良好辩论的运作机制、历史传统与现代挑战

Bo Seo: I'm Bo Seo. I'm a two-time world debate champion, a former coach of the Australian National and Harvard debate teams, and the author of Good Arguments. Thank you for watching Big Think. If you'd like to support our work, we encourage you to join our members community. As a member, you'll receive our quarterly print magazine, a beautifully designed collection of the ideas and interviews that matter most. Big Think is for curious people who want to take deep dives into big ideas. To support the media you want to see in the world, go to bigthink.com/membership. And now back to the interview.

Bo Seo: Chapter one, how good arguments work. I felt the need to write good arguments because I think our public conversations are in a state of crisis and that is the more visible crisis that we see where every disagreement out in media or in the public square is a source of division and pain. But it's also the hidden crisis of all the people who are driven away from participating in those conversations at all because they fear that it's going to be pointless or it's going to be painful and it's not going to be worth their time.

Bo Seo: Good arguments is not only what democracies have to do. It's what they on their best days aspire to be, which is a conversation between people who disagree sometimes over irreconcilable things to find areas of agreement to spot points where they need to work across their differences to reach a better solution. One of the reasons why our arguments are so divisive and painful and present is that we've allowed the skills of disagreeing well to atrophy. We no longer view argument as a skill and as something to be worked at. Rather, we see it as something we jump into out of instinct or defensiveness. The bad arguments that result in turn decrease our confidence in what disagreements can do for us. And when we lack that faith in what arguments can do, we tend to approach them more defensively. We tend to go into it with a more defensive posture. And as a result, the lack of faith and lack of confidence tends to be self-reinforcing. And the resulting cascade means that the quality of the conversation further degrades.

Bo Seo: The tradition of good argument that I'm trying to advocate for is very much rooted in history. It goes back all the way to antiquity where in ancient Greece the ability to make your point persuasively to engage other citizens in discussion and debate was seen as a kind of a requirement of citizenship. that it's what it meant for us to govern ourselves. And that developed through tea houses and pubs and coffee houses in London where while the debates of Parliament were going on, citizens would gather and have the same debates between themselves and to kind of play out as though they were parliamentarians, as though they were governing themselves. And that tradition kind of carries forth in the United States with a lot of the founding fathers starting debate clubs and colleges viewing part of their role as leaders and as founders of a new country as instilling in the nation that spirit of debate. And though that tradition has become harder and harder to discern in our everyday lives, there have been periods in the history of the US and the history of democracies and the history of the world where those debates were a feature of people's day-to-day lives.

Bo Seo: So, one high-profile debate that comes to mind is the series of debates between the civil rights leader James Farmer and Malcolm X, who had a different view of what racial liberation looked like, what the appropriate response to racism was. And these were a series of disagreements between people who were ostensibly on the same side, whose objectives were in some sense allied, but they were not shy about voicing their disagreements in really candid, strong, forthroated ways in the view of the public. knowing that the other side would respond respectfully, that they would be candid about the disagreements, and through that conversation that they would be able to get somewhere they couldn't on their own.

Bo Seo: There are three lessons that I take away from the farmer Malcolm X debates. The first is the importance of training. farmer came up under one of the great debate coaches who ever lived, Melvin Tolson, who was memorialized actually by Denzel Washington in that movie, The Great Debaters. And Malcolm X too found his voice through a debate program in prison that allowed inmates to debate against local colleges and local schools and to find an outlet for the kind of thinking that they had done through engagement with texts and with each other. So the first is in order for us to be able to host the kinds of public debates again that enlarges our understanding of what's possible, we have to start training and we have to start training our young people. We have to train ourselves to be able to engage in those conversations.

Bo Seo: The second is the importance of format. So in the debates between these two men and some of them were in colleges, some of them were on television, some of them were in radio. It's striking how long they were given to make their points. It wasn't one to two minutes then interruptions. Often they would be given quite a long stretch of time to present their arguments with the knowledge that once they had spoken the other person would speak and they would get another turn. So they could and they were sometimes forced to sit back and listen knowing that their chance was not now, it was coming later. So there's an importance of the kind of format in which we pit two people against one another.

Bo Seo: The third thing that you see in those debates is the importance of having a relationship with the person that you're disagreeing with that's greater than just the disagreement itself. So behind the scenes of these big public encounters, Farmer and Malcolm X were getting to know one another. They were going to one another's houses. And so by being in a relationship with the other person that's more than just the differences, by introducing the family to one another, by seeing the other areas of life, by doing other things together, you can often enlarge the possibility of what you do within the debate. You can be more candid there. You can be fullthroated. can come at the other person honestly, but you know there's a relationship that you can fall back on.

Bo Seo: So I started debating because I moved in the third grade from South Korea to Australia without really speaking English. And I quickly found the hardest part of crossing language lines of cultural lines was adjusting to real life conversation where people can mid-sentence pivot into talking about something else where what their faces say and what their gestures say don't always match the words that are coming out of their mouths. And I found that all of those difficulties tended to compound in disagreements where passions tend to run and people tend to be more disruptive, to interrupt, to speed up and slow down at unexpected moments. And in response to all that, I resolved to be very agreeable in the way in which I presented at school and to keep my thoughts to myself. And the thing that changed that and shook me out of that was I joined the debate team off the strength of one promise from my fifth grade elementary school teacher which was that in debate when one person speaks no one else does. And to someone who had been used to being interrupted and spun out of conversation that sounded to me like a kind of salvation.

