Key Takeaway: 1. The other side of debate, is not your enemy. The disagreement is not to the person, just to the points that we have different views. 2. Debate is more than just disagreeing the opposite point of view, but to digest the complexity of an issue, or a question, from different perspectives. 3. Of course to win a debate, you need training to communicate ideas better and breakdown different view points. In political debates, one thing I disgusted is how one diminished the other side with personal attack (idiot, stupid, racist, religious remarks), instead of talking about the real thing. Most of the time ones that started personal attack, are the ones that have no knowledge or least prepare in the topic that they are debating. But, many times, most audiences would label the ones who launched personal attack as charismatic.
Another points I try to implement when arguing is not thinking about an argument/a discussion as a "figh" between two oposing sides but just as a way to share different POVs that may contradict eachother, but hopefully have their place
Here's the problem with what you are saying. You are making an assumption that both sides (or individuals) taking part in a debate are rational actors. One cannot implement your advice when one is debating against an individual with personality disorders, such as a sociopath or a narcissist (i.e. an individual who will not behave according to established rules, norms, or etiquette). When one is debating against such an individual, one MUST strategically use the same or similar measures to overcome this opponent. Otherwise, the sociopath and/or narcissist will use charismatic behavior, personal attacks, falsehoods, and sophistry to win over the judges, audience, public, etc.
We should start by remembering that challenging you ideas is not the same as challenging your identity. Nowadays, people tend to cling to their ideas as though giving them up presents a mortal threat
But that is how it is for most of us. Our idea of ourselves is our identity. And if you threaten the idea of me, you are basically threatening my life.
@@noambracha2495 But ideas other hold can threaten my identity, or even my existence. For instance, as a German Jew myself I can say with absolute certainty that Holocaust denial and the ideology of Nazism and Wahabism both fundamentally threatening my right to life and liberty. The same holds true for many marginalised groups in the world. Russian propaganda is an attack on Ukrainian identity, Chinese one enabling genocide in East Turkestan and Neoconfederate Lost Causers a threatening to African Americans. We should rather remember that not every idea has to be a threat (that's rather paranoia then), but some definitely are.
@@noambracha2495 "Should be" is an entirely different discussion. But I meant to say something like the idea of man. If my identity is centered on some idea of what a man is, then any challenge to the idea of man, is a threat to my life.
I believe the whole idea of debate is to explore all sides of the issue, not to be right or wrong. Hard issues are complex and they are never black and white. To see all sides of the matter is to understand the matter, therefore you are able to make better decisions. I regularly debate. For me, it is a way to understand how the person thinks, what they value, and what might make them see it that way. My major rules are to assume they have good intentions, ask follow up questions instead of assuming what they mean, and come from a place of curiosity and respect, not trying to prove your point right.
@@lotfibelabbas8411 agreed, there are differences, but isn't debate just a discussion with opposing sides. You listen to their side and oppose it with your points. It isn't as formal as the debates you would have in school, but it is the same premise.
@@rachelgreensmith-annino5735 I completely disagree. And sorry if I sound harsh but the people who say unproductive debates happen when the other side is "trying" to prove their point automatically reeks of a negative emotional response due to the fact that they're unconsciously rejecting a looming defeat by the other side. The biggest problem is ego. Ego that takes shape when you are losing an argument. Instead of taking steps to analyze your position, you automatically come to terms that the opposing party is enacting in bad faith. To be blunt, this isn't a form of diplomacy where I have to cater to your feelings in order to manipulate your impressions and choices after the conversation. We are mature adults and hopefully don't need to be accommodated with kind words and gestures to know that we understand each other. In a debate, there are right opinions and there are wrong opinions. It's called a fact of the matter. The more we say all opinions are correct, which you are doing by this "everyone wins" form of debating by not putting the necessary effort to effectively prove your idea/or challenge the others idea and forming it as an open ended discussion where no one feelings get hurt, the more radicalize and different our ideas become until we reach a peak where we are staring at each other from different ends of the mountain. Don't you realize that your idea of how debates or conversations should go have been taught to all of us at a very young age. It's the main factor involved in why we have a circus of a public discourse in the west. That idea isn't new and has been responsible for the chaos and polarization of the political sphere. To be even more blunt, we need to go back when you can say your opinion is stupid. Not on Twitter but in schools.
@@XX89948 I disagree. How is calling someone's opinion stupid productive? It doesn't further your argument and causes the other person to become defensive. The topics being debated are not cut and dry and you are not going to be right about everything. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot change everyone's mind. Some people you can debate until you are blue in the face and not get anywhere. Even with cold hard facts, they will not see it any other way. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and not disrespect someone by calling them names to make them feel small. To me, that is a clear sign you have lost the argument. You have nothing else to back up your side so you resort to childish insults. My roommate and I have very different opinions of the issues of the world. Yet, even when we argue, we still hear each other out and it is never unproductive, even if we disagree in the end. The problems we have are from too many people shouting their opinions and no one is able to be heard. You can't fix issues if you don't understand them. You just end up creating more problems and resentment.
For academic debate, three other things are required. 1. An agreed-upon resolution. This is a positive statement. One person affirms or agrees with it. One disagrees or negates it. Also, the words or terms of the resolution should be defined. Sometimes, the main arguments lie in the definitions alone. 2. Arguments to affirm or negate the resolution should be clearly stated with supportive evidence. 3. The most important element is clash and rebuttal. Each side must listen and even take notes on what the other side is saying. Each argument should be attacked by the opposition and then defended by the source.
If you want to win a public debate, bring out some paper and a pencil. Write down what the other person is saying. If you are unclear, read it back to make sure that is correct. That alone should make them run away. If not, begin by presenting your arguments, then attack the other side by saying 'you said...however....'. Finally, research and apply the rules of argumentative fallacy. Good stuff.
I'm ok with different opinions. Some things are facts and the inability to distinguish the difference is scary. Not believing in facts is not an opinion
This is an amazing video and I'm glad that we're talking about this. If I could offer two things that I think would help they would be these: 1. Bring back rhetoric and debate in school curricula . Yes, there are schools that have mock trial clubs (which are a lot of fun), but I mean incorporate rhetoric and debate into English classes and/or History classes it would both help and give students a reason to see how these classes can be practically useful. 2. There's a saying: "don't argue politics or religion at the dinner table" and honestly, I don't agree with that. I think that it ties in very well with what the video is saying and that discussing big topics in a sane, informed, and reasonable way begins with a small setting with someone you know and trust. Granted, not all parents are trustworthy and it doesn't work with everyone, but it helps. Anyway, that's my two cents.
Much like learning how to swim or ride a bike at a young age can help us gain confidence in other aspects of our lives, so can a good debate class. Having an environment that makes it normal to voice your opinion while standing up and facing a small crowd is incredibly conducive to molding wonderful young communicators. And that leads into your next idea quite well because, especially nowadays, we don't have the same level of engagement at the dinner table like we once used to. Having them get some from school and some from home adds to a young person's balance and is overall extremely beneficial to the world as a whole. Great points.
I am fairly sure that speech and debate is still growing as an activity and in terms of rhetoric, there are quite a few events that match what you think is essential such as Student Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, or World Schools Debate (Bo Seo mainly did British Parliamentary Debate, but we barely have BP in the US). Model United Nations is also a great option, but sometimes people just go to rizz up some girls. Unfortunately, there are two issues First, DEBATE at least on a competitive level will always have a race to the bottom in terms of rhetoric if we value information and logic over all else. Policy debate, is logically pristine and philosophically deep, but there is a singular issue: they talk like fucking chihuahuas. Speed reading or spreading has spread all over policy debate unless you run an identity K(not identity politics, but it is about how one's identity in the debate space is inherently hurt and how one can fix that through performativity and stuff). Speed reading will never go away because it is almost impossible to run a theory shell(an argument about debate norms) since there is no reasonable brink line, would it be 200 wpm, 150 wpm, the other team can always make a counterinterpretation that is reasonable and works with their talking speed. Also debaters are forced to read straight off of "cards" or direct quotes from books and news resources, because you will always have a stronger evidence standard. Unfortunately, these two factors sound absolutely awful to the common person when they are 100% legal and competitively ideal. Second, Speech and debate is inherently exclusionary in two different ways: through classism and ableism. To understand the philosophy or rhetoric, you need money, money to get a coach, money to go to a camp, money to gain resources. Then there is ableism or somewhat racism since standardizing rhetoric programs in schools can be classified as a form of reeducation especially towards certain cultural dialects such as AAVE, setting standards for speaking can have immense consequences on neurodivergent people too.
