I've changed my mind on live debates, and lean more towards them being a waste of time. I understand why with a lot of prep they could be valuable...
That said, in high-stakes issues where people are unlikely to cooperate with their opposition, there's not going to be any meaningful progress made.
If you think a live debate would be useful on a divisive topic, my recommendation would be to at minimum have someone (or a group) do the research to be able to solidly steelman (not strawman) the other side.
But even then, I'm more partial to written/hypertext form than live performances.

@gabriel
I know of one rule for a great debate... 1-1. Anything more is suicide. Moderators also do nothing but steps in any time, topic actually gets to any real depth.

But to ask people to steelman the other side is delusional. If I understood how can people be so psychopathic, as to mutilate children, I would not need the debate to begin with.

@gabriel
Even the most vigorous of lefties are completely incapable for instance to describe, why I switched my opinion of covid vaccine 2 months into the pandemic. And these people have been "doing their research" for years already.

that is, because research without context is pointless. It's like asking someone to run a marathon, but not showing them which way.

@LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club
None of this contradicts my main point that a live debate is almost always a waste of time without significant effort.
If you're saying it's always a waste of time I would still disagree.
But you're right there are a lot of, and always will be people who can't be reasoned with period, which is it's own problem.
I will never argue against someone picking their battles, because that's the only way to navigate this kind of issue.

@gabriel
What the fuck have you just read.

I said, that debate is always important, and that your rule to lead it is so strict, that by the time it's fulfilled, you both agree already, so it's meaningless.