Bo Seo: One of the things that I learned as a person really on the margins who didn't really speak the language, was visibly out of place on the playground and in the and in the classroom was I learned to listen. I learned to read a room. I learned to take the temperature of a place before I ever raised my voice. And I learned to do that not to get hurt first of all, but also because it was the only way in which I would ever be heard. And it so happens that many of the most successful debaters tend to come from these slightly marginal backgrounds to have the perspective of someone on the periphery. And I think the reason for that is because though it's easier to focus on the person at the front of the room delivering a debate speech, much of the action of debate and much of the strategy of getting ahead in debate involves listening really intently not only to what one's opponent is saying, but also to listen from the perspective of an audience so that you might be able to anticipate what they might need to hear next. And so what started for me as a kind of a liability or uh a disadvantage that I had to overcome ended up being a tremendous strength because I think one of the great lessons of debate is in order to be heard, you have to first listen.

Bo Seo: Debates are only as good as the information and the knowledge and the skills that debaters bring to it. And one of the more concerning things that we see at the moment is people's information diets not being sufficiently varied, not being sufficiently rich to sustain the kinds of conversations that we want to have. The first thing is we cannot allow the debates that we see on cable television to be a kind of a replacement for the disagreements that we should be having in our day-to-day lives. So our political leaders or our favorite media personalities can't be like avatars to whom we outsource the work of thinking for ourselves and having these conversations for ourselves. So the first is viewing media not as a substitution but as a source of equipment and knowledge that we can then transfer into the kinds of conversations that we have.

Bo Seo: The second thing is having a a variety and a diversity of sources that we turn to to get our information. And one of the impulses that partisan media, siloed information sources feed off is our desire to be validated, to have news reflect back to us what we already believe to be true about the world. And just the way that debate encourages us to seek out differences and to see them as productive and revoly and mindexpanding. So we should view the different signals and information and perspectives we take in because that richer diet allows us to see more perspectives and to challenge our own thinking more consistently.

Bo Seo: For me, my love of debate and desire to see things from different perspectives to if not always agree then at least to understand the perspective from which others are coming from is inextricably tied to a life that I've led of always moving countries. I had to move from South Korea to Australia as an 8-year-old. I grew up in Australia, then moved to the US for college. I got a post-graduate degree in China and and then came back through Australia back to the US. And through each of these moves, there was a lot of work of translation and work of adaptation and having to figure out where the surroundings were at before I could make a home in them. And a lot of that was information gathering, whether that be reading the news, but often in conversation with people in those locations, in those neighborhoods to figure out that most basic and difficult question, which is where am I? And to do that, you needed all the help that you could get. And you needed to rely on all the information sources you could get. And one of the things that I learned to do, I think, is to resist easy answers to that question. Um, and to try and piece together from a kind of a mosaic

Speaker: ...all the different sides of a place. We're used to thinking about listening as an essentially passive act where we sit back in our chairs and take it all in. Debaters know that it's a much more active process than that. So when a speaker is speaking, a debater has paper and pen ready and they're doing at least three things. The first is they're trying to transcribe in as accurate a detail what the other person is saying. And often when you separate out your own perceptions of what the speech is versus the reality of it, you'll find that it's sometimes different. The next thing that you're trying to do is try and reconstruct the argument that's being presented in its most basic form to say what is the real thrust of this argument and can I put it down on the page and organize it on the page in a way the other side would recognize as faithful to their argument. The next thing that you're doing is you're sometimes building up that argument into even a stronger version. So what else could the opposition have said to further their argument to improve their argument? And through this process, you're not only listening to the words that's coming out, you're trying to reconstruct the deeper meaning behind it, you're trying to strengthen their argument, all for the purpose of being able to engage with their case and their perspective more fully.

Speaker: There are two lessons that we can take away from how debaters listen and and to try and apply it in our own lives. The first is it is in your best interest to understand the opposition's argument as they would understand it. And what that means is it's not in your best interest to twist their meaning or to take it at its worst or to capture only a fraction of it because they won't feel as though they had been listened to and heard and ultimately responded to. And unless that moment, that click and that moment of contact happens, it's not a real disagreement. It's not a real debate. It's a kind of a quarrel or people talking across one another. The second thing is it's also in your best interest to respond to the strongest version of the other side and sometimes to build up the other side's case so that it's even better than where they have it now. And the reason for that is, you know, after you finish speaking, the opposition might have a light bulb and come up with a better case or someone on their side might say, "You've responded to the weak version of this argument, but here's something better." So the further you can take it and the stronger the version of the other side you can respond to, the further ahead you pull, the more you challenge the other side to go even further and the better the conversation becomes.

