Comment by hdjjhhvvhga

While I agree, in my experience it's very difficult to find people you describe, and once you do, you won't really have a long and interesting debate you might have hoped for.

First, you start by agreeing on the axioms which is necessary to even think about a meaningful discussion. Already at that stage you can discover you have different set of axioms (e.g. one party has an utilitarian world-view and the the one doesn't). The subject of the discussion is secondary, because it all boils down to your set of values. You can discover it by having several discussions with the same people: you will quickly realize you get stuck on the same fundamental issue (e.g. the value of life having precedence over one's personal choices).

Note that the axioms might not seem that obvious and you might discover them only in the last stages of discussion, when one party says, "Of course X" and the other party responds, "Of course not!" Especially all kinds of discussions between the so called religious and non-religious people are completely useless as the axioms in both cases are usually very different.

So in my opinion discussions should be not so much about convincing someone (as this is hardly possible as it's related to one's beliefs, not facts) but about how to coexist in the optimal, most harmonious way while having different - and sometimes conflicting - views.