Debating in good faith
The quality of debates could be improved by following a set of simple principles. The objective of a debate should be seen as a collective task to arrive at a state of truth. Each participant in the debate should put forward points and counterpoints, putting aside any points that have been debunked and honing in on a conclusion. The conclusion could be there is not enough evidence to have a resolution for either original point of view.
An initial set of principles are set out below. These should not be considered exhaustive or complete in themselves as as they could be improved, a stricter set could be employed and additional principles added in the spirit of always seeking better parameters for arriving at truth.
General principles for debating in good faith
Agree what the problem is and formulate it into a question or statement
Agree what is within the scope of the debate to prevent analogies and whataboutism being used to shift the loci of the debt
If the debate is related to a choice of policy, then state what you are trying to optimise for (what you are seeking to minimise or maximise) and over what time frame. If what you and your “opponent(s)” are not optimising for the same thing then there is no debate to be had as there will likely not be a common resolution
State what your starting position is
State what your weakest assumption is
State what you believe are the pros and cons of your solution, and of those, the trade offs that you are will to make
State what would need to be evidenced for you to change your position (either to the opposite position or to a neutral position accepting there is not enough evidence to conclude)