A good talker, is a good listener. As far as presidents, I think they need to speak less and listen more to the people and not the corporations that fund them.
A politician can't speak less and listen more, Because people (and by that, I mean you and me) don't follow such a politician, And a politician listened by no one isn't one There's plenty of people smart enough to act the way you would want a politician to act, if none of them becamed important politician, it's because this strategy isn't able to make you an important politician Or rather, those smart people were smart enough to understand the game they were in, and that if they wanted the power needed to do what they belived was good, they had to play by the rules
You are right, Mr Seo. The current level of debates between politicians, or as we see in the cable news, should not become the new benchmark for debating. Polite, informed, respectful and convincing debates are a work of art. A bit rare these days.
Great view. I remember when I was young debates were structured in a way that whatever side of the proposition you would take the opposite view and argue it. I learned that way to see different views and be able to formulate them in my mind. It's so hard to have a conversation with people these days.
It should also be made sure that the debate does not turn into a personal attack on both parties. The debate should stay on the topic and not come down to just berating the other.
I find that being able to determine if your opponent cares about the accuracy of information is important. From this you can decide whether you will actually have a good debate/ conversation, or if your job is simply to promote the accurate information and make the inaccurate information look as pathetic as possible. Perhaps the most important thing to learn is when NOT to argue with someone and NOT have a debate, some people are just ill and persuasive argument will not affect them.
If we have to form a better argument, we need to think. If we need to think, we need time. If we need time, we can't have social media in the form like instagram and tiktok.
We have all become so insecure with ourselves that we rush to shut down others' opinions without even taking time to think about "opposing" points. And politics and media have become such spectacles that audiences now live for the drama/ entertainment, rather than consider the view points deeply. Great points made.
Most opinions are stupid If you don't have training or experience you should keep your mouth shut The Earth is a sphere, fifteen is bigger than five, and the US is the greatest terrorist organization in world history
Yes. You really need to engage with the flat earthers and h0l0c@ust deniers. Consider their "facts" and really engage with their idiocy. That's what being civilised means
It really just needs to be a cooperative process done in good faith for the purpose of arriving at the truth and the most beneficial decisions for all, regardless of previously held views and disagreements.
People don't give other debaters enough time to make their point. I see some people pay more attention to presenting their ideas and don't pay much attention to what other participants want to say.
Yup, and they're always equiped with a wide range of skills like putting words in the other person's mouth and/or distorting all they're saying. Going for personal attacks or just ignoring facts or anything that might prove them wrong and just go in circles around their own idea while doing the first 2 things I mentioned.
In my experience debating a large variety of people is useful for learning new things about your own arguments so you can revise and expand them to perfection. If I had only stuck to scrutinizing them myself I wouldn't know anywhere near what I do now.
Debating is like improvisation on a jazz tune. Ya gotta know alot of difficult things and be able to instantly use them correctly. And like jazz, it takes practice.
That will happen with increasing frequency the more you are wrong and with decreasing frequency the more you have it right. Reality has an impersonal bias, it doesn't care what your opinion is. The phenomenon you experience when debating is related to the phenomenon of synchronization between two pendulums swinging with different timing which are touching the same table. They will spontaneously synchronize. The table is reality.
- Having a relationship with the person we are disagreeing with is more important than disagreement itself. - Debates are only as good as the information, the knowledge, and the skills that debaters bring to it.
After leaving university, I forgot the truly intense pleasure of debating. Glad I watched this. I am......reinvigorated. And cannot wait to become the Clayton Frazier (the provoker in Peyton Place) of my workplace. 🔥🔥🔥
Absolutely outstanding synthesis and presentation. Thoughtful, well-organized, and implementable framework and suggestions. A clear process to begin restoring respectful debate into society.
One thing that is a serious problem in today's political climate is an overarching sense that the political "sides" are enemies. The reason things actually used to get done was because politicians *were* colleagues, they did know each other outside of the halls of congress, they did know each other on a personal basis. And while many had radically different beliefs in what should or shouldn't be done, they knew that at the end of the day that they would find a compromise that both sides could live with. Our society has polarized so much in the passed few decades, and I do point the finger mostly at the 24 hour news cycle, where practically everything is "breaking news", "this just in", and then we threw social media into the mix, where sounding boards got even more encompassing. People see the news as something they're meant to be keeping an eye on all day like it's actually going to change their lives between when they got up and dinner time. Government is slow, it's boring, it's meant to be. They only reason the news has gotten more interesting is because the stations need ratings for their sponsors. Passing legislation is meant to take time, because it's meant to be something that the majority can live with, which with the need for society's need for instant gratification, takes too long. And when it comes to political debates, personal jabs have no place. These people are meant to be professional and represent the best that a political side can present. If the "best" is the one who can burn the other the most during a debate, you've lost perspective on what government is mean to be about. A persons ability to rise above the nonsense personal issues, and speak coherently and informatively about their position and how they can make things better for the majority is what actually matters. The man who worked his way up from being in a lower-middle class, blue collar family should resonate much more with general society than a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who's always had everything handed to him.
You have to take into account that we live in a democracy. Where the majority of the population choose who they want to elect as leaders. That by itself, already breeds toxicity in politicians and corruption. People go with what they *feel* is a better candidate than who *actually* is. The majority of the population aren't deep into what the candidate wants to accomplish or what the office position entails. As long as they see them as friendly, relatable, and non radical, they will elect them. It also causes genuine public servants to focus more on being likeable than being the most qualified for the position.
very good. wish we could implement this. problem is, the way people raise their children, and our short attention spans are not conducive to free thought and the ability to receive and give constructive criticism.
After watching this, I am inspired to take my debating skills beyond the paradigm of my personal beliefs and see if I can defend a premise with which I disagree.
This is why in Montessori schools, we teach young children to articulate their needs and have some room to meet that need independently. A 3-year-old telling me “I’m feeling angry. I’m going to go look at the fish tank and take some deep breaths,” is incredibly equipped to grow into the kind of adult who thinks for themselves and manages their emotions in a healthy way. We can all grow in this skill because it’s necessary to have a healthy, respectful debate/disagreement with another person.
The lessons of the James farmer and Malcolm X debate go beyond just enlightening discourse. Effective Negotiation is exactly the same as the goal that Mr. Seo describes. Where the goal is not to force the other to compromise but for each to articulate what a win is for themselves and understand what is a win for the other. Thereby, by understanding each other, reaching an outcome superior to just using your leverage to force the other to compromise.
There’s a very important thing to remember. Is that there is a difference between an argument and a fight. An argument is presenting your side of an issue and doesn’t have to be confrontational. (It can be, but it’s not inherently confrontational) a fight is just violent
Despite what’s often exclaimed, you don’t actually have a right to any opinion, rather, you’re only entitled to a position you can defend. We also pretend all positions are valid and have merit, so as to be “fair” and impartial. An example: Certain animal based news corps will give equal time to both a flat earther position and a physicist astronaut who has lived in space…2 positions, same amount of time. This gives the impression that it’s “just two opposing perspectives. Who really knows the answer, after all!?”
That can be said about some scientific (empiric, testable, repeatable...) topics, but on social, political and philosophical motions we need to start the debate with both sides on the same level of credibility.
