@sassysaint3096 agreed 100%. Especially when they start getting loud first. Trying to contain the already very annoyed beast inside is an almost impossible feat lol
“There’s a difference between arguing and debating.” Most underrated and simultaneously mind-blowing statement that everyone should absorb and heed to. Excellent interview and timely topic.
This was a cool interview. I feel like debates are most of the time ineffective performances that people do publicly to assert their side's superiority in a persuasive manner. They can be entertaining to watch and even educational to a degree, but I think most people watching any debate are already biased towards another person's side before any arguments have been presented, and the people debating especially in a public setting are understandably unlikely to waver on any issue because it's giving up the appearance of their side's superiority
I’m no expert but I sometimes have to stand up and talk to groups etc. My experience is that if you’re nervous, it’s just because you haven’t connected your speaking to your knowing. If you know and/or believe something, let that do the talking, and then it gets much easier.
The best outcome for a debate is that you give it your best honest attempt but still lose, because you will learn something. If you can hold that statement to be true in your mind then your ability to grow will be boundless.
Anecdotally, I feel like a lot of the best debates happen in private. Debating for an audience introduces some bad incentives, constrains time management, disproportionately favors certain personality types, and turns even well-meaning participants into performers rather than truth-seekers.
This was fascinating and he's right in that of course you want to do your own diligence in making sure you have your points and citations ready to go but it's equally just as important to research about the person you're planning to go up against. Boxers do a similar thing where they spend a lot of time in the gym sparring and exercising but they will also sit and spend several hours reviewing tape of previous fights their opponents participated in to memorize the quirks and techniques they utilize. Some boxers will even review tapes of themselves in previous fights to see which mistakes they made and why. Ultimately it's impossible you anticipate what your opponent will pull during a debate so it's best to utilize as much as you can beforehand to minimize those moments from occurring in the first place.
I wish you add other languages' subtitles for other countries' politicians to learn how to debate, instead of resorting to embarrassing insult, scold, fight, condescend, argue/quarrel, and intimidate. Just a thought: David and Jonathan could team up to write a Children's book on How to Debate.
Unfortunately one can read all the books on strategy they want, but the brain's ability to access working memory is based on how much emotional resilience they have and that's a much longer process to develop.
"the brain's ability to access working memory is based on how much emotional resilience they have" that doesn't sound right at all. what exactly are you talking about? do you have a source?
I was excited to click on this to improve my debating skills against theists. I was very disappointed he wanted the opposition to "pray" to do research. Why don't we skip that step and "pray" the opposition holds whatever belief we want them to? Because prayer doesn't fking work!
You want to “argue” and he wants to “debate.” Nevertheless, neither of you care about what’s true. Your goal is to win…weather you’re on the right side or not.
Depending on the format, if a debater can ask a question of the opponent that is providing multiple obscure studies, then it may be helpful to ask the opponent about the quality/methodology of each study. Likely, the methodology will be poor (which is why it’s not part of the scientific community’s discussion) or the opponent will not know the methodology.
David, please help, we can’t seem to buy your books here in Australia without having to use Amazon, I’ve been waiting to see if our local book shop has the opportunity to order but no luck so far?
Pakman could definitely learn some lessons here bc he was kind of disappointing when he debated that MLM goon, PBD ! Even though he got under PBD's skin and PBD was visibly ruffled, there were moments when he could have delivered a k.O. but he appeared unprepared! He didn't study PBD enough.
In JR. High, I was on the Speech and Debate Team. Like your guest stated Speech and Debate are fundamentally different. When I competed in Bel Air on the SPEECH side, there were and sill are categories of speech.(Expository, Persuasive, Dramatic Interpretation) on the Debate side, we had to prepare to argue for a side. IN THE REBUTTAL, is where I shined and won for my team. Essentially it is speaking in response to advversal comments to make coherent arguments. My male team mate was speechless and so a half black girl like me pulled the weight and our school won. Not all black educated women are ignorant. Pakman, they had Speech and Debate Teams in the early 1980's. Pakman I guess you never joined the group but DEBATE is about FACTS SPEECH INTERPRETATION varies and hinges on theatrics. Pakman please understand the difference.
