Violating the rules of dialog
There are rules to discourse; the truth is lost in a cacophony of petty squabbling
The concept of finding the truth through dialog goes back at least as far as Socrates, and it’s tightly connected to the availability of leisure time. That is to say, once free time became available, we started wondering what it was for. When our life is spent avoiding the pain of starvation or of being eaten by predators, the meaning of life is more or less obvious. Once we no longer had to worry about such things on a day-to-day basis, we began to have participate in philosophic dialog.
Modern society has come to equate what is scientific with what is true; and thus the quest for the essence of science is really the quest for Truth. Unfortunately, most people aren’t educated in the details of how science actually works, which is sort of a combination Socratic method and Occam's razor: we take a position, collect data, analyze the data, and either dismiss the position or accept it tentatively. There is not such thing a “settled science” because new information can always abrogate a current theory.
When we apply this method to philosophic questions, we are guaranteed to be able to dismiss any conclusion because every philosophic position is inherently self-referential; we are therefore free to “take it or leave it.” Once reduced to its fundamental issues, any philosophic argument turns into a form of “yes it is – no it isn’t” and we are left at base principles (aka axioms) which are not usually open to debate because they are deeply embedded in each of us.
This is not to say that the task is pointless. It could be that the value is in the playing of the game itself. If one enters a philosophic dialog in search of answers, one will be sorely disappointed. What philosophy teaches us is to get better and better at asking the right questions; to see the depth of an issue; and to enjoy the dialog. This is how we grow as a society.
But in a dialog, one has to play the game by certain rules. The word “rule” is a red flag for some people; they will immediately begin to shout about free speech, “I have a right to my opinion”, and try to cancel you. But rules define the boundaries within which we can play – something is lost in a football game if one of the players starts shooting , and something is lost when each counterpoint starts with “Jane you ignorant slut” 
Similarly, there are rules of fair play in such areas as dating, chess, and philosophic argument. This is why current political discourse is so aggravating; the sneering and snide side-bar commentary breaks the rules of serious-minded philosophic discourse. At its worst, it becomes political maneuvering, pandering to our basic instinct to turn on someone who is being belittled, least we ourselves be belittled. This kind of attitude has no place in serious inquiry, and this current style of “discourse” masks anything of interest people might have to say.
Many people consider conversation to be an opportunity to embrace Nietzsche’s will to power, making domination the goal of the conversation; unfortunately, they ruin the experience for the rest of us. Once it’s no longer about digging down to find the truth of the matter, the truth is lost in a cacophony of petty squabbling.
 The Last Boy Scout (movie, 1991) — links to Amazon.
 See Point/Counterpoint segments from early Saturday Night Live episodes.