You're expecting me to say that no one will ever change anyone's mind.
But the issue runs much deeper than that.
RP and BP end up talking past each other because they cannot even agree on what they should be debating about. The sets of values they hold are completely disjoint. They cannot even agree on what a "debate" is, and what the goals of a "debate" are.
RP people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:
They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.
They believe that whether something is "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is "evil" or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists.
They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.
They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone's character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.
BP people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:
They believe that reality is subjective, and what is "true" is simply a matter of who you ask. What is called "truth" is simply a codification of someone's perspective, and it is therefore pointless to argue about what is "true". They are factual relativists.
They believe that there is exactly one set of moral laws, which human beings have gradually discovered in a historical climb towards ethical perfection. Certain people are ethically better or worse based not only on what they do, but also on what they believe. They believe that different ethical systems exist, but they can be ranked from ethically worst to ethically best based on a sort of meta-ethics whereby they can be tested for degree of compliance with the one absolute set of ethics that underlies reality. They are moral absolutists.
They believe that the goal of debate is to establish what is morally better, and what everyone should do. They argue about what is right.
They believe that debates are a competitive process between two people, who each have the goal of establishing their views about right and wrong by attaining a state of moral ascendancy over the other person. They believe that anyone who changes their views in revealing a flaw in their moral character (because their previous views were not morally correct), and must thereafter relinquish the moral high ground and submit their actions to the moral judgement of others (usually the person who won the debate). They believe debates occur between people, not ideas, for the precise purpose of establishing who should be allowed to set standards for the behaviour of others (because they are morally superior). Thus, questioning someone's character is not only relevant, it's the whole point.
This is why BP think RP are "misogynists" or bad people. Because they cannot imagine an analysis that does not occur for the purposes of judgement, much less one that doesn't include any idea about what people "should" do.
This is why RP insist that BP are willfully blind. Because, to them, anyone who doesn't admit the truth must be unable to perceive it. They cannot imagine anyone not caring what the truth is.
This is why BP keep thinking that RP are trying to restore Dark Ages. They cannot imagine any group with shared views not having one moral agenda that they wish everyone to abide by.
This is RP think that BP must be hopelessly bad at understanding human social structures. They cannot imagine anyone not wanting to do things in the most effective possible way.
Here are some examples of this kind of misunderstanding in action:
Here we see an interaction between RP and BP regarding age of consent laws.
RP's primary objective to propose an algorithm for making legal judgements about consent or lack of it, which he believes will best serve what the majority of people desire to see these laws do. He looks at the issue as an engineering problem, and he proposes a solution.
BP's objective is to establish whether or RP is a bad person. If he can be gotten to agree to a statement which BP thinks of as diagnostic of "evilness", then the debate can be won, and anything RP says can thereafter be dismissed as originating from an evil person.
Thus RP and BP cannot even agree on what to argue about.
The debate is rather tedious up until BP's parting shot.
BP says "All this so you can justify getting laid.". BP thinks RP is trying to "justify" something according a set of moral rules, because to BP, every act has a moral valance, and anyone who wishes to do anything must at least be ready with a moral excuse.
RP has been arguing, meanwhile, about which metaphors best illustrate human social and mating dynamics. RP does not address the issue of right or wrong at all, and seems to believe BP is engaging with him on factual level.
Thus RP and BP cannot even agree on what the argument is about.
It is for this reason that PPD is pointless. RP thinks right and wrong are a matter of opinion, and BP doesn't care what the facts are.