If equal time creates a problem for the viewer, then the viewer is using airtime as a substitute for examining the evidence produced by the debaters,* at which point why even bother with having people present their case at all? *Either that, or a hypothetical plant-based network (i.e. one that does not offer equal time) is attempting to influence/count on them to do this.
Haven't seen a Big Think video in a long time. I thought this one was solid, but I'm still seeing a mistake that Big Think was making back in the day. The title is either misleading or too vague; I came to this video thinking I was going to be taught by the debate world champion on how to argue _well_ or how to _win_ an argument/debate. This was much more about how we as a society _should engage_ in argument/debate, which was still edifying, but not what the title connotes
I think the loveliest point made in this video, was to know one another beyond the disagreement. Imagine, knowing your oppositions family and friends and you maybe establish a friendship of sorts despite your opposition to one another's views. From there, we could learn again to debate respectfully with one another and not reduce all disagreements to nothing more than a verbal fist-fight. I thought of the indigenous people's concept of the 'peace pipe', allowing everyone holding the pipe to have their turn to say fully what they intend without interruption. Additionally, in our rush to make our points, we more often than not don't pause to digest and reflect on what the other person has said and meant.
More videos with Bo Seo - How dirty debaters win against better opponents: th-cam.com/video/tZw0-ap7buo/w-d-xo.html Why you should live an argumentative life: th-cam.com/video/Tk01uthNqzY/w-d-xo.html
What a brilliant invitation for our culture to return to personal responsibility in thinking for our selves, and doing the work of confronting various ideas and POVs. Debate's historical goal was for the growth of all present. Today, it's become to make the opposing side look stupid. This is a loss for all. Rather than talking after a debate about "who won", wouldn't it be beneficial to discuss what we learned as a people from the dialogue?
People dont realise that it is not necessary that there can be only one truth. Truth is relative, it can be different from different perspectives. One od the beautiful teachings from jainism.
Everyone should take an entire day, get as intoxicated as you like with whatever you like and think about the idea of everyone being you with different circumstances. That’s it
I very much like my thoughts to be challenged. I love it when I am changing my mind, which happens sometimes. It is like I suddenly can see something that I could not see before. It is magic. Change my mind and you are my friend. People who don't challenge my mind I consider boring. Is this just me?
The best way to figure out who's a fool or not is to trigger them with words or statements and see if they see you as a fool. If they are wise enough to understand that there's more that meets the eye, then they will engage in talking with you in a productive conversation. If they use that word or statement as a basis of why you are a fool not worth talking too, then you saved yourself from a headache.
You know Arno Michaelis ? He is a former White Supremacist, extremist to the core He's now a anti-racist activist He created an association specialized in deradicalizing extremists I've heard him explain that he personnaly made dizains of person deradicalizing That's something that I find incredible, to the point it's even hard to take one's word for it, but I know I can't doubt what he's saying That means one thing, if one can cause a neo-Nazi to change his mind, then it's possible to change every one's mind You can't say that it's impossible to change the opinion of this or this guys you met at the bar, knowing that it's possible to change an extremist's mind But there's one thing If you expect someone to change his mind just because you proved him wrong Then you are the fool Because it doesn't work, you saw countless time it didn't, it would probably not work even on you, and even if I hate it, I know I would struggle to change my own mind this way, even being wrong That's not the way Arno Michaelis does either To make someone change his belief, you got to understand why he belives what he does You got to understand how it's possible for a human mind to spit bullshit while feeling right, and to realize that, as all human, you are doing the same all day long You got to understand what trigger such bullshit, how to avoid them You got to understand how to make someone lower one's shield in a political discussion, how to make one listen to you You got to understand how make one focus on the question "is this argument something I can agree with" rather than "How to counter this argument" during your conversation That's by no way easy, that's extremely hard But you can't just look to a hard issue, and throw it away saying "it's impossible" while you've tried only one strategy You don't have to go through all this trouble, if you don't want to spend the time, then yes, the best strategy is walking away Because you are totally right, a bad debate with "a fool" is a waste of time Even worst, it's counterproductive, for you and for him But there's something I totally disagree with There is no fool in this world Or if there is, that would mean we are all one, cause we all thing the same way, making the same mistakes over and over
@@KeepItSimpleSailor It's more to test the level of maturity in someone. If being a dick means saving time by not arguing with someone who gets triggered by words and statements at the beginning prologue then so be it. There are billions of others that are more worth the effort.
The issue with this is that it's likely that you'd avoid a debate with yourself with this attitude. I personally begin the debate with as much good-will and understanding as possible, and if they don't return that attitude then I can be pretty confident that the debate will go off the rails and I simply leave. I would prefer not to make myself the insufferable human, just to weed out the other 'potential' insufferables.
This is one of the most important videos in our day and age right now. At the very core of it, I believe, we are seeing so much political divide and toxicity because people don't know how to debate. Everything he addressed in the video that is important about debate, has been lost. People lack civility, people lack a willingness to listen and genuinely engage with what was said, and people too often regurgitate arguments made by others from one side of the aisle without any of their own thinking being added on. Of course we learn a lot from speakers and should adopt the way they think if we agree, that's what a debate aims to do, but it's important to think genuinely and uniquely about what you are hearing. Hopefully people can treat debate as a learning opportunity and not a battle all the time.
Theres a bunch of videos and books by zizek where he defends this already, this vid is really base level but at least is understandable and spreadable so ye, more people should watch it.
When I was in high school I had a friend who told me that on the debate team they were each given a topic. For the first half of the debate they had to argue one side while their opponent argued the other side. At the halfway point the had to reverse sides for the remainder of the debate. Would it be helpful if, before we decide on a position, we sat on the fence and examined both sides? Would it help us both better understand out opponent’s position and better defend our own position?
It's a stylistic choice that's supposed to communicate transparency. Like saying: I have a backdrop but i don't mind you seeing the other parts of the room because I've nothing to hide....
Asking why and how to see someone’s perspective (and sharing your how and why of your perspective )even though you don’t agree with each other goes a long way to understanding and getting along with people despite our differences.
Excellent points. Today's debates are not debates, but a circus event to entertain an audience, and generate provocative headlines on the next day's news commercial websites.
A lot of people commented about how in this day and age, people take opinions way too seriously and can't accept someone having different opinions than them. Here's the problem right, it has always been like this, people do not accept an idea or a view that is fundamentally different than how they view the world. It is always them who is right and that is it. Most of the folks right now who are in the wave of "taking opinions seriously" and "not being able to accept different opinions" are folks who were NOT included in the older generation's idea and norms of what is "supposed to be" They are majorly a lot of minorities or people whose identities, voices, and existence has been ignored or stamped down by the majority of society and what was considered "acceptable". The thought of opinions just being ideas and an abstract concept that shouldn't affect anyone is inherently false. As what someone thinks will affect what they say and what they say will affect their surroundings, the people around them, and the world. Opinions can't be harmless when we're talking about certain topics, yes it could be when we're talking about things such as favorite shows, but even things such as the film industry can be debated because there are writers and animators being overworked and underpaid, etc.. It is not just the older generation's fault nor it is the current generation's instead just the simple fact that most of humanity can never see something past black and white, and they can not understand how much their existence and their actions impacts everything.
@@eljuanman999 I think you confuse debating and chatting. The point of a debate, in a very naive sense is that we come to some consensus, in which case techniques that make me more articulate and able to convince others are in fact what I would want to see in a video like this. In a more realistic sense, a debate between presidents, youtubers, celebrities etc. is exactly what you say is not a debate. You try to convince an audience, if you manage to do that, you win the debate. Again something that should be in this video.
There are lots of photos of Presidential 'debates' during this clip. But those aren't really debates. Those are mostly American version formats, where a person asks a question of two panelists and they each give an answer. The Fermer/Malcolm X debates were proper debates, where two people sit across from one another and almost have a conversation.
