Using hyperbole in a discussion about politics will almost always get you in trouble. To be safe from this, you basically have to talk about your political views with all the detached clinical nuance of a biologist "sacrificing" lab mice to biopsy them. (That was hyperbole too, and I fully expect to get in trouble for it.)

My personal ideal for "well-done political debate" is comes from economists: they can quickly distinguish between facts, speculation about facts, and value judgements, and then engage with the first two while steering clear of the third. (It does make for some silly interviews, though: journalists basically only care about people's value-judgements, and economists will redirect every attempt at getting theirs into a discussion about some fact or another.)