On human interaction and the "Fried Dough Flamefest"

On one of the other Blogs that I read, another reader had maligned me with an accusation that I had voted for Bush and was of low intelligence, because I am a middle class, doughnut eater. I felt an obligation to defend my honor as an intelligent, Kerry supporting, middle class, doughnut eater (with more humor than malice). But, one of the moderators saw fit to chastise the four of us who participated in what will be henceforth referred to as the "Fried Dough Flamefest" in a follow-up post.

The reason I told you all of this is because I have no idea who Mira Furth is other than she commented on my chastising with the following comment:

What if we look at conflict, debate and dialogue as a continuum. Conflict is: "I am right and you are wrong and it is important that I prove it to you". Debate is "while I believe I am right, I might listen to your logic, as an intellectual exercise". Dialogue is "I am willing (at least for a short time) to suspend my opinion and truly hear you, hear where you are coming from;I am willing to listened to you with my mind and heart and am willing to hear your mind and heart". As much as I know the value of a true dialogue,the more convinced I am of my rightness the less I am willing to be open to a different point of view (i.e. a different slice of reality...). Mira Furth

(The only part of this quote that I have issue with is that the word argument should be used in place of conflict.)

So often, the church has conducted our apologetics at the level of a conflict/argument, or at the level of a debate for the more academically minded among us. What if we approached those that we wish to convince in the spirit of dialogue? Could we be more effective in our evangelistic efforts? I think we could.

What do you think?