On the Art of Debate in Egypt

I write this entry here after reading this, a very amusing old debate on Socialism (In a sense, the not-so-proud father of Communism) by the two intellectual giants G. K. Chesterton & George Bernard Shaw.
At the same time, I am following another rather different debate, that between some elements of the Coptic Orthodox Church regarding "The Deification of Man".

I had to notice the sharp difference between the two methods of debate.

One main difference is how the first debate is to a great extent a dialogue, although each side takes his time with the microphone. While the second isn't a dialogue at all!
This manifests itself mainly in how the second debate doesn't follow any particular train of thought through to its conclusion; instead each party simply throws a wide variety of statements in the face of the other party, very few of which can be considered a reply to the wide variety of statements thrown at it before...

At the same time the two parties seem to try really hard to avoid saying certain things or certain words, as if they think it quite possible that at any given moment they may find themselves on the other side of the fence!
This results in a refutation that proves little & disproves nothing, & you find that in the end the arguments presented from both sides can get along pretty well.
You can just write most of them down in conclusion & none would cancel another out.

To actually debate the issue, we have to reply to questions asked,
we have to clearly define the problem,
highlight what we agree on & debate what we disagree on,
we have to illustrate using examples that are related to & follow up with examples given by the other party.
And most importantly we have to follow the same rules of Logic! There's no sense in running a math contest if the two contestants neither agree on the multiplication table, nor do they use the same numbering system!
I say this because it seems that the two debating parties don't agree on what it means for two statements to be contradicting.
Nor do they draw from the same history. One very clear example of this is how both parties are labelling each other with the same labels.
I can understand it (though won't like it, it's a cheap shot) if in some debate one debater labels the other a communist, and the other debater labels him an imperial capitalist, but it makes no sense at all for both parties to label the other "Protestant" (unfortunately yes, it is used as an accusation),
it makes no sense that to both parties, the other's theology is always labelled as "Western" (another mis-accusation), this is happening so often that maybe western theoligians should join us at the table to explain themselves!
And of course there also is the endless -and same- names of heretics being flung across that table as accusations.
This can only mean that at least one of the two parties doesn't know what Protestants confess to believe, what Western Theology is, and what the old Heresies were.
In this thicket of ignorance, how can you have a real debate?!

If we were trying to have a debate, the art of debate actually has rules.
Even if that debate is mostly political, & even if it is being conducted on the pages of newspapers & tabloids for amusement, as a replacement to gladiator arenas!