Going further from the originating game theorist Anatol Rapoport:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
If this was applied to political commentary, social media commentary, then we would have people acting in sound psychological strategy that transforms your opponent in to a more receptive audience for your criticism or dissent, which in turn helps advance the discussion.
Combine this with Susan Sontag's techniques for refuting an argument:
Find the inconsistency (notice not your opinion but an actual inconsistency)
Find the counter example (again an example not an opinion)
Find a wider context (apply the rebuttal to more than your singular experience)
Thus we have a formula for intelligent debate.
For further reading: Daniel C. Dennet's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking
