Currently having a discussion here about the right to die.

In this and almost all other discussions I see, others frame your answers in ways unintended and proceed to explain that you are wrong about a point you are not making.

I think a good practise is to really try to understand what the other side is AND is not saying.

It is fine to extend the argument to other points that you find relevant, but don't expect the other person to join you on that journey.

MSM often takes an extreme possible outcome from a proposition and tries to use that as a reason why the original argument is wrong.

I hope we on NOSTR don't end up being like MSM using that technique when we cannot win an argument on merit alone.