People have had very long low quality “debates” on the internet.
People generally don’t know how to evaluate debate quality, similar to how they generally don’t know how to evaluate essay quality.
I’ve gotten what I think are some very clear debate outcomes but lots of people flat out lie (including misquotes, wildly inaccurate paraphrases, and falsely putting words in other people’s mouths) so someone would have to read through a large amount of debate to check what really happened, which is a lot of work even if they had the skill and confidence to do that well.
There’s a widespread fear that greater persistence in debates is bad – it’s a way to troll people and always get the last word just by being more of a loser with nothing better to do than the other guy.
People were not impressed when I went on Less Wrong and debated many people at once, wrote a lot, etc. They were not like “wow we almost never get challenged by anyone willing to write this much”. They were more like “we downvoted everything you wrote and since you wrote so much you’re now the most downvoted person in our website’s history, so you must be really really extra dumb lol”.
I think if I say that to people myself it won’t work. But you can try! This seems like something where self-promotion is disadvantaged.