I paraphrased and critiqued your arguments in detail and you declined to respond. If that's not "losing" a debate, I don't know what is. By your rationale, you "win" a debate by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
Your "critiques" are irrelevant, because they are based on fundamental moral principles different from mine. That's what you don't understand. In discussions on morality, there are no objective facts that everyone can agree on, and which can form the basis for a resolution of the disagreement. If I'm arguing with a social Darwinist, I can bring him data and prove to him that inequalities have increased dramatically in the western world over the past decades, but I will never convince him that that's a bad thing.
It's interesting that you would bring up social darwinism. When I read arguments to the effect of 'it's natural to eat meat because we evolved to do it', that doesn't sound much different to other remarks that you would no doubt find insensitive.