@why Ultimately a common language and vernacular must be established, which I believe to be a fundamental distinction between right-leaning and left-leaning groups.

Right-leaning groups tend to focus more on intrinsic meaning of the concepts being discussed - the very core of them, which once established, create the fundamental framework of everything which follows. If speaking the same language and using the same conceptual touchstones, agreeing upon a common vernacular, then the fundamental conclusions are simple a matter of course - they are a given, a logical conclusion. Within this conceptual framework is a very creative aspect - there are a few leaps of intuitive logic which are often broken down into tiny little segments, which is where right-left divides usually pop up.

Then, on the left, groups tend to focus more on the explicit meaning of everything being discussed. Everything must fit within its narrow little box, and most issues depend on where the box is defined and what is within the box. One example, years ago, was in a mandatory leftist general studies course I had to take in university. The textbook itself was called "Everything's An Argument" which was very apt. Arguments don't seek common ground, arguments begin with the assumption that one side is right, and the other is wrong.

But the funny thing is, that, even then, I was able to run circles around my peers in the class during group projects and presentations and essays simply by avoiding semantic arguments altogether. Laying out clear foundations, clear vernacular, being very particular about vocabulary, and not allowing any room for debate. There was a clear start, a clear conclusion, and all I was doing was leading you between them successfully and personally.

And in the end, I think that's what's lacking in most discourse. It's always, ultimately, appeal-to-authority or appeal-to-consequences. There's always that tendency to appeal to some sort of Magic Scientist Man who could potentially have all the answers, who could totally outsmart you and argue circles around you, who could always pull out a bibliography of why you're wrong. All you need to do is cite them in an argument. Maybe a half-dozen of them. Maybe you could appeal to consequences (muh holocaust! muh global warming! muh displaced people! muh refugees! muh population collapse!) if that doesn't work, which ultimately is an appeal to emotion.

But one day I realized that those Magic Scientists don't really exist. That most scientists are ultimately just flawed human beings chasing after funding shekels. You could give them a million dollars in funding and they'll figure out a way to massage the data to give you the conclusion you want. They often do. Ultimately, you have to do the research yourself, go through the logical steps yourself, and present them yourself. Never offer more than the raw data. If whoever you're talking to can't even interpret the raw data, then they don't know enough to make a reasonable conclusion anyways, so their opinions simply don't and shouldn't matter. Easy.