Suggestion for putting deliberative democracy

As advocated for by Habermas, the concept of deliberative democracy suggests that public debate increases both the rationality and legitimacy of decision? i need to disprove this. Deliberative Democracy An offshoot of the idea of democratic participation is deliberative democracy  Heavily influenced by the ideas of Jürgen Habermas, this model suggests that it is not enough for voters to have an opportunity to exercise a political choice: “True” democracy must allow for choices to be developed through discussion and reflection. Supporters maintain that the process of public debate and argument increases both the rationality and the legitimacy of the decisions that are made. This means that political choices are never set in stone. As Cunningham (2002, p. 165) points out, “democracy on the deliberative conception should be more than voting, and it should serve some purpose other than simply registering preferences.” To describe deliberative democracy as another version of direct participatory democracy would be a mistake. In fact, its advocates are skeptical about the possibilities of direct democracy in large-scale modern societies. They may also doubt whether direct democracy can necessarily produce the kind of reflective deliberation they seek. David Held, for example, argues that the quality of participation may be more important than its quantity (Held, 2006, pp. 236-237). One suggestion for putting deliberative democracy into practice is through deliberative polling in which a small group of people would be polled for their views on certain issues before engaging in debates about them. Then, after the deliberation, they would be polled again to see if their views had changed; the results would then be disseminated to a wider audience (Held, 2006, pp. 247-248). Supporters of deliberative democracy see it as a way of promoting altruism in liberal democracies that are currently dominated by private interests. They expect it to increase toleration of other people’s views in divided societies and lead to greater consensus. Moreover, decisions made following deliberation are more likely to be rational (because they were not made in haste) and to be considered legitimate. The downside is that real, substantive deliberation on important issues takes a lot of time. Extensive debate on an issue such as free trade with China or an oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas may result in delays, or even paralysis, in decision-making. In addition, the theory has been criticized for exaggerating the degree of consensus that can be reached as a result of deliberation (Cunningham, 2002, p. 166).