It's frustrating when someone argues with obvious logical fallacies and compounds it by interspersing that with ad hominems*.
At its best, the dialectic process can produce some good discussions, but I think to get the best out of it you have to try and respect your opponent and listen properly. If your opponent isn't willing to do that, or is dishonest or uses logical fallacies a lot then I consider them to be just wasting my precious time when I could be doing something more productive.
I'm a theist but I was an atheist for many years so I don't go around trying to convert people to my current perspective. If someone is an atheist I'm absolutely fine with that. Maybe like me they'll have an experience that changes their mind. Maybe they won't. It's non of my business, and likewise unless I make the error of trying to force my beliefs onto someone else, they're no business of anyone else's. I think if more people took that line there'd be a lot less useless heated arguments about theology.
I can get briefly irritated with people but then I let it go. There's a world of deluded people out there and if I were to get angry with every one of them I'd be in a state of perpetual rage and that wouldn't do me or anyone any good. So I guess that stint in Buddhism did me good.
-----------------------------------------------
Meaning: "to the man" ~ someone who insults the other person on the opposite side of the debate instead of addressing the argument.