Speaker: Arguments are easy to start and hard to end because difference is the natural state of things. There are any number of differences between two people and when one of those issues comes to the four, you can have a disagreement. But unless you're selective about the kinds of arguments that you pick and unless you're careful to say we're having this disagreement at this moment and not all the other disagreements we could be having, all of the differences between two people can start flooding in and the argument becomes this unruly mass of of conflict between two people where any of the potential sources of conflict can come to the four and you're not making progress on any given one. As a competitive debater, you become a bit enthusiastic about disagreeing and you tend to want to take on any claim that you might disagree with and and and and try to provide the best argument against it. And one of the frameworks that I developed in order to be a little bit more judicious to pick my fights more wisely is called the RISA framework. And that is before launching into a disagreement or challenging a claim to ask four things. First, whether the disagreement is in fact real as opposed to an imagined slight or a misunderstanding. The second is to ask whether it's important enough to you to justify the disagreement. The third is to ask whether the question or the topic of disagreement is specific enough in order for you to make some progress. And the fourth is to ask whether you and the other person engaged in the disagreement are aligned in your objectives for wanting to partake in that conversation. And by checking off on these four lists, you can't guarantee that a conversation is going to go well, but you may be able to give it the best possible chance of doing so.

Speaker: One of the limitations of the RISA framework that I worry about is that it is increasingly difficult to find the right kind of alignment in people's interest for wanting to engage in a disagreement. So if you have two sides that simply want to hurt one another's feelings by having an argument, that's some kind of alignment, but not the right kind that leads to productive conversations. And the place where the RISA framework can go wrong is in a world where everybody wants to engage in disagreements for bad reasons. And to combat that, I think we need to restore confidence and faith in what disagreements can be and to highlight its potential as a source for good as well as a source for ill. So one place where you might be able to apply the RISA framework is an event that is a source of dread for a lot of people which is getting together with extended family for Thanksgiving or Christmas or Easter and knowing that some of the personal or political disagreements are going to bubble up to the surface. The RISA framework provides two sources of help in that situation. The first is that every disagreement should start with a little bit of agreement. And that is often naming exactly what it is that you disagree about so that it doesn't bubble up into uh an unruly conflict about all the different slights and and and disagreements and all the different areas in which you don't see eye to eye. And the first step is to name the disagreement in front of you. And you need to do that before you can even start to apply the RISA framework. The second thing is it may be that two people don't start with the same objectives in mind when they enter the conversation. But one of the things that you might be able to do is to check well why do you want to engage in this disagreement? And can we come to an agreement about what it is that we're hoping to get out of this conversation. So forcing the slightly quarrelome family member who just wants to be a contrarian or to cause trouble to say, "Are you really in this hoping to persuade me to change my mind? Or are you really in this to hear my perspective or a different take on these positions that you hold?" That bit of negotiation of why it is that we're in the conversation in the first instance. And that level of alignment can often allow our conversations to go better than if we just jump into the disagreements without much forethought.

Speaker: If intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument, wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts of an argument to respond to. And debaters usually ask two questions. The first is is a given point within the opposition's argument or case is it necessary to challenge in order for us to resolve the overall dispute? And if it's not, is us challenging it or disagreeing with it going to help us make progress on the overall dispute. So by asking whether a point that the other side is making no matter how offensive or wrong seeming it may be by asking whether it's first necessary to challenge or even if it's not whether challenging it would help us make progress on the argument. You can be a little bit more judicious uh in how you disagree and prevent our arguments from becoming this unruly all-encompassing dispute. The importance of beginning a dispute with the RISA framework is that it allows us to almost make a contract with the other side to say this is what we're disagreeing about and these are the reasons why we're engaging in that dispute. And one of the things that you can do with someone who tries to break those rules to expand the debate into something it wasn't about to change the topic to uh introduce new reasons for wanting to engage in the dispute is just to remind ourselves of the agreement that we made of the kind of disagreement that we want to have and what we want to disagree about and to bring the conversation back to those parameters.

Speaker: So much of debate is an exercise in certainty. It's about spending sometimes weeks researching your side of the case, coming up with the best possible arguments that you can, coming up with the best lines that you can to sell the truth of your side to the listener. But in the last moments before a debater goes on stage, they know to take a breath, to take out a new sheet of paper, and to put themselves in their opponent's shoes and write the four best arguments for the opposing side. They know also to look over their case again, this time through the eyes of someone who fervently disagrees with them and to identify all of the flaws and the mistakes and the criticisms that could be leveled against them. Debaters also know to imagine to imagine a world in which they lost the debate and to come up with the reasons why they did. And those exercises which are called the sides switch exercises puts a pause on that feeling of certainty. It makes us feel for a moment the subjective reasonleness of other people's beliefs. It gives us that moment where we get back on our toes and think maybe we missed something. It makes us imagine a world in which we're wrong or at least we're judged to be wrong. And all of that isn't humility, isn't empathy in and of itself, but it creates a wrigle room through which something like humility or empathy might arise. I find empathy hard to practice in my day-to-day life because I often feel as though I don't know what it is. Sometimes it feels like a kind of a magical psychic connection that you look into the eyes of someone and then somewhere music starts playing in the background or it feels like a virtue that some people are born with and that other people don't possess. It was through the experience of debating that I saw a different view of empathy which is empathy as a series of actions which by putting yourselves in the shoes of an opponent and coming up with some arguments for their case or by looking at yourself through the eyes of an opposition and trying to look at all the reasons why you might be wrong. I think so many of our conversations at the moment feel like they're stuck. It's people fully convinced of their views shouting at at each other from a distance and it's a kind of a trench warfare where people are fully entrenched in the position that they've always held and creating that little wiggle room for doubt for letting in the possibility that the other side might have a couple of points in their favor and that you might have missed something. I think that's one way in which empathy comes in at a time when it's in such short supply. The sites which exercises and the kind of empathy that debate brings into the conversation is not only applicable in personal disagreements but in my view more urgently needed than ever in our political disputes in disputes between political parties and factions and and your ideological commitments. But in order for us to be able to put into practice, I think we have to remember

Speaker: That each of us are bigger than our political affiliations, than our religious commitments, than our ideological beliefs. And more importantly, the other person is more than a representative of their party or their position in society or the beliefs that they hold.

