Debate:Should it be Dialogue

Looking at recent changes I noticed "Debate:What are the limits of "free speech" on Rationalwiki?‎". It appears that there are many such "Debates" on RW, where the main object is not to take sides, but to clarify a position. This falls more under the heading of "Dialogue". I came upon this website which puts my point in better words than I could. The first point shows what I mean: Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.

Opinions? 06:20, 27 November 2008 (EST)


 * It's a little of both, but there is definitely a heavy debate/disagreement aspect to it. The title alone is a debate topic since it poses an open question regarding our attitudes to free speech on RW.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 06:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)
 * I think it's just semantics really. The space marked "Debate" is good for both. Often a debate can be collaborative, if two sides want to get to know each other's ideas and bash out something that is closer to the truth and reality. Such is the case when we're "debating" how RW should be run, people will start with different ideas but as they're all presented candidly, tested and discussed, minds will change and we'll (should) get to a consensus at the end. Even though it's confrontational at the start, it can evolve into what you would described as collaborative dialogue.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 08:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)

If RW didn't already have so many dialogs, such that people might complain if someone wanted to change how the site is organized, I would say that it would be better to just have essays and let people comment on the talk pages. That would serve mostly the same purpose. BattleDeath (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)