Bo Seo, Harvard’s former debate coach, explains a good argument.
Subscribe to Big Think on YouTube ► https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvQECJukTDE2i6aCoMnS-Vg?sub_confirmation=1
Up next, Harvard negotiator explains how to argue ► https://youtu.be/IDj1OBG5Tpw
If our ancestors could see modern society, odds are they would be impressed with our technology and horrified with how we use it — particularly when it comes to debate.
Debate is crucial to a healthy society. After all, having productive debates is how people have learned, resolved conflicts, and generated new solutions for thousands of years. In Ancient Greece, it was even considered a kind of civic duty to be able to persuasively argue your point about the various issues of the day.
There are plenty of skilled rhetoricians around today. But as two-time world debate champion Bo Seo told Big Think, it has become rare to see thoughtful, productive, and smart debates broadcast on a large scale to the general public. We more often encounter short video clips or tweets featuring people whose main goal is to “win” the argument instead of trying to understand and refute the opposing side’s ideas in good faith.
A major part of the problem is that we have outsourced our debates to avatars we see in media: politicians, pundits, and celebrities.
So, can we develop better models of disagreement to help us become better debaters? Seo thinks the answer is yes, and that the process starts with polishing our skills offline.
Read the video transcript ► https://bigthink.com/series/great-question/how-to-have-good-debates
———————————————————————————-
About Bo Seo:
Bo Seo is a two-time world champion debater and a former coach of the Australian national debating team and the Harvard College Debating Union. One of the most recognized figures in the global debate community, he has won both the World Schools Debating Championship and the World Universities Debating Championship. Bo has written for The New York Times, The Atlantic, CNN, and many other publications. He has worked as a national reporter for the Australian Financial Review and has been a regular panelist on the prime time Australian debate program, The Drum. Bo graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University and received a master’s degree in public policy from Tsinghua University. He is currently a student at Harvard Law School.
———————————————————————————-
Read more of our stories on the art of arguments:
Five ways to tell if someone is an expert, or just confident
► https://bigthink.com/smart-skills/expert/
Which philosopher had the strongest arguments?
► https://bigthink.com/thinking/david-hume/
Why changing your mind is a feature of evolution, not a bug
► https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-minds-change-book/
———————————————————————————-
About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century.
► Big Think+
Make your business smarter, faster: https://bigthink.com/plus/
———————————————————————————-
Want more Big Think?
► Daily editorial features: https://bigthink.com/popular/
► Get the best of Big Think right to your inbox: https://bigthink.com/st/newsletter
► Facebook: https://bigth.ink/facebook
► Instagram: https://bigth.ink/Instagram
► Twitter: https://bigth.ink/twitter
source
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?
If you pay enough attention to others you will be surprised how often they miss-identify and contradict themselves. Just be aware of the traditional laws of logic. You won't need to say much to see most people aren't clear on what they actually think.
Sega Genesis fanboys could learn from this! Their arguments are so weak!
People get offended by anything these days. It only demonstrates the weakness of will and character. Sadly, people are not being taught these virtues.
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
Great vide… wait what am I doing?
Great video!
Thanks!
sub-scribed
This is so damn eloquent.
Sensible ideas for a sensible world, but try against a Trump and let us know how it worked
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.
I just could not stop looking at the guy's shoes.
I'm taking a guess before the video.
1. Fully understand your opponents position and argue directly against it.
2. Present a coherent alternate view. It's not enough to debunk your opponent. You must provide your own vision
3. Use the rule of 3. I disagree because of A, B, and C. My side is better because of X, Y, and Z.
Love it
Debate is pretty easy just make sure you're the one who's right.
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.
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.
Madam chair, the global poor all around the world, and no matter the country in which they live, currently live in a system of bad debates
Who else was scratching at the specks their screen for half the video? 😂
The real reason he won the debating WC is those shoes
I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Information Diet." What a great way to describe how we take In information.
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.
He still lose a debate to his partner
Really great information! Monetization is the great divider!
This was a waste of time, 0 advice…
Clickbait asf
FAIL. There's only one real way : read Descartes
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!?”
