The Four Types of Conversations:

Debate, Dialogue, Discourse, and

Diatribe
 The Four Types of Conversations

When talking with someone, it is helpful to know what type of

conversation you are in. You can do so based on a conversation’s
direction of communication (a one-way or two-way street) and its
tone/purpose (competitive or cooperative).

If you are in a one-way conversation, you are talking at someone,

rather than with someone. If you are in a two-way conversation,
participants are both listening and talking. In a competitive
conversation, people are more concerned about their own
perspective, whereas in a cooperative conversation participants
are interested in the perspective of everyone involved.

Based on direction and tone, I grouped conversations into four

types: debate, dialogue, discourse, and diatribe.

 Debate is a competitive, two-way conversation. The goal is

to win an argument or convince someone, such as the other
participant or third-party observers.

 Dialogue is a cooperative, two-way conversation. The goal is

for participants to exchange information and build
relationships with one another.

 Discourse is a cooperative, one-way conversation. The goal

to deliver information from the speaker/writer to the
listeners/readers.

 Diatribe is a competitive, one-way conversation. The goal is

to express emotions, browbeat those that disagree with you,
and/or inspires those that share the same perspective.
To highlight the differences between these types of conversations,
let’s use politics as an example:

 Debate: two family members from opposite sides of the

political spectrum arguing over politics.

 Dialogue: two undecided voters talking to each other about

the candidates, trying to figure out who they want to vote for.

 Discourse: a professor giving a lecture on international

affairs.

 Diatribe: a disgruntled voter venting about the election’s

outcome.

It is important to know which type of conversation you are in,

because that determines the purpose of that conversation. If you
can identify the purpose, you can better speak to the heart of that
conversation. But, if you misidentify the conversation you are in,
you can fall into conversational pitfalls.

Here are a few examples of conversational pitfalls I’ve written

about:

 “Talking At, Not With: The Problem of Disconnected

Conversations” — sometimes your dialogue might actually be
two separate discourses (or diatribes) instead; will you
recognize that in time?

 “When Arguing Over Value Issues, Sometimes Facts and

Truth Don’t Matter” — sometimes people just want to diatribe;
what can you do when that happens, especially when you want
to have a dialogue or debate?
If someone appears to be in a conversational pitfall, you can help
them climb back out. Regardless of how one climbs back out, the
solution always starts with identifying which hole you are in. You
must first know the problem before you can find the solution. And,
sometimes, just identifying the pitfall itself is enough to draw
attention to the problem and correct the conversation.

Parting Thoughts
When you are in a conversation, take a moment to think about
which conversation you are actually in. Each of the types of
conversation are meaningless on their own; you give them
meaning in their use. And, ultimately, it is up to you to decide
what type of conversation you want to be part of.

While this article is a discourse (I’ve been writing, you’ve been

reading) it doesn’t have to remain that way. Feel free
to like, comment, or share before you leave. For more, check
out davidwangel.com.