I mean yeah, but this approach presupposes a bunch of things that usually dont exist:

• A prior, deep relationship
• genuine care for the other party
• willingness to engage
• all parties sober

Additionally, its really hard to debate things with nutters because they're usually well versed in their special interest while I merely rely on the advice of experts. For example, an anti-vax person might reference various studies and research. I can assume they've been debunked or taken out of context, but I don't know those studies or any relevant research.

My favoured approach is to merely ask what evidence it would take to change their mind. In the majority of cases their answer is something that just isn't practically possible, or includes caveats that would allow them to disclaim such evidence if provided.

Something unfalsifyable is not science, that's faith. At least then you know there's no point debating them.