Brookfield's "Discussion as a Way of Teaching"

As a person who has become, through practice, more-than-moderately critical of what I read and listen to, this topic of discussion interests me perhaps more than any other element of education. I consider it one of the greatest shortcomings of my own generation, as well as the rising one, that we seem to have no tolerance for diversity of thought, and no desire to understand the logic of dissenting voices. I marvel at the respectful and substantive conversations held forth in the 70's by Milton Friedman and his political opponents. That kind of discussion is not the norm any longer... but it should be. Our current national dialogue is reeling into chaos from the unrestrained force of emotion, which is claimed by many to be of equal or even greater significance than reason. As this has gone unchecked (for nobody ever can truthfully declare a monopoly on feelings, though some try), one sentiment has inadvertently risen above all others, coloring all of our political words and acts in the current age: Revenge!

And it is my great desire to roll this destructive force back.

Much of what Brookfield advocates here answers to that purpose. The one strategy that struck me more than any other was section 19: Critical Debate Instructions. However, it is a bit underhanded. What I may try, if I'm going to employ this method, is beginning the lesson with an activity related to whether or not it can be morally acceptable to lie to a person for their own good. Then, when I have students volunteer to defend or oppose a certain perspective on a contentious issue, they will blithely believe that we have simply switched gears. Finally, when I announce that those who wanted to defend will now oppose, and those who wanted to oppose will now defend, the connection will, at least, make it a more memorable day.
What concerns me, however, about most of these strategies, is their practicality in the real-world classroom. I've been blessed to have been placed in a rather typical class, a good microcosm of high-school students, where there are no outstanding behavioral problems, but also not an apparent burning desire for learning. Their willingness to engage is rather outmatched by their fondness for whispering.
Yet, even with this class, my lessons and the advice from my mentor teacher have taught me that the greatest struggle will be devising very pointed and meaningful questions for the discussion to progress. Brookfield's methods may be perfect for a highschool AP class or a college classroom (even then, it may be hit-or-miss), but there are few of these students who have any interest in anything here other than the grade they'll receive. Some would rather be doing anything in the world other than reading. For the students who are willing to engage, I need to give them ample opportunity to do some heavy-thinking, but the rest of them need involvement that is meticulously structured so that they won't immediately stray onto an after-school topic the moment discussion begins, and so that they won't always dread my coming around to see them on-task. 
Some of Brookfield's more structured methods, however, would be doable. The activities that involve roles may help the students to stay focused, but I would hesitate to put even the most trustworthy of students in an umpire role. Maybe this is unfair of me; perhaps an umpire role would allow a student to take the activity more seriously and respect the duties expected. It would be a risk to keep an eye on, but it may be a worthwhile risk.

My final concern is that there tends to be a strong divide on any controversial subjects, with a vast majority opinion and a naturally defensive minority opinion. This is far more significant, I think, than the superficial minority identifiers that Brookfield seems obsessed with. Ideas are far more substantive than skin-color or socioeconomic status. I intend on judging my students by the content of their characters alone. The culture surrounding the school will determine which opinion is majority, and how disparate the divide is. We should be prepared to deal with situations where virtually all of the class believes one thing and two or three students only dissent. Perhaps the majority of the class is climate-science-skeptical while just a few want to make the case for the serious dangers of climate-change. Perhaps the opposite is true. In these situations, the teacher must see to it that both sides are furnished with reason-based arguments without appearing to firmly stand on one side or the other. It will be a difficult balance to strike, but I believe I am up to the task, being one who frequently, on this very campus, has been obliged to dissent from the vast majority in meaningful discussion.