Being informed and not getting into arguments aren't related.

Don't argue with people. If they want to disagree with facts, walk away.

Listen to experts. Stay off of social media. Get used to visualizing the average commenter on anything as a middle schooler. Talk to your friends about important topics. Learn how to vet sources. Challenge your beliefs. Recognize what cognitive dissonance feels like to you and seek it out. Focus on things that matter to your life. Read all the way through articles.

I don't really get the question. To stay informed you just have to read/watch. To get into an argument you'd have to get into a conversation with someone.

It's very easy to watch TV or read a newspaper without getting into an argument with it.

Don’t. Frankly, I’ve stayed on top of the news for 20 years. The ideal of an informed citizenry comes from a time without a 24-hour news cycle, and a time before the US (if you’re here) was downgraded from a democracy to an enocracy. The only thing you’ll get from being informed 24-7 is unneeded stress. Look at a news website once or twice a week, that’s plenty informed for most purposes. (Within 6 months of a national election, maybe bump it up a little.) Don’t discuss controversial news online unless that’s fun for you. If I could follow my own advice, my mental health would be improved, honestly.

Believe it or not, about 20 years ago or so people with opposite ideologies used to be able to converse with each other without it becoming a fight. Nowadays, the vast majority of people seem disinterested in listening to anything that contradicts their own opinion. Rather than researching their own ideologies, they will research points to tear down other's ideologies instead.

My recommendations would be:

• Don't engage in comment sections. Reading through them may provide some context, but typically anything past top level comments or parent comments usually devolves into arguing.

• Try to look for two media outlets with opposite ideologies and read both. Pay particular attention to the one you don't agree with, but be careful to not try to look for ways to "disprove" it. Sometimes, one might point something out the other doesn't. This can give you a clearer picture of what is going on.

• Never trust a claim without a source. While many statements are made without a source are correct, its always a good idea to look up more information and do your own research to confirm the facts before you spread information that is potentially wrong.

• Not all sources are trustworthy. Just because someone lists a source doesn't mean its trustworthy. This has been an increasingly more common practice online. Checking sources can be time consuming, but it is worth doing.

• Always check your sources for bias. Confirmation Bias, Recency Bias, Political Bias, etc. These are all highly infectious and are far more prolific than they used to be. Finding sources without any bias is not possible, but recognizing it can help temper your view on the source.

• Be ready and fast to admit when you're wrong or have changed your mind. There is nothing wrong with a person who changes their mind. What you believe today, you might think a bit differently tomorrow. There is no reason that you should feel obligated to cling to an ideology that you do not feel is right, even if you thought it was right yesterday.

• Do not engage in debate. This one is hard for people today, since they feel the need to clip and retweet everything everyone says. It used to be that debates were for serious conversation, but as I mentioned initially, this is no longer the case. People who engage in debate usually don't want to change their mind or even hear what the other side is saying. So simply don't engage.

And lastly:

• Do not try to be informed on everything. There is too much information now for any person to be totally caught up on all things. If someone talks about something you don't know about that interests you, ask for more information. Make a mental note and do your research on it later. Any person that looks down on someone else for "not being informed" is simply saying they have a superiority complex. Pay it no mind. You're not inferior for not being informed on all aspects of all matters.

I've always had the belief that the worst thing you can be in this world is consciously uninformed

In that case, it might be useful to remind yourself that once it gets to the protracted argument stage, you're encouraging the very thing you are trying to fight.

No one changes their mind when they've drawn virtual lines in the sand. They are in fact more likely to double down on their beliefs, right or wrong.

resist

By recognizing that the fruitless arguments are just a waste of your valuable life time.

It is good to be informed about some topics that are helpful for your life. You do not need to be informed about so many other topics.

Stick to very serious journalism, maybe from outside of your own country.

Don't try to chase breaking news, but focus more on analysis that steps back and looks at the situation. For instance, I read the Economist because it only publishes once a week and it provides more in depth discussion of issues.

Repeat after me: “What evidence would it take for your to believe your position is wrong?”

I think that the most important steps go before any sort of argument. They are:

• Get used to think logically and notice logical flaws. Including yours.
• Avoid vomiting certainty. (I call this "to be an assumer".)

If you follow those two steps, you'll be far more informed than most people out there, simply because you'll make better use of the info that you're exposed to.

