But I will probably create some suggestions that I think can make people smarter and produce better arguments.
1. Don't cite biased wing cites and treat it like they are objective. If a left winger cites CNN or Huff Post, then the right winger dismisses it as leftist propaganda. If they cite FOX or OAN, then it gets viewed as RINO because people tend to see parties as single issue parties, when in reality, it's multi issues. If a republican says transwomen are women; the left praises them for abandoning their party on that issue and the right thinks they are RINOs. If a democrat says abortion is murder, then the equal and opposite occurs. This hypothetical pro trans republican and pro life democrat are ideologically identical on these 2 issues (they are both pro lifers that think transwomen are women), but the parties would cancel someone they view as a, "traitor to their team".
2. Understand how your opponent thinks. I'm not talking about their opinion on a belief; I'm talking about their morality. If you are a democrat, then your value is Anti-Unwanted Pain (AUP) and you are pragmatic with how to get there. If you are a republican, then your value is often a lot less principled, but it's very ideologue. An example of an ideologue AUP person is a socialist. In order for a right winger to convince a left winger of their belief, then you have to prove your belief is AUP. Otherwise, it is impossible to change the AUP person's mind, so there is no point (unless you want to debate which value is superior, AUP vs an example alternative moral code like LUSHO (Liberty Unless Significantly Harming Others, which is my moral code) or CPL (Consistent Pro Lifer), or TASQD (Tradition And Status Quo Defender), or some other moral code that) in debating moral codes. You got your moral code; I got mine. As long as we are consistent with both of our moral codes, then me trying to convert you to my moral code would be like a devout Muslim trying to convert a devout Christian to Islam. But unlike religion, where everyone can live by their religious views while barely forcing that on others; a Jewish POTUS doesn't have to force me to live by their Jewish beliefs, but a AUP POTUS would have to force me to live by their moral code. Otherwise, what's the point of there being a POTUS? Maybe there can be like 10 Co Presidents and if AUP gets 40% of the vote, LUSHO gets 30%, CPL gets 20% and TASQD gets 10%, then 4 of the Presidents would be AUP, 3 would be LUSHO people, etc. There is no point in doing debates if everyone's moral views are formed and it is impossible to change those views, although these views are less hereditary than religion.
3. Pretty much try and follow the rules more or less in these videos:
