> it seems simple to solve politics This is an interestingly naive take on the issue. I think maybe you need to look into the concept of Realpolitik - https:/

> it seems simple to solve politics This is an interestingly naive take on the issue. I think maybe you need to look into the concept of Realpolitik - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik . Basically, it may be the case that the "points" I offer as justification or rationale for what I am doing have absolutely nothing to do with why I'm really doing something, and you may never get enough information to know why that is. Your suggestion is basically saying something like a Hegelian dialectic could work to produce consensus given enough time, but it breaks down for a number of reasons: 1. There isn't always necessarily some guarantee of compromise. There are positions which simply cannot overlap or bend - for example, if I think everyone should be allowed to live in some area, and you think only one group should be allowed to live there, it's going to be mighty hard to come to some arrangement that works, even with all the logical responses and open dialogue in the world. 2. There's a requirement of true, academic-grade scientific honesty in your method. Any time that's required, someone can simply game it by being disingenuous in a creative enough manner. It's going to be virtually impossible to know when that's happening, though game theory could give some insights into whether lying is a good strategy or not based on the particular circumstances. 3. What happens when your dialogue starts to get into subjects that are taboo / problematic / etc? You may have people that disagree with the exact history of what has happened with regard to wars and other events in the past, and draw their conclusions and positions from that history. Determining what actually happened isn't always possible, and neither is simply telling people to accept a different version of events from what they've been told even if you do have compelling evidence on your side (or can prove the other side simply doesn't have any evidence for their position). Still, it is the realpolitik that is the strongest reason why this cannot work. I could spend all day having pleasant dialogue with you about something, but if at the end of the day my personal interests are controlled upstream by someone paying me, blackmailing me, etc. or if I simply have a power lust, there's no reason why my actions will necessarily line up with my purported ideology or public positions on issues.