Speaker: And by allowing our encounters to be larger than the affiliations that we have, that gives us the best chance, I think, of being able to explore new ideas, to listen to the particular nuances of where the other person is coming from and not the categories we would place them in. And it's in that setting that exercises like side switch become most effective. When we view the other person and when we view ourselves in our fullness and not merely by our membership or affiliation in groups of like-minded folks.

Speaker: Chapter two, why arguments break down. One of the hardest questions I had to grapple with in writing this book is are there some subjects that we simply should not debate?

Speaker: And the conclusion I came to is we should draw at least one bright line which is saying we should not debate the equal moral standing of persons.

Speaker: And the reason for that is the whole premise of debate. And the reason why we give people equal time in which to speak and we give them the promise of being able to speak uninterrupted is because we say their voice is worth hearing and their voice is worth hearing equally as that of their opponent. And so a debate about whether a certain race of people or group of people are inferior would be antithetical to what debate stands for.

Speaker: The recent attempts to shut down debates about certain topics or to deplatform speakers who have been spreading divisive and hurtful messages seems to me both a response to the fact that many of us have lost the ability to disagree constructively and passionately and humanely. But it also seems a reflection of a lack of confidence that the resulting disagreements can be anything other than a source of pain and of division.

Speaker: And so one of the things that I think the skills of debate does, that the RISA framework does, that sides switching does, is it expands the scope of what we are able to talk about because it enlarges and improves and strengthens our ability to talk about contentious and difficult issues in humane, compassionate and productive ways. So one of the reasons why we need the skills of debate now is at a time when there are all these pressures to shut down debate to be able to not only talk about more things but to do it in a way that brings in people rather than excludes them.

Speaker: There's a lot of literature now about how you might be able to pull ahead in social media fights. There's wisdom about not engaging in the discussion forever, not using too many inflammatory words, so on and so on. But I tend to be a little bit more pessimistic about it. And I think in order for us to start building back the skills of good argument, we usually need to do it face to face. And we might need to do it in the absence of an audience to start with so that we resist the urge to perform for an audience but rather listen and respond to the person across from us.

Speaker: So, it may well be that a better version of social media that doesn't amplify the most inflammatory material, that doesn't have anonymous contributors, that doesn't have the kind of the culture of hate and vile disagreements that we see at present. It may be that we can one day equip ourselves to engage in a better form of social media, but I tend to think the starting place has to be face to face, has to be maybe away from an audience to begin with, so that we're building one interaction at a time the skills that we have lost.

Speaker: The people in my life who are most quarrelsome, who are most primed to always engage in disagreements tend to want, I think, two irreconcilable things. The first is often they want to be heard and they want to have their perspective carry through and to connect with the listener. But another slightly darker desire they have is to dominate over their opponents and to show themselves superior.

Speaker: And the two are in conflict because the point of one is to make a connection with the other side and to have your message carry through. Whereas the other is to almost leapfrog over the listener and to show yourself to be better than them. And so I think those people are often caught. And one of the reasons why the people who are most quarrelsome, who put themselves out as best at debate, need to continue engaging with it, is because they don't quite find what they're looking for. And I think what they're looking for is connection.

Speaker: I've had to think a lot about conflict aversion because I myself am a pretty conflict averse person. I used to be one and I still feel the instinct of that despite all my years in debate. And this is something I've changed my mind about. I used to think that conflict aversion was a lack of confidence in one's own abilities, a kind of a defensiveness to shield oneself from hurt, to protect oneself from revealing too much or becoming too vulnerable to the other side.

Speaker: And I think that is one element. But nowadays I think conflict aversion also shows a lack of confidence in the other person in their ability to receive you with some measure of grace to respond to you kindly and to make something constructive out of the conversation you're building together. And so I think the common trait of conflict averse folks is a lack of confidence not only in one's own abilities but I think more controllingly more importantly in the other person.

Speaker: Where the conflict averse person and the highly combative person meet in my view is in their shared desire for a connection. And it's a connection that they don't get just by persisting in their most natural modes. You can't connect if the only grounds on which you connect with another person or you reach out to another person is similarity rather than difference. And similarly, you can't connect if your whole desire is to dominate or to show yourself to be superior than the other person.

Speaker: So in managing both of those personalities as a debater and as a coach but also as in my view every human contains both of these instincts within them. I think the place where they meet and the middle ground where good arguments stem from is from a recognition that it's through connection with others. It's through an encounter with others that we get more than we would be able to on our own.

Speaker: Some of the most painful disagreements we come across in our day-to-day lives are with loved ones. And I think the reason for that in one word is carelessness. When it comes to those whom we're closest to, we are usually quickest to assume they should agree with us. After all, they're the people we've chosen to share our lives with. We're quickest to assume they should understand us even when we're not expressing ourselves very clearly. After all, they're the people who know us best.

