I think that your aim is laudable but I disagree with the method.
Our aim should be to provide good information through our own channels. This is beneficial for a number of reasons but here’s a couple:
Arguing on the Internet has a really poor success rate - that is to say, people rarely change their minds.
If we lower ourselves to the standard of debate on a lot of the internet, people often can’t tell who’s got it right, who’s got authority. Or to put it another way: don’t argue with idiots, people might not be able to tell the difference. Also, some people are just excellent at arguing, even when they’ve got all the facts wrong. Being good at arguing shouldn’t be the most important part of our campaign.
If we provide the information, we can make sure its accurate and can be viewed by many. This is more efficient than individuals all spending time trying to argue with someone who isn’t going to change their mind, with the bonus that the argument might make us look bad in someone’s eyes.
Concern yourself with what we can do, not with what other people are doing.