"I apologize. I didn't mean-- may I express my concern as calmly and respectfully as I can?"
- Prof. Legasov on the consequences of an RBMK reactor meltdown (HBO's Chernobyl)
"This is not going to end well."
"There is no evidence of that-"
"This is not going to end well."
- Donald Trump and Joe Biden on voter fraud (first presidential debate)
Winning an argument often requires making a case that some X is a problem. X is bad. Here's how an avid practitioner of the dark arts can gather soldiers for their cause, no matter what X is or how bad the issue is in context. I think this is how most people argue for their cause. Craft the strongest argument in each category, and if that argument gets defeated, move to another one.
Stated in the abstract, it's easy to see how arbitrary this process is. It's a recipe for looking like an alarmist, even if we're telling the truth about a serious issue. And, of course, you might not just look like, but actually be an alarmist.
But we do have to confront the problems in our world. Bad things are, in fact, bad.
The answer is to have a sense of priorities. Your own, as well as those of your debate partner and audience. Show that you respect them as people. Make a clear statement of what you think their priorities are. Look for fair, win/win solutions.
If you can't reach that state of mutual understanding and reciprocity no matter how hard you try - and you have to actually try - look for a different audience.