So, a couple of things - I enjoy thinking about this subject so I've made some distinctions for myself on this in the past.

First, I like the distinction between dialectic and debate. It's possible to learn more about someone's point of view through asking interested questions and (together) exploring where their beliefs lead, without necessarily challenging them in a debate sense. Debate often means scoring points using non-logical rhetoric. Dialectic is more the spirit of being on the same team, exploring a point together, and I don't see it as less efficient in any sense.

Second, normative conclusions (as most opinions are) are a combination of moral axioms and a bunch of logical syllogisms. I think an opinion can be judged "incorrect" in two ways. First, they are reasoning badly from their premises (valid but unsound). That can be fun to explore in a dialectic sense to see if the logical framework can be tightened up or if the conclusion can be modified. But the other common way an opinion can be "incorrect" is if it soundly, logically flows from moral axioms (values) that you simply disagree with. And those sorts of axioms aren't correct or incorrect by definition. This is usually the appropriate time to agree to disagree, or respect where the other person is coming from.

But either way, this all requires having a certain level of empathy or respect for your counterpart's point of view and intent.

> Everyone should have a platform to safely express their opinions, but if their opinions are incorrect then they should be challenged and debated. Statements shouldn't be protected from scrutiny just because they are being uttered by a woman or a minority.

Precisely this. Granting special exemption from the normal process of discourse and debate is infantilizing. Treating someone as your equal and expecting that they are capable of defending their ideas is not wrong, particularly when they share their ideas in the public sphere.

   > if their opinions are incorrect

Yes, for things with objective answers. If somebody is, you know, claiming that Mac OS9 was better than Windows 95 because OS9 had preemptive multitasking and Win95 didn't - then sure, correct them.

When we're in the realm of issues like racial inequality, gender relations, etc - I'd be really cautious about deeming anybody "incorrect."

These are issues that have challenged humankind as long as we've been on this Earth, and we haven't exactly worked out any ironclad solutions yet.

Try putting as much effort into correcting your own mistakes as you do into correcting others. Being correct but in a biased way is practically equivalent to being wrong.

I'm with you in a lot of ways. Debate/dialectic/etc is how I generally would like to come to an understanding of things. And that's not wrong. It's just... a lot of people don't work that way, and frankly we're being jerks if we try to force it on others.