What rule(s) should I add to bolster my arguments?

Despite enforcing myself stricter standards than my average writing, I find that I am still losing debates at a disproportionate rate, and even truisms meant to swayed in my favor still yet lost (Systemic Racism, Flat Earth, etc.)

As such, I think that I am doing something greatly wrong. There must be something I am missing. What rules should I add upon to further make my arguments impenetrable?

Current rules:

any feedback? 

Stop adding rules, it makes your arguments inflexible. If someone's counter isn't solid enough you do fine, but if you stick to an argument so concretely you aren't able to rebuke your opponents arguments, you seem to fall apart a tad at the end, like you don't want to "seal" the deal, I guess.

Drop the rules. Debating is an arena. Get good enough so rules Don't matter

Yeah, I agree with dropping a list of rules. The first, however, is a good consideration because I end up in too many debates wherein opponents accept without first organizing thoughts to assess if there are holes in the resolution that can be argued against it, BEFORE accepting. Also, I'd drop the notion of truisms. I never consider that at all. If it is a resolution that I can argue for or against, and my research shows I have at least a few dependable scholastic sources, and I can see the time to devote to it; I'll accept the debate, or initiate it myself. If I cannot meet those two conditions, I pass. If it is a subject that just doesn't fit my favored subjects, I'll pass. I like defining the key words of the resolution and use the Description for that purpose. Do it even if your opponennt doesn't [I consider that a mistake by an opponent] Last, be relentless. By that, I mean analyze not just your position, and nail it, but analyze both the arguments your opponent presents, but try to think of a few your opponent might make and be prepared to rebut them, sometimes even before they are offered. This is a favored oromagi tactic, and he is very good at it. Study his debates.  A mistake I often make, and am trying to reduce its incident, is to make too many arguments. They get muddled. Too often, a voter will consider it TLDR, and end up skimming rather than reading, missing subtle points. Don't make subtle points; hit them over the head.

I haven't read your debates, but I assume you're probably doing the things that most kids do when they come up with arguments in support of or against particular resolutions.

The first thing you want to do is identify a well-stated resolution.  So, something that is clear and simple is what should be preferred.  For example, you might look at the Lincoln Douglas or Public Forum debate topics from around 2008-2017 or so.  I think after then, they kind of went down-hill.  

The second thing you want to do is try to learn about the topic before you go about writing an argument.  After all, how could you possibly have an opinion on something if you don't know what you are talking about?  Spend some time doing this.  Like a minimum of at least four or five hours.  

The third thing you want to do is to think about the best possible arguments for and against the resolution.  So, map them out in your head or write them out.  Whatever you need to do so that you can understand and talk about the issues that a debate topic raises, do that.  In the course of that process, try to think about how you would support the arguments for and against the resolution with the facts you learned.

But wait!  If it turns out that you're having trouble doing this, that might mean you need to do more research into the topic itself.  Think of this like a lather-rinse-repeat cycle of coming to understand a topic.  You're going to have to go back do doing research probably three or four times, at an absolute minimum for the simplest topics.   For more complex topics, it could be ten or twelve.  

Only then are you finally ready to outline and write your arguments. 

By then you have all your evidence lined up and you know how they all fit together like a puzzle.   And then when you write your arguments, you need to be thinking about this  central question:  What do I need to do in order to win this debate?   So, that means (a) what is my burden of proof, (b) what is my opponent's burden of proof and (c) how do I meet my burden while preventing him from meeting his?  

Each argument you make should entail your position on the resolution.  So, there needs to be a direct link between the arguments you make and the resolution you're arguing about.  That means that stuff that is extraneous to the resolution doesn't help you.  For example, if you're debating about whether holding an impeachment trial in the senate is a constitutional undertaking, you can't cite to evidence that the senate may also be able to undertake a separate process to disqualify such president from ever holding future office, and expect that to help you win your case.  The debate is about one thing, and if you're talking about something else, you're not winning.  Said less abstractly, keep your eye on the ball. 

This should get you going on the right track. 

nice tips. I think I didn't think enough about how Fauxlaw might focus on the conflict within my expert sources to dismantle them from the inside.

Well stated.

29 If you meet a disputant in action,
A powerful man, superior to you,
Fold your arms, bend your back,
To flout him will not make him agree with you.
Make little of the evil speech
By not opposing him while he's in action;
He will be called an ignoramus,
Your self-control will match his pile of words.

30 If you meet a disputant in action
Who is your equal, on your level,
You will make your worth exceed his by silence,
While he is speaking evilly,
There will be much talk by the hearers,
Your name will be good in the minds of the magistrates.

31 If you meet a disputant in action,
A poor man, not your equal,
Do not attack him because he is weak,
Let him alone, he will confute himself.
Do not answer him to relieve your heart,
Do not vent yourself against your opponent,
Wretched is he who injures a poor man,
One will wish to do what you desire,
You will beat him through the magistrates' reproof.