end any attack on the idea becomes an attack for the „sense of self”, thus eradicating any chance for authentic, RATIONAL debate. The more ego-investments were made into the core-belief, the more grandiose is the system of post-factum rationalizations, further enhanced by the bigger intellect mentioned in the condition number 1. 9/10 you are not talking to people really; you are debating their ego defenses of ideas that were not of their own choosing.
To sum up – any time you throw an argument at someone, remember it probably strikes at a certain belief; the more „core” the belief is, the less likely you will be getting an authentic response and more likely you will get what I call „ego intervention”.
3. Even if the miracle happens and you get yourself an adversary which is capable of high abstract thinking AND he has done tremendous work of policing said abstract thinking so that it is not a slave to his ego, you still need a final piece of the puzzle which is TRUST, meaning previously demonstrated attitude of benevolence and putting the contrarian arguments IN THE GOOD FAITH.
It is easy to imagine The Other as an actor who dominates you intellectually in the certain field and plays its cards right to „appear” as if he has no ulterior motives behind his discoursive persuasions, but he is in fact seeking to fuck you over (meaning: forcing you to admit to something as an attempt to influence your behaviour, which in turn would advance his agenda), whether he does it intentionally or not.
To sum it up: stop wasting time on talking. Forge your swords instead.