Earlier I recommended Paul Graham’s disagreement hierarchy. But it’s missing one level at the top.
When an argument is made, you learn about that argument. But often you also learn about arguments that could have been made, but weren’t. Sometimes those arguments work where the original argument doesn’t.
If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents’ arguments. But if you’re interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents’ arguments for them.
To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse.