While doing some work-related research, I happened to run across the following. Given the , um, "heated" dialogue that occurs from time to time, e.g. open carry or Ohio LEOs, I found it to be particularly appropriate. Just a little food for thought...

"Have you ever been one for debates? Or have you always thought discussion to be much more productive? When you debate, you talk at. When you discuss, you talk to. When you debate, you listen so you can formulate a counter-argument. When you discuss, you listen so you can understand a point of view.

In a debate, good points made by the opponent are deflected. It doesn’t matter how good they are or if they are dead right true—they have to be deflected so that the debate can drum on through.

And even outside of a formal debate, people still act as if they are trying to win one. They resort to the tactic of deflecting good points—to avoid having to listen to you so that they don’t have to bother with understanding your point of view.

With some people, no matter what you say or how you say it, they will deflect your words right off their backs. They will use the tool of deflection to invalidate you left and right and to convince themselves they are only right."

The Double-Edge of Deflection

I totally disagree with you!

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

As long as you don't deflect me, Sip

Everyone thinks I'm a master debater or something like that.

__________________
Fidelis Ad Mortem

That resonates with me. One of my pet peeves is that no one listens to anyone in political discourse, or even "scientific" discourse (e.g., climate change) nowadays. At least in the public square.

I would much rather watch or listen to a protracted, sincere discussion. Say, on TV, one hour a day for a week on, say, illegal immigrants, or the debt crisis, etc., rather than than the usual three minutes or less of two people screaming their polar opposite talking points at one another. Gimme a ******* break! That's just theater for retards who don't, or can't, think for themselves.

I woud love to hear someone say, "That's a good point you make there." I would regard that comment as a sign of intellectual maturity, of a thinking person worthy of respect.

Political discourse, especially, today is like watching a foodfight between junior high brats. And non-political discourse where the speakers won't acknowledge, one whit,the legitimacy of opposing views is just puerile.

I believe in civility, in the willingness to consider opposing points of view, and in the flexibility to change one's own point of view based on discussion.

You Sir are out of order.

Robert's Rules of Order Online - Debate - Art. VII

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

It seems to me (without following the link) that this is a rather slanted definition, slanted quite strongly toward discussion as opposed to debate.

In at least some cases, there is little room for discussion. There is, at least in my view, little room for middle ground concerning some subjects.. As an example I see little room for discussion about my right to self-defense.

An example is occurring in DC at this time over whether to cut spending or raise taxes.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

As a trial lawyer, you "debate" all the time. You have to remember you are not talking to the other debater, rather you are talking to an audience-which happens to be a jury.

If the defense attorney claims I have not proven my criminal case against his client, and points out the flaws of my case (virtually all cases have flaws of some sort), I can't simply respond that "Yes, I have proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt!" or I will be in a lot of trouble with the jury.

You have to acknowledge good points, then point out why your position either overcomes them or show that they are really no big deal. In a criminal case, these points can be a lack of fingerprints, dna or eye witnesses. A prosecutor learns to deal with such problems fairly quickly in his career, or he finds another forum to practice law.

In the TV debates, like on Fox News (I really only watch Fox for national news as I get so mad at CNN, etc. that I yell at the TV), the "debaters" seem often to forget they are talking to and trying to persuade the audience and focus, instead, on demeaning or beating down their opponent.

Now in personal conversations, I find that I have said some of the same things as in the article, but not to deflect anything, rather to express my belief that the other person is overreacting or has misunderstood me. I may also go on to explain better what I meant since it may be my fault that the person misunderstood my words or my intent.

Of course, if you're just having some fun with or jerking some jerk around, then anything goes .

Bob

You don't want to get me started. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

i don't care for forum debates. They are too much like arguing to suit my taste. i do like to have discussions as long as they don't turn nasty.

Oh yea?????? Well ---- you
Ron White school of debate.
Or as so often times I've wanted to say in response to the prosecutor's argument "Everything he just said is Bravo Sierra."

__________________
Forum consigliere