This place should be a real-life testing ground for honing one's ability to make and form arguments sans logical fallacies.
Some people know what logical fallacies are, but simply don't care. It's called Sophism and was a scourge even back in Socrates' time (469-398 BC (BCE).
Sophists just want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't care about logic or propriety. Additionally, they want to keep the status quo by any means necessary. Which means more for them and less for everybody else.
It is exceedingly difficult to argue with a Sophist because they aren't using logic. So, in addition to presenting your argument, you have to take the time to educate your interlocutor where his logical fallacies lay. Which, he will, disregard out-of-hand anyway.
There is a way to embarrass the Sophist. Perry Mason did this exquisitely. But, not only did he have to exert the effort to prove his client innocent, he had to do the footwork of the Prosecutor to determine where the Prosecutor's sophism and illogicalness sprouted from in the first place.
My old boss instructed me on this. He said opinions don't mean ----. You have to make a study of the situation with graphs, statistics, and proof before anyone in power will take you seriously. Even when the injustices were blatant to anyone with a sense of self-control.
So, instead of just showing up at a board meeting with hearsay and opinion, I had to continuously have documents and proof of a systemic or personnel error that needed to be remedied. I learned you simply can't take someone's word for it, no matter how trustworthy their word has been in the past.