apparently, sexual relations...

...with a slave is permissable in a certain religion. that is, if a certain gentleman is to be believed.

a three-hour and a week long debate ensued. although the outcome of the debate is not very important but purely for the record; no, this particular religion does not allow sexual relations with a slave. furthermore, slavery is banned. what is more important is how the debate transpired.

there are two basic ways of getting your point across.
one, is to state the point and then, defend it.
two, is to gradually reveal all the rationales/justifications and then, state the point.

the former is a more western (if one may be allowed such categorisation) way. it is the more direct, straight-to-the-point way. whilst the latter, is the more eastern way of presenting a point.

it is the clash of these two cultures that caused the most miscommunication or misunderstanding during the debate, which then caused it to drag on for a whole week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a little bit more on these debating cultures. the second form of argument/reasoning is considered to be more cultured, to be more, subtle. by gradually revealing every singular justification/sub-point to the audience (opposition), the speaker is allowing the idea of the point to form in the audience's mind. in a formal debate, the conclusion or the kill move will be the actual argument/point itself. this type of point/argument presentation has greater value in a social/informal setting.

it is so because by gradually forming the point/argument in the audience's mind, the speaker is allowing the audience to reach the conclusion i.e. the point of the argument on their own. this, in the more eastern cultures is a show of respect for the audience. typically, it is respecting the audience's intelligence, wisdom, age or standing in society/community.

and, by allowing the audience to conclude on their own, there is a possibility that the debate/negotiations can be cut short.

more often than not, those who are more familiar with the western way of debating, will find the second form slightly long-winded. no doubt. but this, can be likened to defeating your opponent by not even unsheathing your sword but simply by showing it. if the sheath of the sword is impressive enough, it will indicate to the opponent of the kind of skill, power or backing one beholds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is a more significant problem than most people might figure. it underlies basic rules of communication. especially, in the corporate world where the more western form of corporate governance that requires a more direct, straight-to-the-point form of communication; is the adopted culture. and, to have that imposed on a culture that raises its young on subtlety in action and layered speech; suppose one could imagine the chemistry.