This study seeks to shed light on the highly publicized democracy dilemma signaling that encountering disagreement tends to promote deliberative democracy, while the same experience can dampen a citizen’s motivation to participate. By assessing the processes wherein the joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity are simultaneously associated with the outcomes of deliberative and participatory democracy, we provide a number of key insights into the puzzling quandary. First, our results indicate that cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity interact with each other to predict increased political participation. Second, the relationship between cross-cutting discussion and preference for open dialogue is stronger for those who belong to a congenial primary network. Third, efficacious individuals seem more capable of translating the benefits of an ongoing deliberative orientation into meaningful political behavior. The current research suggests that deliberation and participation can go hand in hand under a particular network context.