How to listen

Over the years I've noticed a pattern regarding respondents to Christianity, social conservatives, and sectarian theological debates. My impression is based on the following sample groups: YouTube commenters on public Christian/atheist debates. The Q/A session after a Christian/atheist debate. The Q/A session after a Ben Shapiro speech. Comments on Catholic videos. Internet Arminians commenting on Calvinism. Reddit atheists/Facebook atheists. Based on this, I'd do a breakdown of different kinds of respondents:

I. The cheerleader

Blind partisans. Loyal teammates. They rubber-stamp whatever someone on their side says. They will quote or applaud a bad argument for their position so long as they agree with the position. 

It's not about the content but the label and group solidarity. They don't listen. They're partisans rather than ideologues. It's not about the position, but belonging to the club. 

A classic example is pollsters who ask trick questions. They will identify a respondent as a progressive or Democrat. They will quote a statement by a social conservative which they attribute to a progressive or Democrat. The respondent will enthusiastically agree, even though the statement is diametrically opposed to the identity of the political respondent. The respondent doesn't listen for content or consistency. They just wait to hear the label. Does it have the approved label? 

II. The seeker

They are undecided. They want to hear both sides of the argument. Some are ripe for conversion while others are temperamentally noncommittal. Some seekers always want to keep their options open.  But others want something to believe in. 

III. The smart ass

This is the counterpart to the cheerleader. They go to a public debate with a prepared question (or screed). They plan to stand in line after the debate and spring their question on the spokesman for the opposing side. They don't listen. They tune out everything the spokesman for the opposing side says during the whole debate. They don't think it's possible that he could have anything intelligent to say. His position is self-evidently wrong, stupid, and evil. 

They only go to the debate to embarrass the speaker by posing a snarky question during the Q/A. Online, the smart ass will pose one-liners on YouTube videos and Facebook comment threads mocking Christianity. 

The smart ass has no deep firsthand knowledge of Christian theology, philosophy, church history, archeology, science, or apologetics. Moreover, they don't read the most sophisticated representatives of atheism. That's way over their heads. They get their objections and applause lines from hack atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dillahunty, YouTube celebutantes. It's all about projecting a flattering self-image of moral and rational superiority. They are the mirror-image of the anti-intellectual "fundamentalists" they disdain. 

This has parallels with internet Arminians and Catholic apologists who always recycle the same stale objections and argument. Catholics who rarely invest in mainstream Catholic scholarship on Scripture and church history. Arminians who rarely study the philosophical literature on freewill. They just go by the seat-of-their-pants. 

IV. The intellectual atheist

There's a fraction of atheists who think atheism is true, but they are genuinely curious to hear the best Christian answers to their questions and objections. They acknowledge that there are some very bright, astute Christians. They are open to the possibility that there may be good answers to their questions. When they go to a debate, they hope the Christian debater will be intelligent. They want an opportunity to ask probing questions. They don't want to embarrass him. Rather, they are hoping for an intelligent exchange of views. They still think they may have something to learn. They are willing to changing their views. 

I've been picking on particular types, but as I've pointed out in the past, this has a counterpart in the "confessional Calvinist" mentality, who just check the right boxes.