I play the devil’s advocate a bit too much when engaged in political debate. Although I do it because I want to foster sensible discussion as much as possible, my “opponents” tend to assume it is because I am intentionally discounting their opinions, even if I end up agreeing with them. It’s an unfortunate human bias to immediately discount the opinions of others when they are not mutual. Yet we live in a political climate of tolerance and respect of all backgrounds while simultaneously (and viciously, might I add) discounting the validity of any other possible opinions.

Ah, how I love irony.

That’s not to say I am preaching some holier-than-thou narrative that calls you deplorable if you do not follow a specific approach to argumentation; that would be rather hypocritical of me. What I am suggesting is that we need a reality check, and fast. The more people advocate for the well-being of society as a whole while destroying the lives of their ideological contraries, the more we end up counterintuitively incentivising more mutual animosity and violation of your own implicit code of conduct.

So, in order to actually provide a solution, allow me to end the whining by providing an example of how not to debate: the 2016 presidential election. Back on September 26, the world watched—in historically massive proportions, no less—as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump participated in an effective reality television show debating the “issues” of the modern era. If you did not see it, you didn’t miss much; it was a disaster in every way possible. Without further ado, here is a pedantic list of ways I would suggest how debating over politics should ideally look like:

1. Choose the battleground in a proper environment.

If you’ve ever been told not to discuss politics at the dinner table, that person likely knows why. While it may seem like an ideal environment due to the supportive nature of family structures, that actually makes things much worse. Essentially, whenever confirmation bias kicks in, the cognitive dissonance that arises from the conflicting ideologies not only elicits feelings of anger and betrayal but also causes the already-held notions to be reinforced. So, choose a place where you are not only free to leave but not where your family will have to listen. Keep it private, and make sure at least one person is around that can actually be a good moderator, if you opt for one at all.

2. Be prepared to answer the tough questions.

Politicians are notorious for rambling on about a certain topic whenever they are not prepared to answer a question. Whether it be the woman card, the 1%, or the classic catchphrase Make America Great Again, we all know the buzzwords that signify faulty preparation. Ergo, when you know a debate is coming, at least know what you’re talking about. Know the research, the arguments, the analysis. Only then will both you and your ideological counterpart be able to have an actual discussion.

3. Do not resort to name calling when others give a good argument.

I have to admit that I was loving the shade thrown out at all times throughout the Clinton-Trump debate. Everyone does. Yet it shows how weak your arguments are when you cannot do anything but throw out endless ad hominems and snarky comments. Sure, they can lighten the mood, but when used ad nausea, it only serves to your own intellectual downfall. Resist the urge and just be polite.

4. Avoid engaging in mental gymnastics.

Mental gymnastics is a very easy thing to undergo. It’s the process of metaphorically flipping over and past ideas that conflict with your own in order to preserve your psychological consistency. As worthwhile as it may sound, it is a good way to obfuscate the issues even further as you not only provide misinformation to your counterparts and anyone who may be listening but to yourself as well. You believe it to be true, which makes it even harder to correct if you happen to be wrong. Speaking of which:

5. Do not be afraid to admit you’re wrong or that you don’t know something.

Although it may seem to conflict with #2, nobody is perfect. No matter how hard you prepare, you simply don’t know what you don’t know. You’ll never be able to predict, in totality, the arguments others will make. So when an argument comes up that you do not have familiarity with, saying you don’t know is not a sign of stupidity, but one of bravery. It shows you have the intellectual honesty to admit when you are not perfect, which, thankfully, increases your respectability, increasing the overall quality of the debate as a whole.

6. For Christ’s sake, don’t interrupt other debaters!

Teachers always used to rub it in my face when I presume the question they would ask before they finished asking it. That was because I was almost always wrong. You cannot interrupt a person’s argument if it is not finished. Granted, if they ramble on in order to fill time—as any competitive debater can tell you—then let your body language indicate you want to speak. Intruding on another’s argument is a good way to elicit more distrust and anger from the person being interrupted, which derails the debate entirely. Let the arguments play out and simply think as they talk. Not only will you make better arguments, but you will be able to point out any holes in their argumentation.

7. Feelings of hostility are natural. Just let them go.

Like I said in the introduction, cognitive dissonance is one of the most fundamental forces the human brain experiences. It is the driving force behind the formation of identity, particularly when it comes to politics. Therefore, when people say something that you find is against your preconceived notions, you will feel uncomfortable; you will feel like they’re wrong. Do not let it show. Push these thoughts back and just focus on the present. If you get angry, it shows you are not open to outside opinions, completely countering the fundamental purpose of debating.

8. And above all: listen.

This is the one lesson that embodies them all. I save it for last because I need it to be remembered the most. Open-mindedness is something practically everyone needs to practice. From a psychological perspective, changing the opinions of others requires extremely stable levels of mutual trust. If you or the person you are debating does not feel like they are being heard, they will not feel accepted, like you do not appreciate them and just want to tear them down. So, show that you do. Listen to what they have to say and actually think about it. Entertain other people’s ideas. It will certainly make the atmosphere much less dreadful. You never know, you might find some common ground. Or, maybe, you’ll realize the errors in your own thinking, putting you on the path towards the truth.