If someone makes a claim, you should be able to hyperlink to it where the argument has already been explained.
Then each participant can "agree" or "disagree" with each claim in an argument chain. And every time they disagree they need to dive deeper to refine their argument.
Eventually all arguments reach a point of "because I say so" and ultimately it becomes a popularity contest. E.g. We should maximise happiness for all, etc.
But...the good news is argument reasoning can be objectively validated to some extent. Soundness and validity.
And definitions are arbitrary. People have to agree on definitions or there is no point in debating something. I would say that most arguments are about the parties not agreeing on definitions, and wasting time stringing together argument chains where both sides have different conceptions of the words being used.
I believe lawyers/politicians should be programmers and instead of arguing and making laws in English prose, they should use a structured programming language.