Ever since the release of the film in 2016, Marvel fans have been having the Captain America: Civil War debate. Who is more in the right, Captain America or Iron Man? Having fans choose sides was a successful form of marketing for Marvel when the film came out, but it spawned a conversation that people are still discussing even to this day. Social media, specifically TikTok where the MCU fandom has only grown with the release of the Disney Plus shows, encourages a lot of this discussion and is a good way to get people heated enough to choose a side (something about social media just makes people really keen to yell at each other over things that ultimately don't matter).
However, pretending that this issue is black and white would be reductive, and would go against the entire point of the movie. The entire point of Civil War is that the argument isn't as simple as one person being right or wrong, but that both Steve and Tony are right and wrong in different ways. Most people are going to have a side they agree with more, because that's just how opinions work, but it's important to recognize that both sides of the Civil War argument have their points.
The main issue this argument revolves around is whether or not the Avengers should sign the Sokovia Accords, which would give the government control over when and where superheroes can act. Tony believes that they should, because they have caused destruction and death to innocent bystanders in the past, and he thinks that means the Avengers need to be kept in check by a governing body. Steve, on the other hand, thinks that giving the government that sort of control will just limit their ability to help people, and will lead to a lot of bureaucratic influence that will stop the Avengers from being able to respond to big threats, thereby leading to even more people getting hurt.
The MCU itself has mostly moved on from this specific debate, mostly because Cap and Tony are both out of the picture now (although the lingering effects of the Accords might still present problems in the future of the MCU), but it seems that some fans are unwilling to let the debate go. There are merits to what both Steve and Tony are arguing, and it's much more interesting to view the discussion in that light, rather than just declaring one person's view to be the ultimate truth.
Tony's argument has merit because he's right, the Avengers have caused a lot of destruction in order to stop threats. The Avengers shows them plowing the chitauri ships straight through buildings, and though it's never shown on screen, it's safe to assume that a lot of people might have gotten hurt or even died because of damage like this. The fight with Ultron in Sokovia is one of the impetuses for the Accords, and is another prime example of innocents getting hurt in a superhero fight (Zemo's family dying in the conflict is proof of that, as is the woman who visits Tony at the beginning of Civil War to tell him her son died in Sokovia). Even the opening of Civil War shows Wanda accidentally blowing up the side of a building in an attempt to carry Rumlow's explosion away from the crowd. The Avengers often cause damage to the places around them in an attempt to stop whatever baddies have invaded at the time.
However, Steve's side has a rebuttal to this: yes, innocents may have gotten hurt in these conflicts, but a lot more lives would have been lost if the Avengers hadn't intervened at all. Using Wanda's actions as an example, she may have accidentally hit a building, but if she hadn't diverted the explosion at all, a lot more people would have been hurt, because that crowd on the street was so large.
With the Accords in place, the Avengers would be beholden to the government, and because of past damage, the UN might decide to not let the Avengers fight a future conflict. If the conflict is big enough (or cosmic enough), this could lead to the government being in over their heads, and a lot of civilians getting hurt or killed. The UN having this kind of hold on a group of superheroes means that they decide which conflicts are worth having superheroes intervene in, and Steve doesn't believe that they should be able to make that call.
The whole point of the movie is that both of these positions are correct in their own ways. The Avengers have caused unnecessary damage in the past, and perhaps need to focus on making sure that doesn't happen in the future, but letting governmental bodies decide when and where the Avengers can intervene is going to cause a whole slew of new problems. Of course, there were other elements to the conflict, such as the issue of Bucky Barnes, but the Accords are the main source of contention amongst the Avengers.
The film doesn't necessarily present Tony as an antagonist, but more as someone who means well but is ultimately wrong in Steve's eyes (and as a Captain America film, the movie is somewhat from Steve's perspective), or is at least going about things in the wrong way. Peter Parker - who is recruited to Team Iron Man without perhaps knowing the full argument - even says, "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you", which is a very Team Cap-aligned opinion (as well as an interesting take on the classic "With great power comes great responsibility" line).
It's interesting to look at this movie in this way, and to see the merits of both arguments, rather than trying to argue that one side is the ultimate right and the other is the ultimate wrong. Obviously, Captain America: Compromise isn't as compelling of a title or premise, but it would really be interesting to see Marvel explore more morally grey areas like this, and perhaps stray away from the very strict lines between good and evil.