What is the difference between dialogue and debate?

I found this information on the Internet. 

What is the difference between dialogue and debate?

• Dialogue is collaborative: multiple sides work toward shared understanding.
  Debate is oppositional: two opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.
• In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning, and to find common ground.
  In debate, one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments.
• Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant’s point of view.
  Debate defends assumptions as truth.
• Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.
  Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.
• In dialogue, one submits one’s best thinking, expecting that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it.
  In debate, one submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.
• Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs.
  Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.
• In dialogue, one searches for strengths in all positions.
  In debate, one searches for weaknesses in the other position.
• Dialogue respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend.
  Debate rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or deprecate other participants.
• Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to a greater understanding.
  Debate assumes a single right answer that somebody already has.
• Dialogue remains open-ended.
  Debate demands a conclusion.

Dialogue is characterized by:

• suspending judgment
• examining our own work without defensiveness
• exposing our reasoning and looking for limits to it
• communicating our underlying assumptions
• exploring viewpoints more broadly and deeply
• being open to dis-confirming data
• approaching someone who sees a problem differently not as an adversary, but as a colleague in common pursuit of better solutions. “

I want to excel at this and draw folks into the joy of dialog.

Communication is so important; it helps us in the creation of what steps to take in moving forward.
More on Dialogue and Debate:

• 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.

• In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal.
  • In debate, winning is the goal.

• In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find agreement.
  • In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.

• Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participants point of view.
  • Debate affirms a participant's own point of view.

• Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation.
  • Debate defends assumptions as truth.

• Dialogue causes introspection on ones own position.
  • Debate causes critique of the other position.

• Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions.
  • Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions.

• Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.
  • Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.

• In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it.
  • In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

• Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs.
  • Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.

• In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements.
  • In debate, one searches for glaring differences.

• In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other positions.
  • In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position.

• Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.
  • Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.

• Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution.
  • Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it.

• Dialogue remains open-ended.
  • Debate implies a conclusion.
  
  
  The Argument Culture (from the author)
  Moving From Debate to Dialogue
  
  By Deborah Tannen
  
  
  From Chapter One
  Fighting for Our Lives
  This book is about a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight. It is a tendency in Western culture in general, and in the United States in particular, that has a long history and a deep, thick, and far-ranging root system. It has served us well in many ways but in recent years has become so exaggerated that it is getting in the way of solving our problems.

Our spirits are corroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention -- an argument culture.

• The argument culture urges us to approach the world -- and the people in it -- in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done: The best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as "both sides"; the best way to settle disputes is litigation that pits one party against the other; the best way to begin an essay is to attack someone; and the best way to show you're really thinking is to criticize.
   
• Our public interactions have become more and more like having an argument with a spouse. Conflict can't be avoided in our public lives any more than we can avoid conflict with people we love. One of the great strengths of our society is that we can express these conflicts openly. But just as spouses have to learn ways of settling their differences without inflicting real damage on each other, so we, as a society, have to find constructive ways of resolving disputes and differences. Public discourse requires making an argument for a point of view, not having an argument -- as in having a fight.

• The war on drugs, the war on cancer, the battle of the sexes, politicians' turf battles -- in the argument culture, war metaphors pervade our talk and shape our thinking. Nearly everything is framed as a battle or game in which winning or losing is the main concern. These all have their uses and their place, but they are not the only way -- and often not the best way -- to understand and approach our world. Conflict and opposition are as necessary as cooperation and agreement, but the scale is off balance, with conflict and opposition overweighted. In this book, I show how deeply entrenched the argument culture is, the forms it takes, and how it affects us every day -- sometimes in useful ways, but often creating more problems than it solves, causing rather than avoiding damage. As a sociolinguist, a social scientist, I am trained to observe and explain language and its role in human relations, and that is my biggest job here. But I will also point toward other ways for us to talk to each other and get things done in our public lives.
   
• The Battle of the Sexes
  
  My interest in the topic of opposition in public discourse intensified in the years following the publication of You Just Don't Understand, my book about communication between women and men. In the first year I appeared on many television and radio shows and was interviewed for many print articles in newspapers and magazines. For the most part, that coverage was extremely fair, and I was -- and remain -- indebted to the many journalists who found my ideas interesting enough to make them known to viewers, listeners, and readers. But from time to time -- more often than I expected -- I encountered producers who insisted on setting up a television show as a fight (either between the host and me or between another guest and me) and print journalists who made multiple phone calls to my colleagues, trying to find someone who would criticize my work. This got me thinking about what kind of information comes across on shows and in articles that take this approach, compared to those that approach topics in other ways.

•  At the same time, my experience of the academic world that had long been my intellectual home began to change. For the most part, other scholars, like most journalists, were welcoming and respectful in their responses to my work, even if they disagreed on specific points or had alternative views to suggest. But about a year after You Just Don't Understand became a best-seller -- the wheels of academia grind more slowly than those of the popular press -- I began reading attacks on my work that completely misrepresented it. I had been in academia for over fifteen years by then, and had valued my interaction with other researchers as one of the greatest rewards of academic life. Why, I wondered, would someone represent me as having said things I had never said or as having failed to say things I had said?The answer crystallized when I put the question to a writer who I felt had misrepresented my work: "Why do you need to make others wrong for you to be right?" Her response: "It's an argument!" Aha, I thought, that explains it. When you're having an argument with someone, your goal is not to listen and understand. Instead, you use every tactic you can think of -- including distorting what your opponent just said -- in order to win the argument.