I think the key to solving this is to "branch" off the arguments that depend on a contentious topic such as "denying moon landings". So instead of having to pr

I think the key to solving this is to "branch" off the arguments that depend on a contentious topic such as "denying moon landings". So instead of having to prove moon landings don't exist, there would be one branch that denies moon landings, and the other that accepts moon landings. This modularises/encapsulates different reasoning chains allowing each to be debating on their own. So whether moon landings occurred could be argued on its own. The problem today is the "common set of facts and shared reality" that the two sides of politics share are very separated.