1. Is it possible to avoid any form of logical fallacy in debate? — Incoherence

Maybe if you're really careful. Probably not. Talking about informal fallacies, here.

2. How someone should debate if he/she want to win a debate?

Depends on the audience and arena.

3. How could I learn to build good argument in regular debate?

"Good", as in, convincing? There are various books on the market on how to communicate effectively. Basically that, and practice.

and how it differ from philosophical debate?

The same way any debate within a technical sphere differs from one in the private sphere. Debates within a technical sphere have their own specific patterns of inference and appraisal. This extra structure isn't present in debates held within the private sphere.

I hope what one looks for here is discussion not debate.
The difference being in debate the goal seems to be winning or scoring points and in discussion the point would be understanding other points of view and the people that hold them.

I hope what one looks for here is discussion not debate.
The difference being in debate the goal seems to be winning or scoring points and in discussion the point would be understanding other points of view and the people that hold them.

Thanks for your input.
Most of philosophers that I know IRL is actually speaking things in what you defined as discussion, just like in some philosophical forum.

3. How could I learn to build good argument in regular debate? and how it differ from philosophical debate? — Incoherence

If serious, Rhetoric & Poetics, Aristotle. A modern "retelling" is Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student.

In the process you will start to learn the distinction between sophistry and rhetoric.

If you're not serious,and are a student, the section on the topics will be helpful in writing papers - and for thinking in general.

2. How someone should debate if he/she want to win a debate? — Incoherence

Attack your opponent's position from within their own world view.

As example, if you wanted to challenge atheism you should do so by asking for evidence to support this position, not by quoting holy book verses.

As example, if you wanted to challenge Catholicism, you might start by referencing the Catholic belief that God is ever present in all times and places, a doctrine which suggests there is no need to be "saved" given that, according to Catholic doctrine, there is no place one can be but with God.

Don't attack from the outside, uncover the contradictions within the other sides position. Attack from inside the tent.