supersede the debate

today I listened to a debate from the TV show 'Big Ideas' that features on the ABC. The topic was 'Atheists are wrong' and featured 6 prominent figures in the world of philosophy religion and ethics.
It was interesting. It was also arbitrary, vague and disconnected. And to be fair to the participants, the subject did lend itself consistently. Such a topic could easily be interpreted to represent a whole myriad of ideas and arguments.
The inferential distance between the debaters, even those sharing the same side of the coin, was too far to derive any meaningful discourse between them. Rather I had to settle more upon the indulgent rhetorics as heralded in their reserved slots, and it was not even until we saw reactions from the audience, and finishing statements did we see any proper response or breakdown of ideas, and by those moments, the forum is so awash with ideas that cohesion and clarity is lost in a sea of voices and thoughts.
I do not take this diverse presentation of ideas as a negative. This at least shows progress in the wider debate, that such ideas are even broached. It shows that there is an understanding that there is a need to supersede the facade of Religious verse Atheist, that people, if they truly want to discover something of substance, must submerge below the murky obfuscations that float on the surface.
The problem is there doing it all at once, and for motives that still need clarity.

This debates need more specif-icy. We shouldn't be pitting this castles against each other, we should be comparing their foundations. Ideology spins together in a web, and must be unraveled methodically, one at a time - that is how you effect change. It is how you defeat wrong.

I hope that soon in my life I will be able to enter these conflicts more sincerely, and therein bring an approach that really brings us to a place of understanding, and place that supersedes the labels, truly finds the substance in this confused battle of ideas.