An interesting look at how to argue with people who hold views that are antithetical to your own. The basic idea is that people often talk at cross purposes because they prioritise different concepts; what’s “signal” to one person is “noise” to the other. The trick, then, is to focus on what you think your debate opponent’s “signal” is, and argue to that, rather than picking out the “noise” that makes you the angriest.
Obviously, using this assumes that you do, in fact, want to convince or communicate with the person you’re arguing against, which isn’t always the case (often we argue to convince third parties, or to rally our “own side”). But… interesting all the same.