I am disappointed this article does not mention any of the philosophical theory about debates (arguments), namely the logical fallacies that are so common in all sorts of conversations/debates (straw man, ad hominem, black-and-white, authority, no-true-scotsman, fallacy-fallacy, moving goal posts, Texas-sharpshooters) as well as the types of arguments (deductive, inductive, abductive, analogy, reductio ad absurdum).
Politicians, for example, are masters in using fallacies to make arguments that less educated people find persuasive.
In a complex discussion, these devices are rarely useful. And the fallacies are only meant to invalidate your opponent's arguments, and sometimes incorrectly: e.g. a debate on the merits of refactoring ultimately has no logical resolution, only reasonable expectations based on experience and authority.
On contrast, the article is more about maintaining relations and work culture than deciding a debate, which is indeed vague, but at least as valuable.
> And the fallacies are only meant to invalidate your opponent's arguments
Not only your opponent's but your own also! That's very important... knowing the fallacies you're less likely to use them, which I think many people do out of their ignorance of the topic.
I hold the opposite view. Humans rarely make decisions based on valid deductive reasoning. Many argumentative methods that are technically fallacies are tremendously useful in practice (argument from authority is a good example) because we need to make a decision without the ability to actually develop a formal argument from the ground up. Rejecting heuristics will make decision making slow to a crawl.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the ability to name the individual fallacies, as is typical in introductory material on fallacies, is not a useful skill. Understanding the truth tables, the concepts of necessity and sufficiency, and perhaps a couple of other related concepts, are what actually matters when it comes to understanding the truth or falsehood of basic arguments.
The truth of this is probably apparent to anyone who has ever worked through a typical Philosophy 101 midterm. On the exam you apply your mind to spotting the problem or problems with an argument first, and then compare that problem to an index of goofy latin names for fallacies that you've perhaps memorized. Knowing the names of fallacies is only important to the people who care about the names of fallacies (a category that, strangely, does not include the philosophy professors administering these exams).
Politicians, for example, are masters in using fallacies to make arguments that less educated people find persuasive.
Here's a good video about argument types:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKEhdsnKKHs
And this one (and follow ups) about logical fallacies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb-h0sXkH4
Knowing these I think is more important than using the more vague advice this blog post mentions.