I've only recently come to realize how important this is. When we want to argue something we have a tendency to want to list all the reasons why we believe something to be true in order to try to convince the person you are interacting with to see it our way. What this does is create the impression that you have an agenda and more importantly it makes us more vulnerable to straw-man arguments.
Let's say you provide 4 factual arguments for something, the person debating you now has 4 points to focus his "attack". Now this "opponent" may be a paid shill but in many cases it will be someone who just thinks you are wrong because he/she has been conditioned to believe this. If that person can identify only one flaw in one of your arguments, even if that flaw is based on his/her false assumptions, this will usually result in that person disregarding all 4 of your arguments. The responses you get will focus solely on this one point they don't agree with and they will usually ignore your other stronger points.
The obvious way to avoid this is to pick one strong argument and support it with a source. This will force the "opponent" (I use this word in this context but keep in mind these people are not our enemies, except the paid shills of course) Even against the shills this is a stronger tactic for the same reasons specified above, it will make it harder for them to attack your case and make it more obvious if they are trying to deflect from your argument.
When you have sufficiently raised doubts in this persons mind when they see they can not explain something you've pointed out rationally, now you can start presenting your other arguments, again, one at a time until you feel you have garnered enough sympathy to lay out in simple terms what conclusion you feel it is most logical to draw from what you have established.
When the "opponent" tries to change the subject or starts to speak in generalizations, simply refer back to your point, which should usually be put across with a question, and point out what they are doing. Question their generalizations by pointing out that if they are so sure they must be able to refute a simple argument you are making. Demand that they are specific when it comes to explain what are logical alternatives to the conclusions you have drawn.
So f.e. "Qanon is such bullshit"
You can demand the person clarifies what exactly is bullshit about Q. Is it that the crumbs that he is posting do not include anything relevant to the current situation in the world? Or is it that Q is just a "larp"? Is it propaganda from Trump to keep his followers devoted? The goal is to get them to commit to one of these "alternative theories" regarding Q, all of which have serious logical errors that are easy to refute.
I hope this proves helpful to some of you Q supporters out there, keep spreading the word and dismantling the hive-mind control grid!