I find it interesting that Sherry and Lessig took opposite positions on the subject of persuasion (and actually, the purpose of dialogue):
Participants goals should NOT be to try to influence or change their neighbor’s mind. The goal is to listen to understand and to speak to be understood.
But democracy is the practice of learning to live with — and persuade — people who are different from you, with decency and respect, and without the threat of force.
In an ideal world, the point would be to let the better argument win. So you’d come prepared to persuade others of your opinion, hopefully rooted in both fact and empathy, as well as to listen and be persuaded.
(Of course, there’s value in exploring a multifaceted issue without reaching a yes/no consensus, but that’s a different activity than politics. In the impeachment example, and in politics in general, the dialogue is distilled to a simple binary. You win the election or you lose. The bill passes or it doesn’t. You impeach or you don’t. )