EVIL DANGEROUS HABITS
1. HIGHLY EXTREMELY DANGEROUS NUCLEAR WAR.
2. HIGHLY EXTREMELY DANGEROUS NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
3. EVIL DANGEROUS WAR.
4. EVIL DANGEROUS WAR WEAPONS.
5. EVIL DANGEROUS EXTREMISM.
6. EVIL DANGEROUS BULLYING.
7. EVIL DANGEROUS INTERNET BULLYING.
8. EVIL DANGEROUS CYBER BULLYING.
9. EVIL DANGEROUS CLOWN ATTACKS.
10. EVIL DANGEROUS MURDERS.
11. EVIL DANGEROUS SHARK ATTACKS.
12. EVIL DANGEROUS LION ATTACKS.
13. EVIL DANGEROUS BEAR ATTACKS.
14. EVIL DANGEROUS HIGHLY EXTREMELY ANGRY EMOTION.
15. EVIL DANGEROUS OVER POPULATION PROBLEM.
The problem with modern debate is that they are arguments.
There is no compromise, it is just defensive/defection with no actual point to it.
The better your understanding about the world the better you can argue. A conversation without any substance and grounding to reality is just speculations.
So unrelated but this dude has an unspeakable amount of swagger
Above all the good points he made he does rock some cool ass shoes
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.
Only person who can win an argument against his wife.
Screaming is usually the best tactic. The loudest person is the one who wins the debate.
dude why didn’t you just take my word for it? fuck you then. i wouldnt have done it till the sun was out
This made me sad.
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.
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.
Thanks for this! Really amazing!
boy this was disappointing
Despite the financial instability all over the world, I’m so excited I’ve been earning $45,000 from my $10,000 investment every 10days…
Great video! 😁
first thing I do during a debate is to define terms and steelman the other persons opinions and views the best I can.
If he’s the world champion in debates, what does that make his girlfriend…
How an argument be a skill? argument is a great part of life when it's with unconditional love and forgiveness. All the other rules, regulations and laws are our Jew brothers cruelty to sustain ineqalities. Aware awake arise unconditionally love and forgive make world paradise 🙏🏼❤️
Calling what we watch, read, listen to, etc our "information diet" is interesting I think!
There is much wisdom in what this man says, however, all the debates are between people who were ( in their time) well-informed. Sadly the world has moved on but the base( s) haven't by that I mean, that the world has gotten way, way more complex, well beyond the competence of the wisdom of the commons. e.g. a doctor is no longer just that but a subset, a specialist. In fact, a GP is not / would not be able to even be a referral vector without the aids like Computers et al ( to know about the latest treatments, medications, or combination side effects. This need for specialization is evident in the burgeoning array of specialized Disciplines that just didn't exist a generation, a decade ago. i.e it was the mid-1960s ( living memory) before Geologists universally accepted Plate tectonics and they accepted climatology as more than the weather forecaster writ large in essence the days of the Polymath ( evident in many of the forefathers) are gone…gone…GONE.
Sure education has advanced too BUT THE LEVEL NECESSARY to know how and where to look and how to judge is way way behind.
The major thing I learned at College was HOW to research properly. One only needs to look at the statistics of levels of education of the bulk of the public to have this deficit in " wisdom of the commons".
As a 20-year veteran of volunteer Telephone Crisis intervention counseling and a probably dated major in psychology ( and some further general research) that most people aren't competent to teach their children how to discuss or negotiate even partially reasonably. In reality, most AMERICANS tend to resort to their own emotional ( instinctual) often retrogressive comfort zones and their information silos.
Added to that we have a feral Capitalist self-interest ethos that both encourages and actively strives by emotional manipulation to enforce social division ( culture wars). ( consumerism, sense of loss [of perceived] personal relevance…read power/rights as opposed to the fundamental purpose of a society … societal wide benefit) .
A key example of this is the direct marketing of medications to the ill-informed public. in this way avoid responsibility for the side effects (addiction) while making billions. Most of which they get to keep even if prosecuted and found ( depraved) negligent. If an individual did this well the charge would be depraved indifferent MURDER.
My point is while this video is informative it seeks to treat the symptom, not the MALAISE. i.e. those who can will but the majority ( those who NEED it most can't .