Productive debates start with emotions, not logic

By productive, I mean to say that the debate achieves some goal.

Depending on the goal, fighting might be intention.

We might not have a pony in the race, and are more dispassionate about the idea or the person.

In debates, my goal is to learn.
Not to win, to learn. And there is a huge difference between the two.

By debating an idea, I can learn how the other side thinks at bare minimum. I can also learn ( as I have many times ) that my position is just plain wrong.
Everyone should think of their goal before embarking on a debate, or they will probably get nowhere. What is winning a debate to you?

I say a win in a debate is when one party or the other LEARNS something important, something new.

As to emotions.
I promote compassion and critical thinking. The critical thinking part has been my main focus for over a decade. When I started on this road in 2010, I was not a good thinker at all.. I reacted, i felt my way around, but had NO idea on how to make a strong case, even though I used to try so very hard. Now, when I look back, I do feel embarrassed. I was falling in so many cognitive traps.. it was ridiculous. I sat myself down and came up with my two core values and I put COMPASSION first.

Critical thinking or good thinking is great, but without compassion, it can be a horror.
Why do we debate?

We want to share ideas, convince each other .. help each other learn.
We want to fit in.. To be a part of a tribe, to the left, or to the right.. religious or non-religious... conservative or progressive, pro-life or pro-choice and so on.
We want to be liked.. even loved. So, we might hope to even make friends. We want to know one another, understand one another. Be connected in some way.

I say that its better to connect on a positive way than a negative way.
I can't really want to talk to people who attack me.. who don't seem to like me at all. Emotions count.
To imagine that humans don't have feelings is to misunderstand everything we have learned by psychology, sociology, anthropology, genetics, and so on. This is 2021, and YES, there are many scientists who are studying what it's like to be a human being in 2021. There is science on how to have good relationships, and to pretend that it doesn't exist is denying reality.

Now, I'm not advocating that we ABANDON reason, logic, skepticism, critical thinking and so on. In fact, I've made a study of it for a decade now, and I JUST starting to feel that I can teach some of the basics. That's why, for example, I have been focusing on the ad hominem informal logical fallacy. Being "NICE" to one another is the bare minimum if we want to have productive conversation. Being RUDE and CRUDE will very likely result in having doors shut in our face. No conversation possible if we are just fighting.

Lets not fight.. lets have elevated conversations, and for that, we must build trusting relationships with our colocutors.
For that, we have to deal with our emotions, and respond in a civil way to theirs.

Then, we can talk about reasoning, 1.2,3 ... conclusion.
Then, maybe, the opponent in our debate might be more open to even care about what we say.

Right now, I see way too much fighting, and very little in the way of elevated debates.