The difficulty in finding the “right thing” in “real world problems”
In my opinion, there exist in real world problem almost never a right way, but always clear wrong. With this, I don’t mean that all ideas of others are bad :), instead that no solution will ever be perfect.
And I think this increasingly influences public discourse, when less and less understanding and willingness to compromise is shown, to understand the other side.
Most solutions to a problem are a balance between ambition (will this actually make a difference?), legitimacy (Do the end justifies the means?) and practicability (Can we actually do this?). It is immensely difficult to find a solution that satisfies all fields, never mind answering all questions with “yes”. There are, however, ideas that are “wrong” in any regard – e.g. when answering all questions with “no”.
The way to compromise lies now in several aspects:
On the one hand, one also has to listen to their reasoning for their solution. On the other hand, one needs to share, where the other’s idea lacks. Afterwards, both should try to constructively find a (not necessary good) solution acceptable by all parties.
But most often, the discourse ends much earlier – I sometimes have the impression: Half of discussions are about semantics (the meaning of words) and the other half, because both sides are using different meaning of words (so because they didn’t discuss semantics 
).
Probably, I oversimplify here (I think if you switch the word semantics with assumptions, it would be more correct), but this shows the important second part for constructive discourse: Both sides must agree on the same language and their interpretation.
And this language is different in comprehension than in the literal expression, because only last is unambiguous. A good example is following article/ reddit post. These show a depiction of a distribution, on how people understand the qualitative words from abysemal to perfect. In this, it becomes apparent that all words aren’t rigid to a single value, but encompass several values, or even ambigously several maxima. If now the other person in a discussion has a different perception of the same words, an agreement will become immensely more difficult.
The same, one has to accept also for the truth value of some statements: Some assumptions are not entirely true, but also not entirely wrong. This is a fact captured in the concept of fuzzy logic.
But this doesn’t mean, that no one can state assertions, or that all compromise should capture imprecisely different opinions without agreeing in a final decision. On the contrary, one should use these tools to distance from clearly wrong solutions and find true solutions in a common language.