Speaker: And the combination of all of those things is we're least likely to think about the effort that it takes to disagree well because we have this idea that love should be effortless. And the great tragedy of that is if only we loved the other person a little bit less or if we cared for them a little bit less, then maybe our disagreements would be less painful. The more we care about another person, the more high stakes a disagreement feels. The closer we feel to another person, the more we think they must agree with us. And the more of our lives we share with another person, the more points of potential disagreements arise.

Speaker: So in this time of extreme polarization, the impulse to seek out agreement can feel pretty attractive. And this is the rhetoric of remember there is no red America, no blue America, right? This is the unifying rhetoric of focusing on all of the different things that we have in common rather than the things that bring us apart. And someone might plead at this point, we're all human after all and we should focus on that.

Speaker: And the force of that argument, that unifying rhetoric derives not only from what we can do when we focus on the agreement between us, but I think also from the shadow that lurks, which is disagreements can be really destructive. And so part of the appeal of that unifying logic comes from conjuring up the boogeymen of what disagreement can be. And at least it's not that. At least we can have agreement that's a little bit thinner, maybe a little bit blander, just having to do with us being generally human or living in the same place. But it's better than the alternative of divisive and painful disagreements.

Speaker: Chapter 3. Power, persuasion, and bad faith debate. I think we're living at a time of real distrust of rhetoric. And when we say something is rhetoric, we mean something like it's mere rhetoric. Those are just empty words or you're trying to fool me in some way. You're trying to manipulate me.

Speaker: And the origins of that suspicion of rhetoric come right from the beginning of rhetoric as a kind of an education and a tradition. So there's a debate between Socrates and Gorgias who's a rhetorician and a public speaker and Socrates accuses Gorgias essentially of practicing an art rhetoric which is divorced from the truth that prays on people's desire to be flattered that prays on their kind of fickleness and their responsiveness to emotional appeal rather than the dictates of reason.

Speaker: And this view and this suspicion of rhetoric has really won out these days. When people say that's just rhetoric, it's a kind of an accusation. It's a put down. It's a way to reveal a kind of a trick. And in the book, I take the opposite view that it's precisely because of our frailties, our capacity to be lazy, our capacity to be apathetic that we need things that tug at our heartstrings and forces us to take some action.

Speaker: That because it takes an enormous amount of activation energy to change our minds at all, let alone to act on those changed beliefs, we need something greater than ourselves to pull us along. Now, that comes with a recognition that we're playing with mercurial elements, right? With emotion, with passion, with fellow feeling, with identifying with the speaker. But as with so many things in debate, a conversation that doesn't have these elements that make us human is also a conversation diminished. It's a conversation that is not lifelike and that lacks some of the vastness, some of the richness that a real human conversation can provide. And to do that, I think you need rhetoric.

Speaker: Whenever we teach a population a great and powerful new skill that can be used for good or for evil, we need to give them the tools to manage that new power. And that's true of whether it's nuclear physics or whether it's a martial art or whether it's working in weapons development. You need to give people both the ability to harness the power for good and to prevent it from being used for bad.

Speaker: And I think this is true for debate too. That in a world where many people possess the tools of rhetoric, some of them will use it for evil, will use it to promote bad ends. And a population that understands both faces of rhetoric, the ways in which it can be used for good, but the ways in which it can be hijacked and abused. I think that's a population that has more immunity to demagoguery, to the abuses of rhetoric because they're able to identify what is happening to be able to call it...

Speaker: out in some instances and resist the temptation to simply go along with it uncritically. There are three principles from debate on using rhetoric more effectively in our disagreements. The first is proportionality. The second is personality. And the third is panache. It's the three Ps. The first is many of the abuses of rhetoric come when the kinds of claims that we're making or the words we're using or the gestures we're making are out of sync with the content of the arguments.

Speaker: They exaggerate or they diminish or they're out of proportion. So the first is not to overstate things but not to understate things either both in terms of the language that we use and in the gestures that we use. So there has to be a kind of a proportionality between the rhetoric we marshall in favor of our arguments and the arguments themselves.

Speaker: The second is personality which is bringing ourselves into our arguments a little bit more. Remember what we're trying to do is to make the audience undergo a kind of a change to end up somewhere believing something they didn't before. And in order to do that, they have to make a kind of a journey from where they were to where they're going. And one way in which we might be able to help them undergo that journey is by explaining how we went through that process ourselves.

Speaker: So people may not always know very much about a particular issue or the truth of any given claim but people are pretty good at judging other people and by showing your own journey and how you got to the position and the perspective that you're offering that can often be very useful.

Speaker: The last bit is panache which is there is a part of rhetoric which is crafting the language putting the right combination of words in sequence using all the tools of voice and gesture to be able to most effectively sell that argument. Those moments of panache or what we call in debates sometimes applause lines are important because they signal to the listener that they are worthy of a certain kind of attention and work that we with them in mind put in all this time to try and make this sound as convincing as we possibly could.

Speaker: So Arthur Schopenhauer was a German philosopher born in the late 1700s and in addition to all of the broad-ranging contributions that he made to philosophy from aesthetics to ethics, he personally took a pretty dim view of humanity and of our situation. He said as a teenager having experienced a lot of loss in his family that the world must be the work of a devil who created the world so that they could relish in the suffering that people went through. And in his work as a philosopher he was known as a very confrontational quarrelsome character who picked fights with everyone and try to get one up them in a debate and in a disagreement.

