I was listening to a very interesting radio show about democracy. In it an icelandic philosopher came up with the difference between two words, "kappræða" and "rökræða". These two words have the same english meaning as I can tell, and that is "debate". But he made the distinction that "kappræða" was when two opposite sides met and discussed about one matter but they each had a side to defend and were not there to compromise on the matters but to get others to see their point of view as opposed to "rökræða" which means that two sides meet and discuss until they have digested the problem and perhaps found a compromising solution to it. This distinction I find interesting, where the former meaning is what politicians usually participate in and the latter is what I would call the sensible man participates in. The former has its merits, as for instance when candidates to a post meet and try to persuade the voters to vote for them. Then they have to get their points of view forth and let people know what they stand for and what they see is wrong with the opponents view, but we have to then take this "debate" as it is, as "kappræða", not "rökræða".
I find myself taking this "kappræða" point of view way to often, unfortunately (and I know people that do it to :-) ), have to try to stay out of that, it doesn't lead to anything when you don't have any audience to persuade :-)