Now, when you are in a protracted argument, here's my "ideal" approach:

1. Ask myself "am I being irrational?". If yes, I try to identify the source of the irrationality (e.g. emotional attachment). If I can't get rid of it, I leave the discussion.
2. Ask myself "am I being an assumer?". If yes, I inform myself further, then decide if I'm going to keep the argument or not. It's fine to retract your claims, just do it clearly.
3. If the other side is being an irrational, assumer, or liar, I call it out while exposing why it matters. (There are polite ways to do this; I don't bother.) The reaction of the other side dictates what I do: if they disengage I leave it be, if they admit it I might go on with the argument or not, if they turn into "lalala this hurts my fee fees then I claim that I didn't read lol lmao haha" mode I usually mock it and disengage.
4. If I got tired of a discussion about something not too overly important, I simply leave. There's no shame on that.

I say "ideal" because I myself sometimes don't follow it, even knowing that I should. (I'm verbose and eager to dig deeper into any subject.)

Some key details here:

• Remember that in social media (including Lemmy) there's always some sort of general audience, lurkers that are following the discussion but not interacting with it. What matters is less to convince the moron(s) and more to inform the general audience.
• Sometimes misinformation can be harmful, so there's an actual reason to keep yourself in a protracted argument. Just don't do it at the expense of too much of your time.
• I believe that it's completely fine to answer blatant stupidity with rudeness, as long as your rudeness isn't: misaimed at the wrong people, or in an environment with no tolerance towards rudeness, in a community that you hold a position of power (e.g. the discussion happens in a comm that you mod) or backed up by more stupidity. Your mileage may vary with that.

The internet has made it way too easy for morons to band together and validate their beliefs. for all the same reasons that makes the internet great. Whenever I see blatant misinformation and fear around a topic I happen to know a lot about I feel an overwhelming responsibility to say something. It always just turns into a flame war because these kinds of people just can’t stand facts. It gets nowhere.

I seriously want to just let it go and let them be insufferable but I’m worried what would happen if the truth made no attempt to fight back. So many riots and misguided movements keep happening because of it.

I'm a news junkie too, and I also used to have a problem with online conflict. I got so worked up posting on Twitter in 2016 that I broke into hives. No joke...

I took several years off from the news, but I reestablished a healthy relationship with it 3 years ago. What revelation did I have?

Comment sections aren't informative. Just stick to factual reporting and if you need to hear some opinions to help you contextualize things you learn, stick to centrist sources and try to read at least two differing opinions per topic.

I only get news from AP News, Reuters and Five Thirty Eight.

If I desperately want to hear an opinion, I'll read an editorial in The Economist or I'll look at polling numbers.

Read the Sunday Paper. Other than that stay away from the news.

My approach is gray rocking. I posted something on Mastodon and got reply from someone I knew was looking to argue with me by what he wrote. I just shut it by just replying, "yeah, sure, whatever you say." Super dismissive, but letting it go in case he replies to that I can just keep replying, whatever you say.

Some people talk, some people listen.

Those who talk generally don’t listen.

Honestly, the best way to get informed is outside of social media. What gets people talking isn't always what you should know, and what people talk about on social media isn't typically a very high level of discourse. Sure, you do find occasional people putting in high-effort, informed comments, but it's hard to separate those from all the noise.

Probably my top recommendation is to find a non-fiction book (or several!) with good reviews and written by an expert on a topic that interests you and read it. As an example, I'm really interested in sustainable agriculture and gardening, so I got a few books on the topic, Farming the Woods and Silvopasture, and I read them. The nice thing about entire books written by experts is they'll include a lot of details and specifics that you simply wouldn't know that you don't know. And because it's a book, not some short video that has to appease an algorithm, they can take the time to guide you through all the depth you would miss from more superficial material.

Be wary to find legit books by legit experts, as there's unfortunately nothing stopping charlatans from pretending to be experts to sell you stuff or peddle a weirdo ideology.

I make one attempt to explain myself, maybe add a clarification. If it still looks like it'd turn into an argument, I just let it go.

Don't follow any news at all, hear it from the people around you, let them have their retarded rants and just let it go. Save your opinionated argumentativeness for the internet, where you can engage in it on your own terms.