The 'Founding Fathers' are a good example of authoritarian debate replacing constructive community debate (as engaged in by indigenous peoples). They had good training, debatee familiarity, and time given to make a point.
@@dama9150 the natives did not have much civility outside of their own tribes. part of the reason why the white man took over was because of disease and they lacked proper unity as they fought eachother. why do you think natives fought on both sides of the french and indian war, because they were swindled by the white man and hated opposing tribes too much. the iroquois sided with the Britts to fight algonquin, shawnee tribes, etc... it is anti-intellectual to respond to my response with the statement that I lack knowledge when you provide no additional knowledge aside from the original comment which is laughably terrible
4:20 (first of all, nice) I can't stress enough how crucial it is to detach yourself and your ego from the discussion. For thise struggling with it, *your ideas are not your identity; you can change them and still be equally respected. A better phrasing would be: I don't value you for the beliefs you hold but for the human being you are.* I honestly don't see your beliefs as you. Changing, or losing a belief you have, isn't you losing part of your ego. In fact, those exact ideas that plant one's identity in them (mostly belief systems as gradually groups form themselves around those beliefs, so the single belief becomes a 10 beliefs and an entire belief system by themselves.) are what we call identity politics. That's the disturbing part of it; they make you adopt them, not in the school of thought way, but as a part of your identity, hence changing them means practically becoming someone else, hence losing yourself or part of it. I know most of you reading this are thinking of religion at the back of your minds, but politics equally satisfy this criterion of grounding one's identity in those beliefs about their parties. You know where else you do that too? Debates, obviously! Everyone does it. Ask any debater in any platform, can you entertain the possibility your opponent being right and you being wrong. You're pretty much asking them to put their ego aside and think, *SERIOUSLY* think how their opponent might be right and them being wrong. And I include everyone in this bag. Atheists, people arguing for global earth (not that I don't believe but they, justblike everyone like I'm not picking up on them, too have a dog in the fight) evolution, anti-conpiracies from 9/11 to Watergate. As long as you have your ego on the table, you are very unlikely to examine the evidence (regardless) seriously. Most likely than not, you'll dismiss the other side given how "dumb and ignorant" they are. That's it! Your ego speaking, and not your mind addressing the supposed evidence that until you examine it, can call it supposed (as in false or shaky) before you do examine it seriously.
I think it is more that new age media communication platforms seem like open places for ideas to flow, but their structure and algorithms favor certain kinds of engagement over others. We can improve debate quality through training, but that is against systemic factors. We can more powerfully improve the tide of our interactions by changing the structure of these platforms.
To summerise what he said was Train yourself to know how to speak, Know about the person you are having a debait with, respect other's opinions and keep have a open minded mindset?
Excellent video. Agree completely. The art of all types of conversations have suffered greatly thanks to technology; namely the polarization it breeds and the attention it demands.
I've thought for a while now that the way we treat each other online is one of the biggest and most overlooked problems in society today. I love that this video speaks to that problem; it did not teach me rhetorical skills to 'win' the argument, as one might assume, but something more profound, how to increase the quality of the discussion for both parties to ultimately increase the likelihood of being more in harmony and closer to the truth. If we communicated with genuine empathy and curiosity, we could see a lot of other problems fall like dominoes. Now imagine me catching a clip of Westminster jeering or a Trump 'lOsEr' tweet jfc is this how we govern ourselves lol no wonder the species is fucked
If we can't disagree without aiming to hurt or silence the holder of an inferior/ill formed view or opinion we have no argument. Every argument must aim to bring out the brilliance of both participants. The best must compete, never attend or promote cheap entertaining repartee. If you claim the other is wrong, first you need to establish your self exemplary standards, if you have no exemplary standards to defend then you will be defending damaging standards People want to engage in hollow rubbish because it was not a debate in the first place, it was all about self appointed pride and indecent victory. They want unilateral dominance, there was or will be no accommodation or correction. I was witnesses to quite a few sub-standard talks/debates, people defending poor values were cheered, it only shows the debate was organized to self entertain than to expand accountability and honor.
You ask a good question. During the debate, each side has time to make their points, cross examine each other and convince the judge. Nowadays, and especially with the one we push of online media, debate is more like typing opinions out to the ether. Wish we would bring the great debate back. Thanks for the great video. Looking forward for more.❤
People also need to be honest with themselves and submit when they have been taught something new and the persuader needs to know how to respectfully win an argument.
About the debate format...during the last US presidential election cycle, I couldn't even get through the VP debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, since the moderator kept calling time on both of them when they clearly weren't finished. Now, I get wanting to call time on someone who is using way more than his allotted time because it's not fair to the other person, but when neither side can seem to finish their thoughts in the allotted time, then IMO the time limit needs to be longer, because it's not serving anyone. I think the two sides should learn from that mistake and request longer time limits next time if they have candidates who may actually want to use it.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Key Takeaway:
1. The other side of debate, is not your enemy. The disagreement is not to the person, just to the points that we have different views.
2. Debate is more than just disagreeing the opposite point of view, but to digest the complexity of an issue, or a question, from different perspectives.
3. Of course to win a debate, you need training to communicate ideas better and breakdown different view points.
In political debates, one thing I disgusted is how one diminished the other side with personal attack (idiot, stupid, racist, religious remarks), instead of talking about the real thing. Most of the time ones that started personal attack, are the ones that have no knowledge or least prepare in the topic that they are debating. But, many times, most audiences would label the ones who launched personal attack as charismatic.
Another points I try to implement when arguing is not thinking about an argument/a discussion as a "figh" between two oposing sides but just as a way to share different POVs that may contradict eachother, but hopefully have their place
Here's the problem with what you are saying. You are making an assumption that both sides (or individuals) taking part in a debate are rational actors. One cannot implement your advice when one is debating against an individual with personality disorders, such as a sociopath or a narcissist (i.e. an individual who will not behave according to established rules, norms, or etiquette). When one is debating against such an individual, one MUST strategically use the same or similar measures to overcome this opponent. Otherwise, the sociopath and/or narcissist will use charismatic behavior, personal attacks, falsehoods, and sophistry to win over the judges, audience, public, etc.
You can't without understanding and perceiving how they see reality, what's the point.
@@ItsNeverTooHot4Leather true. Yet, some sociopath either not participate in a 'real' debate, or they run away in the middle of argument.
there's always ppl who come into a debate with a bad intention.
We should start by remembering that challenging you ideas is not the same as challenging your identity. Nowadays, people tend to cling to their ideas as though giving them up presents a mortal threat
But that is how it is for most of us. Our idea of ourselves is our identity. And if you threaten the idea of me, you are basically threatening my life.
@@stevesmith4901 but your ideas of the world aren't ideas of yourself, and thus should be separated from your identity.
@@noambracha2495 But ideas other hold can threaten my identity, or even my existence.
For instance, as a German Jew myself I can say with absolute certainty that Holocaust denial and the ideology of Nazism and Wahabism both fundamentally threatening my right to life and liberty.
The same holds true for many marginalised groups in the world. Russian propaganda is an attack on Ukrainian identity, Chinese one enabling genocide in East Turkestan and Neoconfederate Lost Causers a threatening to African Americans.
We should rather remember that not every idea has to be a threat (that's rather paranoia then), but some definitely are.
commenting here for my own reference; wanna see what others will say.
@@noambracha2495 "Should be" is an entirely different discussion. But I meant to say something like the idea of man. If my identity is centered on some idea of what a man is, then any challenge to the idea of man, is a threat to my life.
I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Information Diet." What a great way to describe how we take In information.
I think that term may have been inspired by “quora digest”
Food for thought eh
you are what you eat
SAME, guy has a routine !
That’s really good
I believe the whole idea of debate is to explore all sides of the issue, not to be right or wrong. Hard issues are complex and they are never black and white. To see all sides of the matter is to understand the matter, therefore you are able to make better decisions. I regularly debate. For me, it is a way to understand how the person thinks, what they value, and what might make them see it that way. My major rules are to assume they have good intentions, ask follow up questions instead of assuming what they mean, and come from a place of curiosity and respect, not trying to prove your point right.
