審議民主的倡議者指出，審議風格的討論方式有助於決定品質的提升以及公民品德的養成。對於如何驅動行動者以審議風格進行討論的問題，倡議者經常強調公民參與條件的重要性，指出理想的客觀討論條件能夠鼓勵行動者以平等與相互尊重的原則進行討論。本文指出，這樣的分析取徑過於強調公共審議場域「應然」的影響力，而無法說明「實然」公共審議過程中的變異，在實際的審議中，討論經常是擺盪在審議與敵對風格之間。相較於將討論的進行視為客觀條件的反射，本文指出，討論風格的建立、維持與改變是由行動者的互動所建構。從關係式的分析取徑，本文將公眾（public）界定為一個多重社會關係交會，並且充滿表演性質的空間，在此空間中透過符號互動，行動者在這些社會關係中，彰顯與壓制某些關係，啟動一個讓他們能共時共同互動的基礎。本文以2004年的代理孕母公民共識會議為例，說明行動者之間的社會關係，提示了他們應如何進行討論，進而影響討論的模樣：當討論者界定彼此為朋友時，平等、相互尊重、論理與追求共善等原則便被突顯，成為當下討論的規範，使得行動者以審議風格參與討論；若行動者將討論定義為競爭對手間的討論，保障自身的利益變成是討論最重要的目的，在此情況下，行動者以敵對風格進行討論。本文也指出討論風格的建構是一個動態過程，參與者之間的互動不僅會定義，也會重新定義行動者之間的關係，因而造成討論風格的轉換。運用社會技能的概念，本文說明行動者如何建立、改變與維持彼此的關係與討論的情境定義，進而建構我們所觀察到的討論模樣。本文也指出五種社會技能（積極性、言說技巧、文化共鳴、議題設定、與時機的掌握），影響行動者是否能定義與重新定義討論風格。

Deliberative democracy theorists argue that discussions involving deliberative talk not only increase decision-making quality, but also nurture participant sense of citizenship. Although these theorists have identified the benefits of deliberative talk, their explanations for why deliberations in real world tend to shift between deliberative and adversarial styles are insufficient. Existing explanations focus on the importance of creating public spheres and how such spheres encourage deliberative talk. While these explanations remind us of the importance of objective conditions for establishing ideal deliberation, they overemphasize the importance of objective conditions for objective discussions and neglect the social construction aspects of deliberation. Due to this tendency, existing research cannot explain the variation of talking styles in practical deliberations. To address this theoretical gap, I argue that public spheres are interstitial and multilayered social networks. To make such discussions possible, participants must highlight one relation and suppress other alternative relations to guide the discussion process. Using the 2004 Surrogate Motherhood Consensus Conference as a case study, I argue that the creation of, maintenance of, and shifts in talking styles in public deliberations are social constructions. When participants identify a discussion as one between friends, principles such as equality, mutual respect, reasoning, and seeking the common good are highlighted. In these scenarios, participants use a deliberative style, but when they identify a discussion as one between adversaries, self-interest protection becomes the dominant goal, and an adversarial style emerges. Underpinning relations may change due to participant interaction, resulting in a shift in talking style. I also apply the concept of social skill to articulate how participants enact and suppress social relations, thereby reshaping a discussion. I identify five social skills that are important for defining and redefining deliberation: motivation, conversational skills, cultural resonance, agenda-setting capacity, and the capacity to seize timing.