Speaker: And later in his life, he wrote this parody document called the Eristic Dialectic where he offers 30 odd tactics for beating the other side at all costs. And they're tactics like interrupt and call the other person names or change the subject or offer a non sequitur to confuse the other side. And the question for me and the question with any parody is does he believe that this is all there is? That this is all people are really capable of or is it a kind of a political document inspired to help us do better to see our situation for what it is the comic slightly tragic mess that our disagreements can be and to aspire to do something better.

Speaker: So the rules of debate, simple as they are, matter because it's what makes a conversation a debate rather than simply conflict or an exchange of insults. When we explode the rules of debate, we change what is valued and rewarded in a conversation. So, in a free-for-all of the kind that Schopenhauer prepares us for, the things that are rewarded are leaving the other side speechless or putting forward a dominant performance that gets the other side to trip up or gets the audience to jeer and boo the opposition so that we're not able to hear them at all.

Speaker: So the rules of debate are important because in order for us to reward, reasoning, thinking, responding, listening, all of the things that we value and should value in conversation, we need to first set up a structure that rewards that.

Speaker: The one glimmer that we see in this parody document by Schopenhauer is this notion that by understanding the tactics that bullies use, by being able to counter them, by being able to defend ourselves against them and in some ways turn some of those tactics against them, we may be able to deter them from using those tactics in the first instance. So even in this quite dark view of what disagreements can do, there's a sense that by learning a kind of a defense against the dark arts, we may be able to nudge our conversations in a better direction.

Speaker: One of the reasons why debate is vulnerable to the manipulations of bad faith actors is that it rewards both persuasiveness but also the perception of persuasiveness. So as an adjudicator or even as a member of the audience, you often don't know that much about the particular issues that are being debated. You may not even know about the people who are presenting the argument. Instead, what you have is all of the body language, all of the ticks in their speech, all of the signals that you get of who's ahead and who's behind.

Speaker: And bullies tend to exploit that by appearing as the more dominant side, the more unshakable side that even when they're behind in an argument, by never looking flustered or never looking as though they're falling behind. And so the bullies tend, in my experience, to be especially attuned to the element of debate that is spectacle in addition to reason.

Speaker: I think the reason why we're susceptible to those kinds of manipulations is because we're imperfect. We like to be flattered. We like to be told things we already believe. We like to feel like we're on the winning side. We like to feel like we have the protection of someone who's stronger. And some of these kinds of baser instincts, some of these kinds of insecurities that we all possess are exactly what bad faith arguers try to target and exploit.

Speaker: I was watching the first presidential election debates with my debate partner and we'd received an assignment from the Atlantic media to write a kind of a review of the two candidates' performance in the debates and maybe to come to a judgment of which of the two sides had won. And we were busy taking notes throughout writing all of the different tactical slip ups and moves that the two sides were using. But ultimately we ended up never filing that article because we didn't feel like it had been a debate at all.

Speaker: And so whoever came out ahead in the audience polls about who they believed had won, in as much as it was a win, it wasn't a debate victory. Because what had unfolded wasn't a debate, it was a kind of a brawl.

Speaker: What was then my greatest triumph in the world of debate, which was winning the World Universities Debating Championship. And what started as the absolute highlight of my years and the height of my confidence in what debate could do for a person and could do for a society, I saw that sink to a kind of a bottom when you saw the two people competing for perhaps the most consequential office in the entire world engage in a kind of an unedifying spectacle that was a debate in name only. And I saw the potential for the format of debate to which I'd given much of my still short life to. I saw the potential for that format to be exploited, to be hijacked, and to be degraded.

Speaker: The thing that struck me most about those debates is how quickly a stage set up with rules, with moderators, with the values of a community that had decided to make debates a part of the democratic process. How quickly that could be turned into a kind of a brawl where there were no rules, where the only thing that mattered was the display and the spectacle of dominance over the other side, where embarrassment was the currency, or where bigging oneself up always came at the expense of putting the other side down.

Speaker: And for me, the takeaway from that was those darker impulses that feed into bad disagreements are not only within the activity of debate, but they're within all of us. That just the way that we have the capacity to disagree well, we also have the capacity to disagree badly. And both those sides and both those impulses have to be managed so that we can nudge our arguments in the direction of the good.

Speaker: Having seen how the debate format can be broken down, can be hijacked by bad faith debaters, I resolved to diagnose and list the common tactics that are used by bad faith arguers so that we might have a hope of recognizing it when we see it in practice and responding. And I came to four common kinds of bad arguers that we see in our day-to-day lives, not only in our political lives, but also around the kitchen table in our workplaces. And the four common personas I came up with were first the dodger, second the twister, third the wrangler, and fourth the liar.

Speaker: So the dodger wins by essentially changing the topic and they usually do this by finding a pivot point. So you might say something like we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels because climate change is getting out of hand. Then they might say on the topic of climate change, why do you drive a four-wheel drive? Right? Or why do you have a gas guzzler in your garage? And it is a kind of a response on the same topic but not to the point that you had raised.