Nop there is different between debate and discussion
@@lotfibelabbas8411 agreed, there are differences, but isn't debate just a discussion with opposing sides. You listen to their side and oppose it with your points. It isn't as formal as the debates you would have in school, but it is the same premise.
@@rachelgreensmith-annino5735 I completely disagree. And sorry if I sound harsh but the people who say unproductive debates happen when the other side is "trying" to prove their point automatically reeks of a negative emotional response due to the fact that they're unconsciously rejecting a looming defeat by the other side.
The biggest problem is ego. Ego that takes shape when you are losing an argument. Instead of taking steps to analyze your position, you automatically come to terms that the opposing party is enacting in bad faith.
To be blunt, this isn't a form of diplomacy where I have to cater to your feelings in order to manipulate your impressions and choices after the conversation. We are mature adults and hopefully don't need to be accommodated with kind words and gestures to know that we understand each other.
In a debate, there are right opinions and there are wrong opinions. It's called a fact of the matter. The more we say all opinions are correct, which you are doing by this "everyone wins" form of debating by not putting the necessary effort to effectively prove your idea/or challenge the others idea and forming it as an open ended discussion where no one feelings get hurt, the more radicalize and different our ideas become until we reach a peak where we are staring at each other from different ends of the mountain.
Don't you realize that your idea of how debates or conversations should go have been taught to all of us at a very young age. It's the main factor involved in why we have a circus of a public discourse in the west. That idea isn't new and has been responsible for the chaos and polarization of the political sphere.
To be even more blunt, we need to go back when you can say your opinion is stupid. Not on Twitter but in schools.
@@XX89948 I disagree. How is calling someone's opinion stupid productive? It doesn't further your argument and causes the other person to become defensive. The topics being debated are not cut and dry and you are not going to be right about everything. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot change everyone's mind. Some people you can debate until you are blue in the face and not get anywhere. Even with cold hard facts, they will not see it any other way. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree and not disrespect someone by calling them names to make them feel small. To me, that is a clear sign you have lost the argument. You have nothing else to back up your side so you resort to childish insults.
My roommate and I have very different opinions of the issues of the world. Yet, even when we argue, we still hear each other out and it is never unproductive, even if we disagree in the end.
The problems we have are from too many people shouting their opinions and no one is able to be heard. You can't fix issues if you don't understand them. You just end up creating more problems and resentment.
@@lotfibelabbas8411 Which one ?
So unrelated but this dude has an unspeakable amount of swagger
yup
I blame the kicks
I was going to say that and well someone said it better and yeah he got some sick kicks.
Debatable
I challenge you to say that to my face,@@bonifacelemauve7469-- without an audience.
For academic debate, three other things are required. 1. An agreed-upon resolution. This is a positive statement. One person affirms or agrees with it. One disagrees or negates it. Also, the words or terms of the resolution should be defined. Sometimes, the main arguments lie in the definitions alone. 2. Arguments to affirm or negate the resolution should be clearly stated with supportive evidence. 3. The most important element is clash and rebuttal. Each side must listen and even take notes on what the other side is saying. Each argument should be attacked by the opposition and then defended by the source.
If you want to win a public debate, bring out some paper and a pencil. Write down what the other person is saying. If you are unclear, read it back to make sure that is correct. That alone should make them run away. If not, begin by presenting your arguments, then attack the other side by saying 'you said...however....'. Finally, research and apply the rules of argumentative fallacy. Good stuff.
In current day and age, we are mostly unable to accept that fact that someone has a different opinion.
I disagree
Different Opinions are VIOLENCE!
I agree, however some things are not based on opinion and not all opinions are equal.
I disagree
Jk haha
I'm ok with different opinions. Some things are facts and the inability to distinguish the difference is scary. Not believing in facts is not an opinion
"People generally quarrel because they don't know how to argue." -G. K. Chesterton
This is an amazing video and I'm glad that we're talking about this. If I could offer two things that I think would help they would be these:
1. Bring back rhetoric and debate in school curricula . Yes, there are schools that have mock trial clubs (which are a lot of fun), but I mean incorporate rhetoric and debate into English classes and/or History classes it would both help and give students a reason to see how these classes can be practically useful.
2. There's a saying: "don't argue politics or religion at the dinner table" and honestly, I don't agree with that. I think that it ties in very well with what the video is saying and that discussing big topics in a sane, informed, and reasonable way begins with a small setting with someone you know and trust. Granted, not all parents are trustworthy and it doesn't work with everyone, but it helps.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Much like learning how to swim or ride a bike at a young age can help us gain confidence in other aspects of our lives, so can a good debate class. Having an environment that makes it normal to voice your opinion while standing up and facing a small crowd is incredibly conducive to molding wonderful young communicators. And that leads into your next idea quite well because, especially nowadays, we don't have the same level of engagement at the dinner table like we once used to. Having them get some from school and some from home adds to a young person's balance and is overall extremely beneficial to the world as a whole. Great points.
Your two cents is very informative and I agree with it
Agreed
I am fairly sure that speech and debate is still growing as an activity and in terms of rhetoric, there are quite a few events that match what you think is essential such as Student Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, or World Schools Debate (Bo Seo mainly did British Parliamentary Debate, but we barely have BP in the US). Model United Nations is also a great option, but sometimes people just go to rizz up some girls.
Unfortunately, there are two issues
First, DEBATE at least on a competitive level will always have a race to the bottom in terms of rhetoric if we value information and logic over all else. Policy debate, is logically pristine and philosophically deep, but there is a singular issue: they talk like fucking chihuahuas. Speed reading or spreading has spread all over policy debate unless you run an identity K(not identity politics, but it is about how one's identity in the debate space is inherently hurt and how one can fix that through performativity and stuff). Speed reading will never go away because it is almost impossible to run a theory shell(an argument about debate norms) since there is no reasonable brink line, would it be 200 wpm, 150 wpm, the other team can always make a counterinterpretation that is reasonable and works with their talking speed. Also debaters are forced to read straight off of "cards" or direct quotes from books and news resources, because you will always have a stronger evidence standard. Unfortunately, these two factors sound absolutely awful to the common person when they are 100% legal and competitively ideal.
Second, Speech and debate is inherently exclusionary in two different ways: through classism and ableism. To understand the philosophy or rhetoric, you need money, money to get a coach, money to go to a camp, money to gain resources. Then there is ableism or somewhat racism since standardizing rhetoric programs in schools can be classified as a form of reeducation especially towards certain cultural dialects such as AAVE, setting standards for speaking can have immense consequences on neurodivergent people too.
I attended Bo's classes for a while in Australia, and I must say he is just as well-spoken and intelligent here than ever.
A good talker, is a good listener. As far as presidents, I think they need to speak less and listen more to the people and not the corporations that fund them.
A politician can't speak less and listen more,
Because people (and by that, I mean you and me) don't follow such a politician,
And a politician listened by no one isn't one
There's plenty of people smart enough to act the way you would want a politician to act, if none of them becamed important politician, it's because this strategy isn't able to make you an important politician
Or rather, those smart people were smart enough to understand the game they were in, and that if they wanted the power needed to do what they belived was good, they had to play by the rules
You are right, Mr Seo. The current level of debates between politicians, or as we see in the cable news, should not become the new benchmark for debating. Polite, informed, respectful and convincing debates are a work of art. A bit rare these days.
Yes. Requires a one-hour search on the internet's most intelligent sites to find one. Every outlet seems to capitulate to "click" bait and zero info.
Lukashenka or Putin don't even show up on any debates before elections but they still manage to win every time.
Debate should be edited for truth, both sides of politics seem to forget what is real and what isn't.
Great view.
