I have never seen a debate that resulted in changing a speaker's mind, or even really an audience, even the dang debate podcast with Oxford-style debates usually only change maybe 5% of minds - and if you go back and unterview the audience again months later, they've pretty much all reverted back to their former way of thinking.

The goal of a debate from a libertarian perspective is the gish gallop so much the other speaker just spends all their time refuting without having a single unified comment. All the libertarian had to do is say, "and another thing, freedom!" And the non-libertarian has to wait for the idiotic applause to die down before re-explaining their main points again to people who do not care. Then the libertarians clip all the parts that make them look good, ignore the parts that make them look bad, and use it as advertisement within their own group to go "see, look how stupid the other side is."

The actual libertarian agenda is, "I want what's mine and to do whatever I want and also want everything else to stay pretty much the same, except then I can ignore the poor and disadvantaged more blatantly since they don't deserve to live if they can't take care of themselves."

That's why libertarians are mostly people who've a) never had a real, genuine struggle that their money or their parents' money couldn't save them from or b) have convenient amnesia about all the ways a society works to protect them.

No, that is a waste of my time.