Separating argument style and conclusions
I'd like to see an end to the ongoing trend where, to be specific, IRV proponents make false claims, critics point it out, and then the conversation devolves into STAR vs IRV or all the merits/downsides/issues etc.
To segregate the debate: the whole issue is that IRV proponents need to stop making one specific false claim: that your next choice counts if your favorite is eliminated (because that only happens in some cases for some voters and can fail to happen commonly under a wide range of scenarios for some voters).
If I said "eating lots of fruits and vegetables will get you hired for your dream job", it would be right to reject my claim. But the wrongness of my claim doesn't mean we should reject the idea of eating fruits and vegetables. If discussing my claim always turned into long debates about diet, we'd never get anywhere, and people would feel exhausted, frustrated, and it would turn off a lot of interested people.
How do we consistently, reliably, without tangents, get rid of the one false claim about IRV?
I think we do that by constantly refusing to get sucked into all the rest of any debate. We must only reiterate that whether IRV is great or not, it needs to be sold truthfully. The same applies to all reforms of any topic.
We can have whatever sorts of debates later once we're talking about a truthful representation of various reforms.