I remember when I was young debates were structured in a way that whatever side of the proposition you would take the opposite view and argue it.
I learned that way to see different views and be able to formulate them in my mind.
It's so hard to have a conversation with people these days.
It should also be made sure that the debate does not turn into a personal attack on both parties. The debate should stay on the topic and not come down to just berating the other.
Ergo ad hominem.
I find that being able to determine if your opponent cares about the accuracy of information is important. From this you can decide whether you will actually have a good debate/ conversation, or if your job is simply to promote the accurate information and make the inaccurate information look as pathetic as possible.
Perhaps the most important thing to learn is when NOT to argue with someone and NOT have a debate, some people are just ill and persuasive argument will not affect them.
Yes, I as wondering if he was going to touch on disingenuous arguments. Otherwise everything else he said was spot on.
Sad that the "when to not argue" crowd feels like 90% of the population these days
If we have to form a better argument, we need to think. If we need to think, we need time. If we need time, we can't have social media in the form like instagram and tiktok.
@jonas Sure but you can't have them done without thinking and time though
We have all become so insecure with ourselves that we rush to shut down others' opinions without even taking time to think about "opposing" points. And politics and media have become such spectacles that audiences now live for the drama/ entertainment, rather than consider the view points deeply. Great points made.
Most opinions are stupid
If you don't have training or experience you should keep your mouth shut
The Earth is a sphere, fifteen is bigger than five, and the US is the greatest terrorist organization in world history
Yes. You really need to engage with the flat earthers and h0l0c@ust deniers. Consider their "facts" and really engage with their idiocy. That's what being civilised means
It really just needs to be a cooperative process done in good faith for the purpose of arriving at the truth and the most beneficial decisions for all, regardless of previously held views and disagreements.
You can tell how well articulated he is, by the way he chooses his words carefully. I want to learn how to speak like that.😄
Well spoken guy
We aren't seeing debates any more. We're seeing arguments. We've lost so much.
1. Training 2. Format 3. Relationship outside of the debate
Beautiful explanation. This makes me appreciate things like discussing tough or difficult topics to help stimulate and jug people's brains.
People don't give other debaters enough time to make their point. I see some people pay more attention to presenting their ideas and don't pay much attention to what other participants want to say.
I know so many people who are only interested in debate if it is in front of an audience. For them, debate is always a gladiatorial performance.
Yup, and they're always equiped with a wide range of skills like putting words in the other person's mouth and/or distorting all they're saying. Going for personal attacks or just ignoring facts or anything that might prove them wrong and just go in circles around their own idea while doing the first 2 things I mentioned.
@@oblivion9202 I know! And it really sucks if you have such people in your family.
In my experience debating a large variety of people is useful for learning new things about your own arguments so you can revise and expand them to perfection. If I had only stuck to scrutinizing them myself I wouldn't know anywhere near what I do now.
and what do you know now, just wondering
Yes, that is true, and there are books that can help, learning logical fallacies and reading about that subject. It is a very old and useful subject.
Debating is like improvisation on a jazz tune. Ya gotta know alot of difficult things and be able to instantly use them correctly. And like jazz, it takes practice.
That will happen with increasing frequency the more you are wrong and with decreasing frequency the more you have it right. Reality has an impersonal bias, it doesn't care what your opinion is. The phenomenon you experience when debating is related to the phenomenon of synchronization between two pendulums swinging with different timing which are touching the same table. They will spontaneously synchronize. The table is reality.
Absolute true, thanks so much. 💫💥💫
One of the most important videos to come from this channel. Our entire human existence could benefit from understanding these concepts better.
2:18 is why you came here.
- Having a relationship with the person we are disagreeing with is more important than disagreement itself.
- Debates are only as good as the information, the knowledge, and the skills that debaters bring to it.
After leaving university, I forgot the truly intense pleasure of debating. Glad I watched this. I am......reinvigorated. And cannot wait to become the Clayton Frazier (the provoker in Peyton Place) of my workplace. 🔥🔥🔥
Absolutely outstanding synthesis and presentation. Thoughtful, well-organized, and implementable framework and suggestions. A clear process to begin restoring respectful debate into society.
One thing that is a serious problem in today's political climate is an overarching sense that the political "sides" are enemies. The reason things actually used to get done was because politicians *were* colleagues, they did know each other outside of the halls of congress, they did know each other on a personal basis. And while many had radically different beliefs in what should or shouldn't be done, they knew that at the end of the day that they would find a compromise that both sides could live with.
Our society has polarized so much in the passed few decades, and I do point the finger mostly at the 24 hour news cycle, where practically everything is "breaking news", "this just in", and then we threw social media into the mix, where sounding boards got even more encompassing. People see the news as something they're meant to be keeping an eye on all day like it's actually going to change their lives between when they got up and dinner time. Government is slow, it's boring, it's meant to be. They only reason the news has gotten more interesting is because the stations need ratings for their sponsors. Passing legislation is meant to take time, because it's meant to be something that the majority can live with, which with the need for society's need for instant gratification, takes too long.
And when it comes to political debates, personal jabs have no place. These people are meant to be professional and represent the best that a political side can present. If the "best" is the one who can burn the other the most during a debate, you've lost perspective on what government is mean to be about. A persons ability to rise above the nonsense personal issues, and speak coherently and informatively about their position and how they can make things better for the majority is what actually matters.
The man who worked his way up from being in a lower-middle class, blue collar family should resonate much more with general society than a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who's always had everything handed to him.
You have to take into account that we live in a democracy. Where the majority of the population choose who they want to elect as leaders. That by itself, already breeds toxicity in politicians and corruption.
People go with what they *feel* is a better candidate than who *actually* is. The majority of the population aren't deep into what the candidate wants to accomplish or what the office position entails. As long as they see them as friendly, relatable, and non radical, they will elect them. It also causes genuine public servants to focus more on being likeable than being the most qualified for the position.
very good. wish we could implement this. problem is, the way people raise their children, and our short attention spans are not conducive to free thought and the ability to receive and give constructive criticism.
This shows how much our so-called political debates are not debates at all, or at least not enough to be called debates.
"The reason facts don't change people's minds is that most people use their opinions to form facts instead of using facts to form their opinions"
Nicely said.
Interesting commentary, but the title is wrong. He's talking about the importance of debate, not how to do it
Thanks.
As usual with big think
After watching this, I am inspired to take my debating skills beyond the paradigm of my personal beliefs and see if I can defend a premise with which I disagree.
"Information Diet" will be a new word in my dictionary. I can't believe how useful this idea is for explaining the current state of our society.
Great video. Entirely the wrong title.
This is why in Montessori schools, we teach young children to articulate their needs and have some room to meet that need independently. A 3-year-old telling me “I’m feeling angry. I’m going to go look at the fish tank and take some deep breaths,” is incredibly equipped to grow into the kind of adult who thinks for themselves and manages their emotions in a healthy way. We can all grow in this skill because it’s necessary to have a healthy, respectful debate/disagreement with another person.
The lessons of the James farmer and Malcolm X debate go beyond just enlightening discourse. Effective Negotiation is exactly the same as the goal that Mr. Seo describes. Where the goal is not to force the other to compromise but for each to articulate what a win is for themselves and understand what is a win for the other. Thereby, by understanding each other, reaching an outcome superior to just using your leverage to force the other to compromise.
There’s a very important thing to remember. Is that there is a difference between an argument and a fight. An argument is presenting your side of an issue and doesn’t have to be confrontational. (It can be, but it’s not inherently confrontational) a fight is just violent
Despite what’s often exclaimed, you don’t actually have a right to any opinion, rather, you’re only entitled to a position you can defend. We also pretend all positions are valid and have merit, so as to be “fair” and impartial. An example: Certain animal based news corps will give equal time to both a flat earther position and a physicist astronaut who has lived in space…2 positions, same amount of time. This gives the impression that it’s “just two opposing perspectives. Who really knows the answer, after all!?”