Speaker: And so the way in which the dodger gets ahead is when you take the bait and you start talking about your car and making defenses for yourself. And so the response to the dodger is to stay the course and to keep bringing the discussion back to the original point and highlighting that they are trying to change what the disagreement is about.

Speaker: The second kind of persona is the twister. And the twister's signature move is to misrepresent the point that you're making. So if you say I'm opposed to increasing taxes, the twister might say, does that mean you have no concern for social security? Or are you so selfish that you think there should be no limits on personal property? And so this is a kind of a straw man argument because it's not the argument you're raising, it's the one they're thrusting on you, right?

Speaker: And so to respond to the twister, it's imperative to correct the record and say, "No, that's not what I'm saying." Because once you get this kind of misrepresentation, you can often get into a position of arguing for something you don't believe or at least the conversation splitting and you not being able to connect and talk about the same issue.

Speaker: It can often be difficult to respond to a personality like the twister because you get a sense that something is going wrong here or clearly they're pulling something on you but you're not sure what it is. And so one of the reasons why we need to be able to recognize things like straw man and just have the vocabulary to be able to say that's what they're doing is so that we're able to pause and diagnose what has gone wrong in the disagreement. The third kind of bad arguer is called the wrangler. And this is the person for whom nothing is ever good enough. They're very good at coming up with critiques against just about everything that you're saying, but they never offer an alternative of their own.

Speaker: And this is a problem because your solution or the thing you're arguing for probably isn't perfect. But so long as it's better than the alternative, which might be just doing whatever we're doing now, it still probably is the preferable solution. And so the appropriate response to the wrangler is to say, well, what do you believe? In other words, to pin them to a position so that they too have to argue in favor of something rather than always saying no.

Speaker: The fourth personality and someone we see just about everywhere in our public and private discussions these days is the liar. And one of the things we know about the liar is they usually don't tell one lie, they tell many. so that it becomes overwhelming and their opponent either doesn't know how to respond to this effluence of stuff coming out from the other side or they waste all their time trying to respond.

Speaker: So the strategy against a liar is to choose one or two representative lies that you think best exemplifies the approach that the liar is taking in a disagreement. Then debaters do something called plug and replace. The first is to imagine as though the opposition's claim is true and then to explain all the problems that arise when you make that assumption.

Speaker: So let's imagine if what you're saying is that immigrants cause lots of trouble when they come into a country. Then how do you explain the fact that crime rates among that community is actually lower than the rest of the population? Then you replace the lie with a truth and say it's in fact not true that they are kind of bad actors who cause all these problems and that explains what we know to be true about the world.

Speaker: And so by plugging in the lie and then replacing it with the truth, you can demonstrate the ways in which the lie falls short and try and explain how that's symptomatic of a broader approach that the liar is taking to the debate. It's entirely impractical to try to respond to every single lie. And so it becomes important to choose one or two of the lies that are most representative. And that shows something about how the other side is approaching the disagreement. And by even naming that this is what they're doing. They're trying to overwhelm us with the volume of lies. You start to take away some of the illusion or some of the trick by revealing how it works.

Speaker: So now let's imagine you're up against one of these players who's dominant and blustering and super confident in their abilities. How do you respond? I think the first thing is to stay the course. And so often people tend to shrink themselves or to change their own behavior in response to the bullies. They often try to imitate them and play their game, which they usually can't because most of us are not built to be bullies and these kinds of blustering showmen.

Speaker: or they try to speed up, for example, and shrink their contributions into the spaces that the bullies allot us when they're not interrupting us. So, the key is to remain calm and not to change our behavior in response to how they're trying to get us to change.

Speaker: The second is to actually pause and say, is it a debate that we're trying to have or is it something else? Because one of the ways in which bullies get ahead is by changing the nature of the conversation that we're having. And as soon as you start playing the same game, trash talking and calling them names and so on, that becomes the exercise that you're now engaged in. So it's a the second move is to stop and remind people that it's a debate that we're trying to have and not something else.

Speaker: And the last thing is if you're unable to do that, you should also be able to defer the conversation and say we're not getting anywhere at the moment and we're going to stop until we are able to get to a point of agreement again about the kind of conversation that we want to have. And so even at a time when we might feel hopeless faced with a bully or a bad faith debater, we need to have tools so that we're able to respond, but we also have these three strategies available to us to reset the kind of conversation we want to have.

Speaker: The fifth persona of bad faith disagreement differs from the other four because he or she is not interested in trying to pull a sneaky maneuver within the logic of debate. Rather, it's their aim to change the conversation from a debate into something else into a kind of a brawl or an allout disagreement where anything goes. And so brawlers get ahead by changing the rules of the game so fundamentally that all of those things that we value and debate now go out the window and you're essentially in a kind of a fist fight uh fought over words.

Speaker: The first thing to remember is though many of us contain the impulses to brawl to turn a debate into something other than a debate very few people I think are actually beyond the pale and so pausing a conversation reminding them it's a debate that we're trying to have and not a different kind of conversation I think can often be effective at checking and reminding the other side I know what you're trying to do and I'm trying to resist it. I'm trying to bring this conversation back on course.

Speaker: So in most instances against most people even when they are inhabiting this bullying persona, I think the right thing is to try and bring the conversation back into the mold of a debate. But there are instances where on that day or just because of the kind of person they are, they're not amendable to engaging in the kind of conversation you want to.

