> Then debate occurs and some people might change their minds, but either way both sides growing in the process. I'm not sure this is what would happen. What's

> Then debate occurs and some people might change their minds, but either way both sides growing in the process. I'm not sure this is what would happen. What's the line between debate and propaganda? What if one opinion benefits the speaker, then it's not even about learning, or changing your opinion. I might very well know that what I'm saying is not the optimal solution, or might even be counter productive to the debated goal, yet if it benefits me, I can continue to furiously argue and convince everyone I can, without a chance for anyone to change my mind, unless somehow, changing my mind would start to benefit me more. I've learned in my personal life that it is worthless to engage a debate with someone who is not receptive and open minded. If the people involved value something else then the debated outcome, they have hidden agendas, and no debate can happen, all of it becomes a manipulative scheme, and a big waste of time to the people actually looking to have a debate. If I ran a University, I'd be ashamed to allow speakers who carry hidden agendas, and are not motivated by the true outcome of the debate to come speak at my school. That to me, is the line between debate and propaganda.