Well said!
That can be said about some scientific (empiric, testable, repeatable...) topics, but on social, political and philosophical motions we need to start the debate with both sides on the same level of credibility.
If equal time creates a problem for the viewer, then the viewer is using airtime as a substitute for examining the evidence produced by the debaters,* at which point why even bother with having people present their case at all?
*Either that, or a hypothetical plant-based network (i.e. one that does not offer equal time) is attempting to influence/count on them to do this.
1. Training 2. Format 3. Relationship
Haven't seen a Big Think video in a long time. I thought this one was solid, but I'm still seeing a mistake that Big Think was making back in the day. The title is either misleading or too vague; I came to this video thinking I was going to be taught by the debate world champion on how to argue _well_ or how to _win_ an argument/debate. This was much more about how we as a society _should engage_ in argument/debate, which was still edifying, but not what the title connotes
I think the loveliest point made in this video, was to know one another beyond the disagreement. Imagine, knowing your oppositions family and friends and you maybe establish a friendship of sorts despite your opposition to one another's views. From there, we could learn again to debate respectfully with one another and not reduce all disagreements to nothing more than a verbal fist-fight. I thought of the indigenous people's concept of the 'peace pipe', allowing everyone holding the pipe to have their turn to say fully what they intend without interruption. Additionally, in our rush to make our points, we more often than not don't pause to digest and reflect on what the other person has said and meant.
WOW! This video has given me so much insight into how a debate works!Summed up beautifully
the most important thing in a debate is the ability to listen...
🤔 Indeed. We have two ears. But only one mouth.
More videos with Bo Seo -
How dirty debaters win against better opponents: th-cam.com/video/tZw0-ap7buo/w-d-xo.html
Why you should live an argumentative life: th-cam.com/video/Tk01uthNqzY/w-d-xo.html
The title of this video is misleading. This is not about how to argue. It is more about the circumstances of the debate.
What a brilliant invitation for our culture to return to personal responsibility in thinking for our selves, and doing the work of confronting various ideas and POVs. Debate's historical goal was for the growth of all present. Today, it's become to make the opposing side look stupid. This is a loss for all. Rather than talking after a debate about "who won", wouldn't it be beneficial to discuss what we learned as a people from the dialogue?
People dont realise that it is not necessary that there can be only one truth. Truth is relative, it can be different from different perspectives. One od the beautiful teachings from jainism.
Everyone should take an entire day, get as intoxicated as you like with whatever you like and think about the idea of everyone being you with different circumstances. That’s it
Dissociation is a great tool for introducing more flexibility into one's views.
Loved the second point, so insightful. Thank you!
So articulate and well said
"[...] explains how to argue". No he doesn't. He talks about the contexts and significance of debate.
This is so damn eloquent.
I very much like my thoughts to be challenged. I love it when I am changing my mind, which happens sometimes. It is like I suddenly can see something that I could not see before. It is magic. Change my mind and you are my friend. People who don't challenge my mind I consider boring. Is this just me?
The only thing that concerns me when it comes to any debate is that the truth is defended. Who wins the debate is arbitrary.
" ...through that conversation they would be able to get somewhere they couldn't on their own."
Thanks so much!
This man speaks so much truth
Thanks for this captivating lesson!
Oh we urgently need this video here in Colombia!!! Thank you so much!
In today’s world the key to debate is knowing when it’s not worth your time and walking away. Arguing with fools is an awful use of time.
The best way to figure out who's a fool or not is to trigger them with words or statements and see if they see you as a fool.
If they are wise enough to understand that there's more that meets the eye, then they will engage in talking with you in a productive conversation.
If they use that word or statement as a basis of why you are a fool not worth talking too, then you saved yourself from a headache.
@@XX89948 setting out to purposely trigger people is just being a dick
You know Arno Michaelis ?
He is a former White Supremacist, extremist to the core
He's now a anti-racist activist
He created an association specialized in deradicalizing extremists
I've heard him explain that he personnaly made dizains of person deradicalizing
That's something that I find incredible, to the point it's even hard to take one's word for it, but I know I can't doubt what he's saying
That means one thing, if one can cause a neo-Nazi to change his mind, then it's possible to change every one's mind
You can't say that it's impossible to change the opinion of this or this guys you met at the bar, knowing that it's possible to change an extremist's mind
But there's one thing
If you expect someone to change his mind just because you proved him wrong
Then you are the fool
Because it doesn't work, you saw countless time it didn't, it would probably not work even on you, and even if I hate it, I know I would struggle to change my own mind this way, even being wrong
That's not the way Arno Michaelis does either
To make someone change his belief, you got to understand why he belives what he does
You got to understand how it's possible for a human mind to spit bullshit while feeling right, and to realize that, as all human, you are doing the same all day long
You got to understand what trigger such bullshit, how to avoid them
You got to understand how to make someone lower one's shield in a political discussion, how to make one listen to you
You got to understand how make one focus on the question "is this argument something I can agree with" rather than "How to counter this argument" during your conversation
That's by no way easy, that's extremely hard
But you can't just look to a hard issue, and throw it away saying "it's impossible" while you've tried only one strategy
You don't have to go through all this trouble, if you don't want to spend the time, then yes, the best strategy is walking away
Because you are totally right, a bad debate with "a fool" is a waste of time
Even worst, it's counterproductive, for you and for him
But there's something I totally disagree with
There is no fool in this world
Or if there is, that would mean we are all one, cause we all thing the same way, making the same mistakes over and over
@@KeepItSimpleSailor It's more to test the level of maturity in someone.
If being a dick means saving time by not arguing with someone who gets triggered by words and statements at the beginning prologue then so be it. There are billions of others that are more worth the effort.
The issue with this is that it's likely that you'd avoid a debate with yourself with this attitude. I personally begin the debate with as much good-will and understanding as possible, and if they don't return that attitude then I can be pretty confident that the debate will go off the rails and I simply leave. I would prefer not to make myself the insufferable human, just to weed out the other 'potential' insufferables.
3:29 Aint that right! Amen!
This is one of the most important videos in our day and age right now. At the very core of it, I believe, we are seeing so much political divide and toxicity because people don't know how to debate. Everything he addressed in the video that is important about debate, has been lost. People lack civility, people lack a willingness to listen and genuinely engage with what was said, and people too often regurgitate arguments made by others from one side of the aisle without any of their own thinking being added on. Of course we learn a lot from speakers and should adopt the way they think if we agree, that's what a debate aims to do, but it's important to think genuinely and uniquely about what you are hearing. Hopefully people can treat debate as a learning opportunity and not a battle all the time.
Theres a bunch of videos and books by zizek where he defends this already, this vid is really base level but at least is understandable and spreadable so ye, more people should watch it.
When I was in high school I had a friend who told me that on the debate team they were each given a topic. For the first half of the debate they had to argue one side while their opponent argued the other side. At the halfway point the had to reverse sides for the remainder of the debate. Would it be helpful if, before we decide on a position, we sat on the fence and examined both sides? Would it help us both better understand out opponent’s position and better defend our own position?
Why set up the white background but constantly use wide shots of the entire room. I can't even pay attention 🤣
It's a stylistic choice that's supposed to communicate transparency. Like saying: I have a backdrop but i don't mind you seeing the other parts of the room because I've nothing to hide....
If you can't pay attention because of this little detail I don't think it's their fault 😅
Asking why and how to see someone’s perspective (and sharing your how and why of your perspective )even though you don’t agree with each other goes a long way to understanding and getting along with people despite our differences.
Excellent points. Today's debates are not debates, but a circus event to entertain an audience, and generate provocative headlines on the next day's news commercial websites.
A lot of people commented about how in this day and age, people take opinions way too seriously and can't accept someone having different opinions than them.
Here's the problem right, it has always been like this, people do not accept an idea or a view that is fundamentally different than how they view the world. It is always them who is right and that is it.
