Defend rather than Attack

One of the errors in debate is the unwillingness or inability of one side (or both) to not vilify the opponent. The sad thing is that it would be rather easy to avoid demonizing the other guy. It comes down to refusing to employ the ad hominem argument: don't attack the speaker, defend your idea.

For example, don't call the other man Hitler or the devil or by any snide name. I readily concede that your opponent may indeed be more than simply wrong. He may very well be evil. Yet that truly is a judgement beyond anyone except God Almighty's ability to make, and is actually a separate idea from what your adversary is arguing anyway. When the person and the argument are confused it really only muddies the waters more than they may already be. 

If in debate we are trying to demonstrate what is right, then strive to demonstrate what is right. Calling the other person evil or stupid or whatever negative adjective you might very much like to employ does not address their error. It can, however, turn off the people you want to convince of the rightness or propriety of a certain point of view. Flag waving may well increase your street cred. But it is ultimately only grandstanding, playing to an audience which already agrees with you.

Please forgive my over-indulging in italics. But I want to underscore, I want to fervently stress, that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Indeed that we must strive to do exactly that, even if it boggles our minds that someone might think or believe wrongly. At the end of the day, we don't need to let people know exactly what we think about our adversaries. We need to convince them to act rightly for rightness' sake.