If anything "debate" is something private school kids and self-proclaimed "intellectuals" do to grandstand.
Dialectics, or trying to reach a better and more insightful conclusion through collaboration and understanding, is far more productive.
Essentially, be interested and pose non-confrontational questions regarding the other person’s belief. Don’t argue for your point, have them explain theirs. If you ever reach a moment where the other person says “good question, I hadn’t thought of that”, stop the conversation. Let them mull it over in their own time, your job is done. You may or may not pick up the conversation another day, and either is OK.
Teach someone else this skill and you’ll have conversations where both parties are striving to understand each other instead of pushing their own agenda.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_episte...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ
What you rapidly realize when applying this (as GP alludes to) is that most people simply aren't interested in the protracted examination of an idea. The challenge is to find people who are have interesting thoughts and the patience to work through it in depth.
If I go to argue against someone that the earth is indeed not flat i don't think I'd be inclined to compromise that position.
Therefore when you operationalize this type of thinking, you end up holding many more foolish beliefs that you are very certain of than whatever time/purity you save by "not compromising". Thus it's an unhealthy attitude to maintain.
And a good example of why this is true is the cartoonish style examples that have to be resurrected -- like the earth being flat -- in order to provide a single meaningful example. The moment you get into any issue of real import, things become real murky real fast, and it's not hard at all for anyone to find someone much wiser and smarter than them on the other side of the issue.
Also because I defend a position does not mean that I would do so ad infinitum, I can relinquish my position if your counter argument is stronger.
Obviously if we can't actually act like adults then none of these approaches will work, we'll either become violent or in the counter approach so compromised that are collective position may reflect absolute nonsense.
I don't think people go into debate to changing their "opponent"'s opinion. Debates are usually public, I think the point is to change (or form) the audience's opinion
So you're saying we should start sentences with "So you're saying..."?
I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion.
Instead, I try to focus on understanding the other person's point of view as thoroughly as possible. I found that backtracking until the last point on which you both agree and then moving from there seems to be the most efficient. Whenever you disagree on something, make sure you're all making the same assumptions.
One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. If not, they'll elaborate. You won't even have to ask. If it was right, try to formulate your misunderstanding as a question instead of an affirmation.
For example:
"I understand that you feel y. Considering x (the point you both agreed on), what do you think of z (what you believe follows from x)?"