Debate vs. dialogue: Is the consensus model of dialogue faulty (yes) or ideal (no)?

  • Yes, it does not result in decision.

    Yes, the consensus model of dialogue is faulty, because it does not result in a coherent decision. With the consensus model, people do not often agree on anything that results in action. The United Nations is a good example of this. The groups talk for a long period of time, but do not actually get anything done or make any progress.

  • Dialogue allows a bit too much fluff.

    If we're trying to get to the bottom of whether an argument is true or better, it's important to have a debate format. Dialogue tends to just turn into people going into long-winded explanations of what they believe that continue even if their premise is false, whereas a good debate stops someone in their tracks the instant they start on a false premise and says "That premise is false so I have to stop you there".

  • Every form of dialogue has it's strengths and weaknesses.

    American politics is just one example of the depth and scope of human interaction; metaphors to describe such a dynamic can range from the bar fight, where anything goes, to a great ocean with huge waves at the surface, and something entirely new and different bubbling up from the bottom...I have no answer for such a question!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.