Socratic Seminars are a highly motivating form of intellectual and scholarly discourse conducted in K-12 classrooms. They usually range from 30-50 minutes--longer if time allows--once a week.

Socratic Seminars grew out of the early work of Mortimer Adler and the Great Books program. The National Paideia Center continues today to promote socratic discussions in the form of Paideia seminars. The Touchstones Discussion Project has similar roots and is a leader in the production of outstanding texts for Socratic Seminars. For a clear description of the significant similarities and only minor differences of these techniques, please see Paideia, Socratic Seminars, and Touchstones Discussion published by the Touchstones Discussion Project. 

An effective Socratic Seminar creates dialogue as opposed to debate. Dialogue creates "better conversation." As William Issacs states in Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, dialogue is a conversation in which people (students) think together in relationship. Thinking together implies that you no longer take your own position as final. You relax your grip on certainty and listen to the possibilities that result simply from being in a relationship with others---possibilities that might not otherwise have occurred." 

The practice of Socratic Seminars teaches students to recognize the differences between dialogue and debate and to strive to increase the qualities of dialogue and reduce the qualities of debate in each Socratic Seminar. Some of the most significant differences between dialogue and debate are presented below.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

• Dialogue is collaborative: multiple sides work toward shared understanding.
  Debate is oppositional: two opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.
• In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning, and to find common ground.
  In debate, one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments.
• Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view.
  Debate affirms a participant's point of view.
• Dialogue reveals assumptions for examination and reevaluation.
  Debate defends assumptions as truth.
• Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.
  Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right.
• In dialogue, one submits one's best thinking, expecting that other people's  reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it.
  In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.
• Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs.
  Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.
• In dialogue, one searches for strengths in all positions.
  In debate, one searches for weaknesses in the other position.
• Dialogue respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend.
  Debate rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or deprecate other participants.
• Dialogue assumes that many people have  pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to a greater understanding.
  Debate assumes a single right answer that somebody already has.
• Dialogue remains open-ended.
  Debate demands a conclusion.