Debating and deliberating are not the same, even if they sometimes look alike from the outside.
Debate can be useful. It forces us to formulate arguments, makes disagreements visible, and lets an idea be tested by criticism. The problem appears when its competitive logic becomes the goal: to win, to leave the other person with no reply, to defend one's position at any cost.
Deliberation starts from another intention. It does not ask anyone to abandon their convictions from the outset. It seeks to understand a problem well enough to decide what to do. That is why it calls for listening, asking questions, acknowledging uncertainty, revisiting premises, and accepting that a valid objection remains valid even when it comes from someone we almost always disagree with.
In a debate we can come out victorious and have learned nothing. In a deliberation we can change part of our position and have moved forward.
This matters especially when the conversation has consequences. A family, professional, political or community decision does not improve because one person has shown they argue better. It improves if the process lets us see more of reality, weigh the costs better, and choose a reasonable course of action.
Deliberating does not mean seeking consensus at any price either. Sometimes, after listening and weighing things up, disagreement remains. The difference is that we have tried to understand before deciding, and we have not turned the other person into an obstacle to be defeated.
Perhaps we need fewer conversations designed to prove who is right, and more conversations aimed at discovering what is worth doing.