make a strawman version of your opponent’s ideas, and call it “thesis”;
make a strawman version of ‘what is wrong with the strawman of my opponent’s ideas’, and call it “antithesis”;
write a long text explaining how both “thesis” and “antithesis” are right about some partial aspects, optionally add your own ideas, and call it “synthesis”;
To sum up: invent a single sentence to summarize your opponent’s position so that you condemn them as naive. For example, what you did to Phil Goetz.
General algorithm:
make a strawman version of your opponent’s ideas, and call it “thesis”;
make a strawman version of ‘what is wrong with the strawman of my opponent’s ideas’, and call it “antithesis”;
write a long text explaining how both “thesis” and “antithesis” are right about some partial aspects, optionally add your own ideas, and call it “synthesis”;
collect your Hegel points ;-)
tl;dr—any system of debate can be gamed