There are many norms of civil discourse represented in debating traditions, but there is substantial variation. Still, two that are enforced in all formal debat

There are many norms of civil discourse represented in debating traditions, but there is substantial variation. Still, two that are enforced in all formal debate I know are: 1) all participants have equal access to present their views, usually uninterrupted for at least some portion of time 2) all participants have equal access to rebut their opponent's views, so neither side has an opportunity to present an uncontested idea These are important norms to keep more powerful, obnoxious, or charismatic people from having (as much) undue advantage in the contest of ideas. I see these formal characteristics as orthogonal to whether someone has horrible views. Without guarantees of this kind you may find yourself on the wrong side of a power imbalance, and then you have no right to challenge said ideas in a fair contest.