Empathize with the enemy
There is one thing that really triggers me: people argue the points I agree with using factual errors or very weak arguments. It does huge disservice to the actual points.
I imagine that if I was guilty of some crime I'd hire these people to argue against me so that the case would be weaker. If I was in Epstein files, I'd try to smuggle in some stories about me that are verifiably fake (that I've done some things in time and place that doesn't make sense). If I was Russia and I have had attacked Ukraine, I'd hire trolls to put some accusations of cybercrime and genocide that would have many inconsistencies - dates, locations, facts, names. Just to hide the real crime in a sea of bullshit. Just so that the audience gets bored and decides there is no way to reach any conclusion anyway.
I know you are tired, angry, frustrated, I am too. But as long as you make shitty arguments, you are strengthening your opponents. The truth exists. It's a real thing. So do facts. It's harder and harder to verify facts nowadays. Opinions matter too, so do vibes. But in post-truth world, defending truth is important. Even if you don't agree with the particular point that the facts happen to support in given moment. Concede some points to your enemy, just to build trust (i.e. in the audience).
Now we are in democratic decline and the whole world seems to deteriorate, but in 20, 30, 50 years we should aspire to living in social systems that rewards truth.
Let's say you hear X says Y molested them. You can have your opinion, i.e.: 'we live in a rape culture, and the victims are inherently less powerful' or 'one unproved allegation is enough to ruin a career', BUT your goal should be reaching a system which actually gathers all possible evidence and reviews it without much bias. We need to live in a system, that trusts it's courts and police. Obviously we are not there (yet? anymore?). Obliviously, for any given case there are groups that are privileged, and the underrepresented ones.
But you should still be able to say "This verdict was correct, even though the person that was cleared is awful and most likely guilty of other crimes; and they also had unfair advantage - i.e. 100x more money for lawyers", rather than: "The court is corrupt and we should put this person in jail for life without any more judicial process" and than make up some facts about the awful defendant plus amplify some other already disproved noise.
Because if you do the latter, you are strengthening your opposition.
PS I can feel I am not able to write as clearly as I want to, and I'm not particularly proud of my grammar, my English, or my ability to voice my points; to transcribe my inner monologue (or inner dialogue, inner discord) into written format, but the point of this blog, which I don't expect to have a wide audience (I expect from 0 to 20 readers) is that I want to improve cohesion of my thoughts (written or in-mind), so please treat it as work in progress. I also don't want to put this trough any LLM, even just for style improvements, because I think that would be counter-productive. I can even see I've drifted from my initial intent, but the title stays; I may do pt.2 in the future.