Theists vs atheists: futile confrontations

I don't believe the intensity on a certain matter of debate can be effectively reduced because debate is initially sparked by people caring too much about their own ideologies as opposed to people who care equally about their own ideologies that contradict the former's.

In the matter of confrontations between theists and athiest, intensity is almost inevitable, but that doesn't have to be necessarily avoided since it's more important to reach common grounds through debate than to economize the collateral damage. People who take part in such debates do it out of a sort of paternal though uncatered care towards saving the other's soul or maybe reforming their brainwashed train of thought, according to their respective opinions on the matter. A debate is more likely to water both down to socially acceptable levels than reach a conclusion, which is, in essence, a good thing. Not to mention the fact that people who are inclined towards debating the subject are logically less likely to force the other person to commit to their ideologies by a form of coercion, so it could be argued that a debate would be the only possible method of reducing the intensity caused by sectarian tension; the more people are likely to talk about something, the less likely they are to wage war over it, since the differences are already set in light and not propagating in secret societies. It is an accepted fact by both factions that the other exists and talking about it would take that kind of relationship to a more stable level, rendering them grounds of clarity and putting a damper on things. A person is more likely to tolerably coexist with another if both of their stances and motives are out in the open than settling on a strained form of coexistence that could be tampered with in occasional paranoia or, on a more extreme level, even a sense of self protection from what seems to be 'unknown ulterior motives.'