Technically speaking, there are no true rules to debating. Logical Fallacies and rules of conduct were developed later in each philosophy school. Take two closely related philosophy schools, the Cynics and the Stoics. Stoics tried to be fairly passionless by todays standards, and were all about logic, and embraced the concept of logical fallacies.
The Cynics on the other hand would naturally embrace insults, being rude, barking and howling at people, and to be honest, far far worst. I don't want to be banned for describing a few of their stunts.
If you are serious about debating, you can't expect others to present evidence "fairly" or via a method you accept as valid. You can't expect all to hold to every concept of logical fallacy out there. You just gotta get used to reading people, especially when they intend to deceive you.
A good book on this subject is The Art of Deception. When people hear this title they think it is about teaching people how to lie. No, it's about detecting when others are lying to you.
I next to never point out when people are lying (unless they are late teens, early twenties and can benifit from learning a better mode of reasoning). I also very rarely call out logical fallacies. While I don't think the mind is a holistic whole, I do think the cognitive networks that logic, reasoning and personality form out of tends to be finely honed by evolution and nurturing and I usually try to figure out why people make the arguments they do instead of outright dismissing it. But I'm a student of the dialectic. Most are not.
I'd recommend buying the book used. A newer edition exists on kindle.
As you read it, just let people run their mouths and listen to them. Try to figure out the nature of the human condition.
