Sometimes, yes, but this does not explain many debates about (American) politics - where there's often a lot of heat and very little light, and no real attempt to convince the other side.
I wonder how they really do it. I've seen a lot of paper near politicians; perhaps they have the time and focus the audiences don't.
Perhaps you can explain this to me. E.g. the whole healthcare discussion seems to be "interesting" to both sides, but I've seen very few civil and sensible discussions. Is the debate so divorced from reality that either side has its own facts? (I know the Republican fanatics believe really stupid things, and I presume the Democrat fanatics are no better; but these are not the majority, right? Just loud.)
Trying to convince the other side is often a dumb idea.
The goal is to get to 50%+1 (or whatever the threshold is). It's easier to get there by adding "the middle" to your base than it is to add "the other side" to your base.
This is why pols ignore the wishes of reliable supporters or opponents as much as they can.
Obama's presidency suggests that consensus is not as valuable as one might hope, but I've had quite constructive arguments with people from different political backgrounds here in the Netherlands - which did not end with either side being convinced, but did end up with both sides (or at least me) smarter than before.
There might be "value", but at what cost?
> I've had quite constructive arguments with people from different political backgrounds here in the Netherlands - which did not end with either side being convinced, but did end up with both sides (or at least me) smarter than before.
That's nice, but what political power did you gain as a result?
Remember, we're talking about what effective politicians do.
In other news, pundits are evaluated on how many newspapers they sell, not on their accuracy. Readers are free to decide to buy, or not, for any reason, such as hair color. (Readers could use accuracy as part of their buying decision, but don't seem to.)
Giggle.