Speaker: And when you have someone like that, it may well be that persuasion can no longer be the aim of the exchange. It can be something like checking their lies or offering a different perspective. But so when you're faced with someone who is a brawler to their core, a bully to their core, then you have to shift in your orientation away probably from simply persuading them, but to maybe checking their lies or to offering a different perspective.

Speaker: One thing that knowledge and mastery of this kind of defense against the dark arts allows us to do is to challenge the bullies in our lives. And some of that is a necessity because they're there and they often bring the fight to us. But it's also an important thing to engage bad faith actors as early as we can and in many many instances as often as we can because the power of bullies increases without challenge and the ability of their lies to set in and to spread. All of that is increased where there is no competing perspective.

Speaker: So one of the things that this toolkit allows us to do is it allows us to challenge views that would otherwise go undetected or underappreciated or unchallenged.

Speaker: So one place where we saw these three moves of staying the course of pausing and reminding people it's a debate and of deferring the round until the circumstances are more hospitable to having a debate uh took place during the height of the cold war where the then US vice President Richard Nixon debated the Soviet premier Nikita Krushov at a model US home in Moscow.

Speaker: Now, and here you had on one side a relatively spelt kind of a very savvy political operator in Nixon and on the other side a much larger kind of imposing physical presence who embodied in some way the Soviet alternative to the US vision of liberal democracy. And in the debate that ensued, Nixon had been a kind of a champion high school debater who had been taught that it's a conversation that we're trying to have in debate, that you shouldn't shout at your opponents, that you shouldn't talk over them.

Speaker: He came across in Kruch, a person who was used to hearing the sound of his own voice, right? Uh and not being spoken over uh and dominating every conversation he took part in. And in response, Nixon seemed to pull out some of the strategies that he had learned as a debater. He refused to change his argument strategy in response to Krishv's attempt to interrupt. He stayed the course. He slowed down. He paused while the other person was speaking, but picked up right where he had left off.

Speaker: He called out all the constant interruptions. He said, "In the US, we would call you a filibuster because you do all the talking." And that kind of moment of levity reset and took some of the heat out uh of what would otherwise have been people talking over one another.

Speaker: And when none of that was working, Nixon said, "Let's do this again another time." Right? And and forced an agreement from Khrushchev that they would pick up the discussion at a future point. And we know Nixon actually as someone who had his hopes in electoral politics harmed in part by the televised debates with JFK and the big story there was that he was the loser. uh but in this earlier confrontation where he stood for as the voice of an entire country really against its main adversary it seemed that the skills of debate stood him in much better position there so as a debater you don't win every round you don't lose every round but the skills can come in quite useful so

Speaker: Thomas Hogs the English philosopher took a pretty pessimistic view not only of disagreements But the kinds of people we become when we engage in disagreements which is we become petty, we become defensive, we focus on people's personality. And he believed that these petty disputes can grow into a kind of a conflration that brings down not only relationships but also nations.

Speaker: And this was a man who lived through periods of war. And so he saw the destructive force that arguments can be. And looking at all that damage, which I think is not dissimilar to where we are and the kind of things that we see in the destructive capacity of disagreements, he concluded that the appropriate response was to take on a posture of civil silence towards one another. that we wouldn't engage in these disagreements, that we would as much as possible try to grin and bear to tolerate one another's differences and not to disagree about them overtly, lest the disagreements grow into a state of conflict that none of us can control.

Speaker: I mean, Hobbes is a pretty smart guy and uh and so it's hard to dismiss some of these ideas too flippantly. And the honest truth is I felt the force um of that wisdom in my day-to-day life. You know, when I was feeling like I didn't have a voice or when I was feeling like I was on the margins and my being my welcomeness in a place was kind of conditional on me not causing too much trouble or rocking the boat. When I've been through periods in my life where I've felt that kind of defensiveness or vulnerability, I often did have the thought it would go a lot easier if we could focus on our similarities and to minimize as much as possible the differences.

Speaker: And the problem with that is our commonalities are only one part of the fullness of our relationship with one another. And part of what makes the encounter between two people meaningful is not only all the things that they share, but the differences. And that variety is a source of challenge. It's the way in which we piece together truth from different perspectives. It's the way in which we go beyond ourselves, learn something new, reach for something new. And so a life built just around agreement is an impoverished life because it requires taking away and ignoring so much of the richness of human relationships and the encounters they give rise to.

Speaker: I see debate as one answer to a broader question which is how do we disagree better? And though debate is an important

...answer to the question, it's not the only way in which we can disagree. And in the same way, I see the question of how we disagree better as one answer to the question, what do we do about the fact that each of us are different, but that we must find ways of getting along. Disagreeing about our differences is not the only way in which we coexist and learn to navigate around our differences. We can also negotiate. We can collaborate. We can tolerate. We can let some things pass. But we can also disagree. In the same way, we can disagree by debating, but we can also do it through organizing our side against your side. We can do it by lobbying one another. We can do it by negotiating. And so debate is one set of tools that we can bring to disagreement just the way disagreement is one approach we can bring to the broader project of living together.

Four times a year we print a magazine worth putting your phone down for. Big Think's premium print magazine is built with custom artwork and expert insight from the world's biggest thinkers. No AI slop, no rage bait, just big ideas for curious people. Support the media you want to see in the world. Go to bigthink.com/membership to join.