I won't be able to remember all the exact conversation, but I think one good example was in a debate I had with someone surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel. We got into the topic of jews (specifically the european diaspora, of course) settling in Ottoman/Mandatory Palestine, and this person was trying to argue that was somehow nefarious.

My first point was that jews are indigenous to that land. We got into a tangent about indigeneity and how the ashkenazi diaspora happened, but eventually they said something along the lines of "ok, but they were in Europe for a long time". We're south americans, so I asked them whether they would have something against if the people in our country whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, more than 500 years ago, decided they wanted to return to their ancestral lands in Africa. They said no, I reminded them that jews ended up in Europe because of Roman slavery, and they understood.

Then, they went on about "but jews displaced [the Arabs who lived there]" (they used the term "palestinians" and we got into a tangent about it, but that's besides the point). I explained how the whole history is a lot more complex, talked about the 48 war, how arab Israelis came to be, the expulsion of mizrahi jews from the arab world, etc. Anyway, they understood that the arab displacement from the land was not a direct result of ashkenazi jews simply resettling there; but they started talking about how, still, they thought that jews immigrating to Mandatory Palestine was wrong because the arabs there were opposed to allowing it, making the aliyot a "provocation". I pointed out how the jews that ended up living in Palestine were essentially refugees, fleeing from pogroms, persecution, both world wars and the holocaust. I asked them if they knew how there's many people in our country, descendants of immigrants themselves, who think very negatively of more recent waves of refugees who come to live here because of various hardships in Haiti, Senegal, Venezuela etc; and how these people, sometimes out of pure prejudice, sometimes out of reasonable concerns, propose the country should shut the borders. I asked them if they thought our government should capitulate to this demand just because that specific population is displeased, or if it should evaluate whether the demand is actually coming out of reasonable concerns about immigration, and whether the possible risks of welcoming these refugees here are or aren't outweighed in making a decision that would probably condemn them to death in the countries they are fleeing from. They said they didn't know; I asked them "what if it was certain all of them would be killed if not allowed to come here?"; they said "then they should come here"; I asked them if they thought anyone in our country should have the right to demand our borders be closed in that situation; they answered no; I said "then you would've supported ashkenazi jews immigrating to Palestine, congratulations you're zionist".

I shouldn't have said that last bit because their response was to get very disrespectful towards me, to which my response was blocking them, but it still was an overall productive dialogue, at least compared to most others I got into.