Understand that everyone is human and that you are capable of being wrong. If you think you know it all, it's a sign of knowing nothing. Communication is a two way street. You have to listen just as much as you speak.
Avoid absolutes like "never", "always", and "all". Absolutes rarely exist in life. Especially if you are talking politics, bundling everyone in a group will only cause more issue. Using phrases like "most" and "few" are generally more accurate and less jarring.
Use I statements. They seem silly but they really do add an automatic layer of civility. Instead of saying "You don't seem very smart", you could say "I don't think you are being very smart". A big part of I statements is explaining how a person's actions affect you while avoiding making any statements about someone else and their character. You can google I statements to learn more, which I encourage. They are useful for all conversation.
Acknowledge what logic fallacies are. If you can identify them, then you can avoid using them. The use of a logical fallacy doesn't invalidate an argument, just they way it's communicated.
Have a reason. No matter what, be able to answer the question "Why are you arguing for that side?" If you can't pinpoint that, you should probably step away to think about your position.
Merced wrote (1) "Understand...everyone...human...you are capable of being wrong."
As apart of my growth process I share what I think, feel and believe in open dialogue in a rational manner. You are correct that we are all fallible. We all as human beings have what are called blind spots of awareness. In addition what we think of reality is only our perception and it is limited. Communicating in a two way conversation with other people in an open manner with mutual respect exposes a person to new ideas and concepts. These new ideas are then processed and assimilated, discounted or put on the shelf for future contemplation.
(2) "If you think you know it all, it's a sign of knowing nothing."
Excellent point. No one knows the entire truth or understands or can even perceive reality in its totality. Socrates once exclaimed that the beginning of wisdom is that I realize I know nothing. In addition when on a path of personal growth and trying to actualize one's potential is a concept that we have to unlearn much of what we believe in and has been taught to us. Most of what we feel, think and believe even passionately to be true is mere opinion or a set of beliefs we have assimilated.
These beliefs are then held unto even in the face of evidence pointing to the contrary. Our beliefs are ingrained and have a life of their own. They are unconsciously protected by defense mechanisms in the form of cognitive distortions such as rationalization, denial and emotional reasoning.
(3) "Communication is a two way street. You have to listen just as much as you speak."
Merced I concur. There is a difference between hearing and active listening. If one is in a dogmatic and closed minded position they then are resistant to be receptive to the other persons message. They are spending to much time figuring out what they are going to say next. When in an active listening mode on the other hand one listens and reflects internally. If one is good at communication skills a person may to harbor harmony reflect the others message back to them so as to prove they have both heard and understood the other persons message. Finally there is the adage of we have two ears and one mouth therefore we should listen twice as much speak. When we are talking we are only telling what we already know. When actively listening one may garner new nuggets of wisdom and insights and thus learn and grow.
(4) "Avoid absolutes..."never", "always"..."all".
I come from a psychology field. You just identified the cognitive distortion of all or nothing thinking. It is a cognitive fallacy. Human beings posses a polarity of beliefs. There are Democrats liberals and Republican conservatives. Each feels plus thinks their way of thinking is the correct choice. They passionately believe their world view is the correct and right view to have. To hold unto such a belief one tends to demonize the opposing position and viewpoint. What is worse they battle over ideological differences. What's more one closes off their mind to even entertain the others viewpoint and valid points.
When they argue coming from an emotional and subjective stance they fall prey to emotional reasoning. I think or feel it to be true hence it is true. This is a fallacy of human reasoning. The truth is that a closer approximation of the correct stance lies somewhere in the middle. This can only be achieved and arrived at by mutual open dialogue. There is a caveat and that is both parties should rather stick to objective facts. What is also paramount is that both parties enter into dialogue with an open minded tolerance together with shown respect.
(5) "Use I statements." and "...layer of civility."
I was taught to use I feel and I think statements. When making a case one takes personal ownership by using I statements. One is less likely to generalize or use attack driven labeling statements. I wonder where you learned these techniques. It is professional.
(6) "...I statements is explaining how a person's actions affect you...avoiding making any statements about someone else and their character."
Using such statements beginning with I takes on personal ownership. What is more one safely stays out of the territory of attacking or castigating your opponent in a personal attack on their character. One who does not utilize these simple rules of debate style conduct can fall prey to character assassination. This is called labeling and is one of the ten cognitive distortions that beclouds a persons reasoning ability.
(7) "...logic fallacies...If you can identify them, then you can avoid using them."
I wholeheartedly am in agreement. Carl Jung said to make the unconscious conscious. That is precisely what CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy) with REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy) offer. One has an initial automatic thought. One then goes about weeding out any used cognitive distortions and replaces the distorted reason with a more realistic, fair plus balanced statement. It in some ways holds parallel to the practice of Buddhist mindfulness. By understanding our inner thought process we can then become more aware. With this awareness comes increased wisdom and better choice making. One can then be more free of using fallacies of thought in their thought process, speech and writings.
(8) "...just they way it's communicated."
By falling prey to cognitive distortions one's message is distorted. What's more it is less likely to be received in a favorable light. Part of communicating is conveying your position and influencing others to your line of reasoning. By communicating in a rational manner this is more likely to occur. In addition there will be less confusion along with less needless emotional turmoil and interpersonal conflict. All of this happened needlessly because you did not communicate your message in a rational vein. You instead communicated using cognitive fallacies of thought and using emotionally laden subjective statements that only inflame the opposition. Very impressed on the whole with your response.
