Enriching conversation versus "debate"

[Dhara]

One of the down sides of "debate" is the idea that one has to "bring someone over to their way of thinking."

We do this when we talk about religion.

What if we simply listen to others, know what we know, ask questions to clarify what another person knows and otherwise keep silent?

Ummm, That IS the nature of a "debate". If you are merely discussing things in an informational way, don't refer to it as a debate.

So, is this place debate only, or conversation and debate? I'm waxing philosophical these last couple of days.

No, it's both. You simply have to specify what your objective is from the beginning.

Ok, but it's too late isn't it? To edit the OP?

 

[Dhara]

I'm thinking of how much suffering would be saved by religious and atheist if they held to their own and didn't feel the need to win the other person over.

My post (number 5), shows you what happens when 2 people decide to have an intelligent discussion from differing belief systems, and neither one feels the need to "win" the other one over to their beliefs.

You end up learning more when you allow both sides to show what they know.

That's what I enjoy about interreligious dialogue.