Most of the folks right now who are in the wave of "taking opinions seriously" and "not being able to accept different opinions" are folks who were NOT included in the older generation's idea and norms of what is "supposed to be"
They are majorly a lot of minorities or people whose identities, voices, and existence has been ignored or stamped down by the majority of society and what was considered "acceptable".
The thought of opinions just being ideas and an abstract concept that shouldn't affect anyone is inherently false. As what someone thinks will affect what they say and what they say will affect their surroundings, the people around them, and the world.
Opinions can't be harmless when we're talking about certain topics, yes it could be when we're talking about things such as favorite shows, but even things such as the film industry can be debated because there are writers and animators being overworked and underpaid, etc..
It is not just the older generation's fault nor it is the current generation's instead just the simple fact that most of humanity can never see something past black and white, and they can not understand how much their existence and their actions impacts everything.
Above all the good points he made he does rock some cool ass shoes
This is misleading title. He’s explaining what should be done to have a good argument
I mean he must be a master debater, since he succesfully dodged the question while talking for 5 minutes
Actually all he did was give answers on how to argue. Or were you looking for tips on how to win a debate? Cause that's not the point of a debate
@@eljuanman999 I think you confuse debating and chatting. The point of a debate, in a very naive sense is that we come to some consensus, in which case techniques that make me more articulate and able to convince others are in fact what I would want to see in a video like this.
In a more realistic sense, a debate between presidents, youtubers, celebrities etc. is exactly what you say is not a debate. You try to convince an audience, if you manage to do that, you win the debate. Again something that should be in this video.
Best debate I ever heard was Gucci Mane The Truth
There are lots of photos of Presidential 'debates' during this clip. But those aren't really debates.
Those are mostly American version formats, where a person asks a question of two panelists and they each give an answer. The Fermer/Malcolm X debates were proper debates, where two people sit across from one another and almost have a conversation.
The 'Founding Fathers' are a good example of authoritarian debate replacing constructive community debate (as engaged in by indigenous peoples). They had good training, debatee familiarity, and time given to make a point.
lol what the Native tribes were busy fighting each other in wars and then got wiped out when the white man came. There was no kind of legit debate.
@@MondoBattlefield How to show your limited knowledge in one post...
@@dama9150 the natives did not have much civility outside of their own tribes. part of the reason why the white man took over was because of disease and they lacked proper unity as they fought eachother. why do you think natives fought on both sides of the french and indian war, because they were swindled by the white man and hated opposing tribes too much. the iroquois sided with the Britts to fight algonquin, shawnee tribes, etc... it is anti-intellectual to respond to my response with the statement that I lack knowledge when you provide no additional knowledge aside from the original comment which is laughably terrible
@@MondoBattlefield Alternatively, you are just getting your version of 'history' from the white colonisers...
@@dama9150 correct. after all, the winners are the ones that write history
I can tell this guy is a genius. Everyone please listen to what he has to say
Bo's PM speech at WUDC is engraved into my mind. What a legend
4:20 (first of all, nice) I can't stress enough how crucial it is to detach yourself and your ego from the discussion.
For thise struggling with it, *your ideas are not your identity; you can change them and still be equally respected. A better phrasing would be: I don't value you for the beliefs you hold but for the human being you are.*
I honestly don't see your beliefs as you. Changing, or losing a belief you have, isn't you losing part of your ego. In fact, those exact ideas that plant one's identity in them (mostly belief systems as gradually groups form themselves around those beliefs, so the single belief becomes a 10 beliefs and an entire belief system by themselves.) are what we call identity politics. That's the disturbing part of it; they make you adopt them, not in the school of thought way, but as a part of your identity, hence changing them means practically becoming someone else, hence losing yourself or part of it.
I know most of you reading this are thinking of religion at the back of your minds, but politics equally satisfy this criterion of grounding one's identity in those beliefs about their parties.
You know where else you do that too? Debates, obviously! Everyone does it. Ask any debater in any platform, can you entertain the possibility your opponent being right and you being wrong. You're pretty much asking them to put their ego aside and think, *SERIOUSLY* think how their opponent might be right and them being wrong. And I include everyone in this bag. Atheists, people arguing for global earth (not that I don't believe but they, justblike everyone like I'm not picking up on them, too have a dog in the fight) evolution, anti-conpiracies from 9/11 to Watergate.
As long as you have your ego on the table, you are very unlikely to examine the evidence (regardless) seriously. Most likely than not, you'll dismiss the other side given how "dumb and ignorant" they are. That's it! Your ego speaking, and not your mind addressing the supposed evidence that until you examine it, can call it supposed (as in false or shaky) before you do examine it seriously.
I think it is more that new age media communication platforms seem like open places for ideas to flow, but their structure and algorithms favor certain kinds of engagement over others. We can improve debate quality through training, but that is against systemic factors. We can more powerfully improve the tide of our interactions by changing the structure of these platforms.
Wonderfully put! Thanks for this video.
Screaming is usually the best tactic. The loudest person is the one who wins the debate.
Thank you for this video! I have been looking for ways to encourage intelligent, respectful debate/discussion.
Brilliant commentary
To summerise what he said was Train yourself to know how to speak, Know about the person you are having a debait with, respect other's opinions and keep have a open minded mindset?
Excellent video. Agree completely. The art of all types of conversations have suffered greatly thanks to technology; namely the polarization it breeds and the attention it demands.
Thanks for this! Really amazing!
4:15 This is a good advice. We don't debate to please the audience but to listen and understand with the one we're debating with.
I've thought for a while now that the way we treat each other online is one of the biggest and most overlooked problems in society today. I love that this video speaks to that problem; it did not teach me rhetorical skills to 'win' the argument, as one might assume, but something more profound, how to increase the quality of the discussion for both parties to ultimately increase the likelihood of being more in harmony and closer to the truth. If we communicated with genuine empathy and curiosity, we could see a lot of other problems fall like dominoes.
Now imagine me catching a clip of Westminster jeering or a Trump 'lOsEr' tweet jfc is this how we govern ourselves lol no wonder the species is fucked
When he says face to face caught my attention
If we can't disagree without aiming to hurt or silence the holder of an inferior/ill formed view or opinion we have no argument. Every argument must aim to bring out the brilliance of both participants. The best must compete, never attend or promote cheap entertaining repartee. If you claim the other is wrong, first you need to establish your self exemplary standards, if you have no exemplary standards to defend then you will be defending damaging standards
People want to engage in hollow rubbish because it was not a debate in the first place, it was all about self appointed pride and indecent victory. They want unilateral dominance, there was or will be no accommodation or correction.
I was witnesses to quite a few sub-standard talks/debates, people defending poor values were cheered, it only shows the debate was organized to self entertain than to expand accountability and honor.
"Citizens would gather and have a debate among themselves"
The picture shows a pub brawl.
You ask a good question. During the debate, each side has time to make their points, cross examine each other and convince the judge. Nowadays, and especially with the one we push of online media, debate is more like typing opinions out to the ether. Wish we would bring the great debate back. Thanks for the great video. Looking forward for more.❤
I usually start with: "I know you are, so what am I?" Then fall on the floor and scream like a 2 year old.
People also need to be honest with themselves and submit when they have been taught something new and the persuader needs to know how to respectfully win an argument.
Oh this is so wonderfully crafted this is, just lovely.
"Avatars to whom we outsource the work of thinking for ourselves."
About the debate format...during the last US presidential election cycle, I couldn't even get through the VP debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, since the moderator kept calling time on both of them when they clearly weren't finished. Now, I get wanting to call time on someone who is using way more than his allotted time because it's not fair to the other person, but when neither side can seem to finish their thoughts in the allotted time, then IMO the time limit needs to be longer, because it's not serving anyone. I think the two sides should learn from that mistake and request longer time limits next time if they have candidates who may actually want to use it.
Decency, disagreement, dignity, debate, dialogue, and discernment are foundational to democracy.