I am by no means the first to suggest this, with as varied of folks as Aristotle and Carnegie suggesting effectively the same thing.
If you're going to talk, know why you're talking.
To talk to people who already agree with you, the purpose is perhaps bonding, perhaps
excitement, and perhaps helping to strengthen conviction. If you're going to do this kind of talking, by all means demonize the opposition. Much/most of the emotional force of this kind of argument comes from in-group/loyalty moral emotion as characterized by Jon Haidt. However, recognize that any argument that has a substantial component of in-group/loyalty is not going to play real well at convincing anyone of anything.
To talk to people who disagree with you, the purposes can be different.
Understanding others' perspectives is an option. In this case...questions are good. a particular concern needs to be taken for not being over-aggressive. If you want to understand someone's point of view, the general approach is to ask nice questions, and allow them to develop their position. DON'T contradict them. The best line here, if you disagree is in the direction of: "Perhaps I'm a little slow, but I don't quite follow how X. Does it always work that way?" Good at making people feel important. Probably good at shifting positions slightly.
Talking to others with the purpose of convincing them of something is again different. If someone has made up their mind, and you wish to lead them to a different place, the proper response is usually to change your purpose. Opinions (on non-science matters) tend to be social-proof opinions, and group identity markers. Changing someone's opinion is in general a matter of attempting to get them to switch a section of their identity. The best thing you can do in this case is social-proof your way to win. Demonstrate that you are first in the "good" group, though it's not out of the question to allow yourself on the fringes of the "good" group. Then, you need to demonstrate (generally not via argument) that you as a person are the kind of person whose opinions should be respected/deferred to. Then, you can shift a person. Until then, no.
If your purpose is to argue...feel free, but know that most people find the argument significantly annoying because you (the arguer) really don't understand that the purpose of opinions is primarily social, not truthical.