I felt like this would be the best place to post this, so here goes. Throughout lots of internet arguments and preaching, I notice people shooting themselves in the foot and creating terrible discourse in a number of ways because they don't understand certain things about how discourse works on the internet, so I have made a list. I have decided to post this list here because SJW's were the inspiration for it, but it can apply to anyone.

1) You are not entitled to being interpreted exactly how you want to be interpreted.
So you say something and someone else disagrees because they don't even understand what you said. You can complain about how stupid they are and how frustrated you are that you can't just be heard, but none of that actually helps you get across what you want to get across to the people you want to reach.
There is a difference between selling out and trying to communicate effectively. If you want to be understood the way you want to be understood, it is on you to learn to communicate more effectively because as open-minded as everyone should be, that isn't always the case. It is more productive to preach in a way that is harder to misinterpret than it is to convince everyone to learn to understand your arguments the way you do without changing how you communicate.
But you can't always change people's minds, and some people are bound to deny even the clearest, most well-reasoned communication from you. It is important to know when you have communicated as clearly and tactfully as you possibly could and are misinterpreted and when you could have communicated better.

2) You never actually "win" or "lose" debates.
There is a practice of debating that is big on the internet (and may predate it) which treats debate as a sport with a winner and loser. There are a number of problems with this view. For one, "winning" is not defined in an agreed upon way between both parties like it is in a sport. "Winning" is basically "my opponent is exhibiting behavior that I deem an inability to support their own argument and attack mine, on account of their holding an incorrect position inherently impossible to support because of its wrongness." And what this looks like is going to vary between two parties who believe what they believe and don't want to believe their opponent.
So you are arguing with some asshat who is wrong, and over and over you take down their argument repeatedly like fish in a barrel, and now they've stopped replying. Before you pat yourself on the back for winning with your rightness, consider that maybe the reason they stopped is not because they feel crushed by how right you are, but because you actually don't see how wrong you are and they do not want to waste their time with ineffective communication.
Sure, maybe they do feel overwhelmed and like you are right and they are wrong, but you have no indication of that without them actually saying it (even though you may think you do!). You may think you won, but you have gained nothing but smug satisfaction. That smug satisfaction is not really winning if you actually are trying to change minds and destroy ideas you see as false and harmful.
And if someone is arguing with you and has an endless stream of counterarguments that are all bullshit, do you see yourself as a loser of the debate for not replying? No, you know how right you are and don't want to waste your time. Who really won or lost?

3) As far as society is concerned, winning is learning and losing is ignorance
This may be the biggest captain obvious of the list, but you don't know everything, and society is more than just you. Since people don't like to be harmed and would like to enjoy themselves, what is necessary is positive, open-minded communication. You have no idea what all the problems are and how to solve them, and you will likely never know what they all are, but your best bet to be wrong about most things is to stick to your guns. The simpler, more knee-jerk, and more static your beliefs are, the less likely they are to be true about our big, complicated world that no one has seen in its entirety. The best bet you have to be right is to be open-minded, because that is the only way to replace inaccurate beliefs with more accurate ones. It is easier and more practical to align your beliefs to reality than to align reality to your beliefs because you can't control the physical constants or the wetness of water.
And when other people are involved, it is more practical to be more open-minded and try to see reality as it is because it is much easier to coexist with objective views than with separate subjective narratives portrayed as external reality. Coexistence with objectivity is what allows civilization to function, and divergent dogmatic narratives that cannot be reconciled with reason lead to conflict.

4) There is no substitute for a reasoned, sourced argument and falsity doesn't happen in a vacuum
So someone posts a bullshit article and uses it to make a bullshit argument. You go in and you point out the bias. Cool, but that doesn't actually prove the argument wrong (especially not to the person believing it). All you've given is a reason someone would believe and write something false. You're not saying what is actually true or more plausible.
Arguments and beliefs are not like jenga towers. As much as we wish we could just pull out one piece of a bullshit tower and crumble the whole thing, it doesn't work that way. Beliefs are complex and interconnected, and when they're yours, not something easily thrown away. You can't just throw away your own reality at the drop of a hat.
What often changes beliefs is information in a neutral setting that is taken in and then kicks out inconsistent information. In science (or anywhere), nothing is ever disproved in a vacuum. When a hypothesis is shown to be false, it is only because something is shown to be true that is inconsistent with the hypothesis. It is the false belief that disproof happens in a vacuum that fuels a lot of unhealthy debate. People try in vain to destroy others' ideas because they don't realize negative evidence is not real. Things appear to be true because they are supported by consistent facts and appear to be false because they do not and are inconsistent. Anti-facts are not real, and you cannot shove them in someone's face to make their beliefs disappear.
You can't change anyone's beliefs by simply saying, "this isn't true" or any variation. What is necessary is a logical, neutral, reasoned, sourced argument. But remember, you're not entitled to being interpreted the way you want to be interpreted.

5) People change their own minds
One way people close their minds to people they disagree with is by branding them as crazy. They convince themselves that because another person doesn't believe what they do, something must be wrong with their ability to reason, they may be an unintelligent or bad person, or they are the victim of being sheltered by false ideas. But all of that takes away the agency people have in observing their worlds and creating their own beliefs.
When you treat those who disagree with you as automatons that need to be freed from their dogmatic programming, you get nowhere. You can't just input another program into them and expect it to run. If it doesn't work on you, why would it work on them?
It's important to recognize people believe what they do (and you, too) for more reasons than they can possibly conceive of in any given moment, so no simple strategy could possibly work to change people's minds. If you've ever changed your beliefs drastically on anything, was it something that just happened to you, or did you do it?

6) It's no one's job to inform you
Sometimes during debates people take a strategy of questioning their opponent's argument into oblivion. By not asserting anything and merely applying skepticism, it puts one's opponent on the defensive. Whether or not you are honestly interested in understanding their argument, this is a bad method of learning. Someone isn't necessarily capable of giving you all the details that would convince you whether or not you are open-minded. You are better off researching yourself and having them point you towards sources if you are open-minded. If you are not open-minded, you are wasting your time because they won't convince you since you do not want to be convinced.
This is because you are the center of your own mind. You are responsible for what you believe and don't believe. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to change your own mind for you if you are someone who applies skepticism. If you're not, you should. But bottom line, don't blame others for how informed you are. It's your job to learn, and just because someone can't find a source to back up every question you come up with doesn't mean they're wrong. Sometimes it means your questions are stupid.

7) You can't understand truly anything without its context
This is another one that sounds obvious, but in practice it isn't. Many times when we see rhetoric we disagree with at face value (oftentimes in short, simple formats like comment sections and tweets), we immediately disagree with it based on how we interpret it and label it as false/bad. Sometimes we find that when we learn the actual context it was said in, we end up agreeing with it, and sometimes we find that context gives us more reasons to disagree with it.
Either way, as obvious as it sounds, understanding what someone actually means is not possible if you are not trying to understand them the way they are trying to be understood. If you automatically think you're right about something (or everything), it's easy to think you're reading between the lines and getting the meaning out of something when in reality you are projecting your interpretation onto it and reacting to something that isn't being expressed.
And as you may have guessed, you can only learn to understand things the way they actually are with open-minded communication and research.

Should probably add something about people's tendency to start demanding sources for trivial details when they're struggling to find a counterargument. While it's important to have evidence, a lot of such demands are made in bad faith.
In my experience people who "lose" an online argument either drop a downvote and stop replying or degenerate into wild circlejerking and hurling insults. However you're not always just talking to an opponent - by laying out your side of the debate that's also a means for other readers to learn and form opinions of their own.