When it comes to arguing about what is right and what is wrong, most people err to the side of being an intellectual bankrupt, i.e. they argue what is right and wrong based on their own selfish interests.
In that case, even the most obviously wrong thing can be argued as right, i.e. war is right because that regulates the rate of population growth or else it would go out of hand.
In this modern age, we will never be in short supply of encountering people that are eager to argue with us and trying to prove that they are somewhat more right.
For that, I come up with a method to help validate if a right-wrong argument is actually valid, simply by observing the Golden Rule.
If a person says "war is right" (with whatever the intellectually bankrupt justification that follows), then ask him if it is also equally right if war is applied on him, i.e. get him killed, or at least put him at high mortality risk, in war.
If he says "no", then his argument that "war is right" for whatever the stupid reason, is invalid.
Similarly, if a person says "to rape is good" for whatever the selfish justification, then ask him if it is equally as good if rape is applied on him, i.e. getting him (involuntarily) raped by someone he does not desire (maybe this someone is fat, or ugly, or has strong body odor, or a combination of those).
If he says "no", then his argument that "to rape is good" is invalid.
A universally valid argument will easily pass the test of the Golden Rule.
"To be honest is right".
If that is so, then is it equally as right if people treat you back in honesty?
"Absolutely!"
Congratulations. Your argument is valid.
But what about those that argue for one thing but practice another?
Indeed, these are intellectually bankrupt people.
If so, then disregard whatever they say. Instead, apply what they do (not what they say) back at them.