The purpose of this study has been to investigate the extent of listening in a debate in the Swedish media. If the debaters listen to each other in a complex issue such as religion's place in society and if a debater who has a high degree of listening initially already in problem definition phase, has more possible solutions than the one that has a lower level of listening. The results show that there is a listening in all the articles, but the articles that have a broader definition of the problem also have a broader problem solving, than the articles that have a more narrow definition of the problem.

The articles with a broader definition of the problem and a broader problem solving, have a predominantly agonistic debate strategy. Even if the debate rhetoric is primarily designed to win over the opponents, there is partly a genuine listening and an interest in finding new possible solutions. But despite that the opponents’ arguments are mainly used to present the authors own arguments, the authors’ intentions seems to be predominantly honest. There is more than rheterology than rhetrickery in these articles.

The articles with a more narrow definition of the problem, also has a narrower problem solving and a more antagonistic debate strategy. The rhetoric here also aims to win over the opponents. But although there is some listening even in these articles, the listening is not about bringing the issue under debate towards a new possible solution. I perceive this listening as more manipulative. There are more rhetrickery than rheterology in these articles.