Making fun of me, mocking me, laughing at me are all a form logical fallacies. You are pretending to win the debate. Which suggests that you know that you are losing the debate.
Refusing to debate me is obviously just another way of conceding a debate with me.
Calling me a troll is just another way of conceding a debate with me.
Declaring my claims to be "absurd" (aka Reductio ad Absurdum) is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy, if you disagree with my claim that reductio is a logical fallacy, then let's debate that separately.
If at any point during a debate with me, you suddenly start speaking to someone else - like the audience, or a future person listening to the recording - then you have effectively disengaged from debating me. You have left the debate stage. In such a case - you have implicitly lost the debate with me. This seems to happen repeatedly when I debate vegans and other altruists ("lefties"). When they find out that I am amoral and hence do not have a position on eating humans - they suddenly say something like: "you see everyone - this is how far this guy needs to veer away from accepted norms - all in order to satisfy his craving for meat eating". I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out all the logical fallacies built into this claim.
Of course you are welcome to always invite me for another round. But if I feel that you are just wasting my time, I might decide to forgo your invitation.
If you bring up pedophilia - I will warn you once and will leave the debate on the second time and will ban you the third time. The reason is that we do not live in a freedom of speech zone. And I and my channel might be cancelled if we even discuss the topic. Or, in the words of the great TFM (@turd flinging monkey): "if you discuss the age of consent - we know you are a pedophile". So if the great "I only want to help men" libertarian / freedom fighter thinks that - imagine how the average normie dipshite has to respond to me actually discussing pedophilia.