A historical diversion is needed to understand the debate. The debate originated in Greek Socratic conversations. Dialogues foster sharing and education. Mediaeval conversation became disputatio.
Two opposing ideas are discussed to resolve a conflict. After deliberation, the master chooses. Montaigne deems "the art of conferring"—comparing and discussing two texts—a Renaissance invention.
The philosopher says he talks to be pushed and questioned. In the 17th century, discussions were chats in the living room. Debating is fun despite the prescribed exchanges. Nowadays, debates are conducted on TV or in other media to evoke passion and grab attention. The show evokes basic emotions. However, democracy requires sophisticated discourse.
Television political debates do not include persuasion. Doubt and listening make this debate fascinating. Nuance is added to debates when participants evolve on particular topics. Two conflict kinds exist. One is frontal. Being honest and admitting “you're wrong” or “your reasoning is stupid”
The second resembles Asian fighting. Listen to your opponent, assess his energy, and step back when he spends too much, which is often in discussions when we offer insane energy for little. His energy causes him to fall alone.
Nuance in painting is changing shades. It lets you switch chords in music and achieve harmony. Most people assume nuance means not having an opinion and playing with words, but it's actually playing between words. It adds play to the debate like a stuck lock. To find space.
I host debates and realise that citizens participate like on TV. They address their conversation partner: “you who said that…”. It's sad because it reduces the speaker to their few words. Creating an enemy through essentialization is common in debates.
Being informative makes a debate qualitative. Everyone preserves their views otherwise. Having an opinion usually involves repeating what others have said. External sources often manufacture it.
You mention radicalism and provocative utterances in your book as threats to nuance. In a fact-based debate, you think removing emotion is best. Is argument harmed by emotion?
When recounting our past, emotions can enter a discussion. Testimony can change the conversation. Strong emotion is a powerful lever. Nothing else is needed. Emotion is dangerous because it locks you into a position and character that is hard to escape. Hatred or impatience contribute nothing.
As Socrates did, asking questions prevents emergency confrontations. I call this slow-talk. We regain argument time by asking, "Why do you say that?" Why ask me? ". The debate need not end quickly. Taking time to read larger articles is also slow media.
Good debates start with curiosity and listening. You must also distrust your opponent: "Is what he is saying understandable?", "Can you tell me your sources?"
A productive argument requires tolerance. Though difficult, we must eliminate bias. We can be annoyed by extremism and arrogance, but we must contain ourselves.
Tolerance means respecting others' intellectual approaches. He's pompous and calls everyone stupid. To avoid becoming one, attempt to comprehend your opponent's thinking. You get that from activity.