TRPillers cannot be debated seriously because of their Motte-and-Baily tactics

Because the term RP is kinda vague, TRPillers can use Motte-and-Baily tactics. This makes it impossible to debate them seriously.

For example, some RPillers claim that TRP is not scientific and that it's just some advice to help men get laid. Yet if you listen to people like Rollo Tomassi, he says that TRP was created to help men understand the "why" things are the way they are and clearly implies that TRP is scientific and "factual". TRPillers will use Motte-and-Baily tactics and defend either of those positions whenever it suits them.

Another example is TRP's connection to neoreactionaryism. Some RPillers will outright deny it (despite all evidence) while others will admit that TRP was born out of the neoreactionary sphere from the very start.

TL;DR Because of the inherent vagueness of the TRP, it's impossible to debate the RPillers as they use Motte-and-Baily tactics and will cherrypick whatever position suits them at the time.