Deliberation based on the exchange of arguments and reasons is standardly regarded as a rational process par excellence, one that invites actors to reflect on and revise their beliefs, preferences, and perhaps even values. Yet in political deliberation actors routinely talk past one another. They argue to score points or to rationalize their existing beliefs. In consequence, they seldom learn from their interactions, change their minds, or update their view of the world. In this paper we introduce a new concept—ritual deliberation—that provides a better grip on this puzzling yet seemingly ubiquitous phenomenon. Our concept helps explain why individuals engage in political practices that on their face are "deliberative" but fail most of the goals usually associated with ideal deliberation. When situational constraints preclude ideal deliberation, actors often engage in ritual deliberation. While not ideal, ritual deliberation can yield positive outcomes of both a deliberative and extra deliberative sort.