Do NTs only think in terms of debate? In other words, every communication is part of a zero-sum game (win/lose, dominate/submit)? Or does discussion exist in the NT vocabulary?
Sounds like a T vs. F thing. Here's a long analysis on psychological grounds. For the tl;dr version, see the final paragraph.
Anyway, I saw a nice way of putting this issue in a book "Mastery" by Robert Greene. Greene said that the most creative way to tackle any issue is to see it from two directions. A particularly ideal way to engage in problem-solving from two directions is to engage in both "thinking into" and "reading into" a problem. From the description, he was clearly talking about marrying or merging together a rational (T) approach and an emotional or empathetic (F) approach.
His argument was that if you
only use F or T
alone, then when you encounter difficulties you tend to double down on that mono-directional approach, start white-knuckling and getting stressed, and reach a point of tunnel vision where you can only see your own point and can't see any other options that might be available.
For example in the mono-directional approach that
only uses T
alone, when the rational (T) person comes under pressure, his natural instinct will be to double down on the rational approach, i.e., insist that only a rational approach is valid, engage in word vomit, nit-picking, lawyering, hair-splitting, etc. to prove his point.
Similarly in the mono-directional approach that
only uses F
alone, when the emotional/empathetic (F) person comes under pressure, his natural instinct will be to double down on the emotional approach, i.e., insist that only an emotional approach is valid, engage in feelings-based appeals, blame, guilt, bully, tirade, etc. to prove his point.
Greene advises using a two-direction approach. Be able to both "think into" (rationalize) and "read into" (empathize with) a problem. Switching back and forth avoids the problem of white-knuckling and tunnel vision and leads to greater creativity overall because you're staying open to new possibilities instead of doubling down on a single favorite proposition or approach.
Again, this is basically just a T vs. F thing. And Greene isn't the only one to point it out. The book "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom (a Professor of Psychology at Yale) points out that both empathy and rationality are flawed when used alone. They have to be used together. The full title of his book is: "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion."
Finally, Jung said that if a person is strongly T, then his F side tends to be repressed and vice versa. In such cases, we all favor our strong side and react with stress and fear at the appearance of the repressed function in ourselves and others. But if we learn to embrace our repressed function, we come to a point of understanding and creativity. In fact, marriage of both functions is pretty much a prerequisite for true creativity. That tends to be why young people are often more creative than older people: Older people often get set in their ways and focus their efforts on honing their stronger function, leaving the other function to disappear into repression.
That's it. Anyway, here's the Tl;dr version:
When a Feeler asks "Why do T's have to turn every communication into a debate, like it's a zero-sum game?", the appropriate response from a Thinker is to ask "Why do F's have to turn every communication into a feelings-fest, devoid of intelligence and analysis?" Both questions are equally true
and equally misleading based on what I said above.