Debates are all just theater, so have fun with it. All you need is a hook and if you can lead your opponent and the audience on a story full of laughs, wonder, and intrigue then you can win.
I have to start deep breathing to keep myself calm. Nothing overt or anything, just long inhale and exhales, cause I get pretty frustrated at the Everest sized mountain of bullshit that fills some of my family/friends' brains. It calms me, helps me stay on track when all of a sudden I'm bringing up facts and they're like 'I'm done with that, I'm moving onto something else', and I calmly keep plowing through until I've said what I have to say on that point. I've lost my shit a few times.
but thats not what a debate is about at all. a debate is simply winning over the crowd, perusading them your point is correct. if you simply have your viewpoint changed by the other debater. you've simply lost the debate. youve conceded your point.
@@_w_h_y i agree. Modern debate is pointless. Its not 2 people presenting facts and then we decide whos right and change our side to who made the most sense. Its more so who can be the most charming and persuade the crowd into beliving them. Even without any facts on their side
Excuse me, but people ARE capable of shelving their biases. It’s called honesty. This guy doesn’t believe it’s possible for judges to be unbiased??? It’s so funny whenever I hear a statement like that-it reveals that the person is dishonest, or so jaded that they’ve decided lying is okay…that sometimes you have to accept it. No you don’t.
I invite you to take a few implicit bias tests which you may find online very easily. You may find out that the idea your mind functions exactly according to how you wish it does not play out in reality.
Everyone should be armed with honorable speech and debate skills, plus the ability to recognize the dirty rhetorical devices and techniques, (such as straw man, gish gallop, etc) when they hear them. I know I've learned to in the last few years. The surprising thing is WHERE I recognize tactics being used. For sure MAGA media, but ...mainstream? For sure randos, but ...mon ami?
I’m not tryna be racist, but besides that weird gollum black horribly spoken trump jerkin dude, this guy shows how u can get strait to the point and answer the exact question.
Then there's also the Vivek Ramaswamy method - fill the air with the incessant sound of your own voice, so that your adversary doesn't get a chance to speak.
@@kurteisner67 you watch David packman, I don't even need to say anything else. To be labeled as someone who has never grown up and has the intellectual capabilities of a toddler when you watch him is a compliment. And you hate democrats when you watch David? It would be like me who watches fox and would hate republicans.People are always embarrassed about themselves when someone calls them a democrat so they just pretend that they aren't. I'd be embarrassed to be a democrat as well.
@@kurteisner67 I saw that comment you made that I have the intellectual capabilities of a toddler and now it's gone. Sure you didn't delete any comments.....
hkunˉ hawˉ hkanˇ ve awˬ co-e htaˇ ‸mvuhˇ ˍvenˇ awˬ hkʼaw lo paw la ve yoˬ oˇ htaˇ, cuˇ yiˍ cawˬ paˍ teˇ hpaˍ mvuhˇ nyi tawˆ hpawˇ lo tu la leh, venˇ lo gaˬ la ve yoˬ
So, at the start of the interview Conyers stated that you dont have to be truthful in a debate. And then we have long philosophical discussions about the bad influence of misinformation in our daily lives. While our kids are literally trained to lie. You honestly think the lying is gonna stay on the debate stage and not seep into the debater's every day life? Colour me pink with blue stripes and red dots.
It's even worse than that - have you heard of a subject called drama or theatre school? Not only do they get trained to say things that aren't true but also pretend they're someone else 😱😱😱. The schools are basically teaching kids how to develop a false identity 😱😱😱 Come on, you don't really believe what you wrote do you?
@@davidhughes4089if I understand him properly, he has a point. Debate, is about picking a side and WINNING. It’s not about exposing the truth. In the end, we know debating is about dominating your opponent.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Love it, David! Thanks, Johnathan for the great interview
Very interesting interview. I wish more people were capable of such clear thinking.
"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument."
I have to admit my voice raises as I get more passionate and then I come across as getting angry. Ugh. Very difficult thing to control.
@sassysaint3096 agreed 100%. Especially when they start getting loud first. Trying to contain the already very annoyed beast inside is an almost impossible feat lol
So true. It is a flaw of mine I have been working on. Harder than it sounds, but even more important than most think.
“There’s a difference between arguing and debating.” Most underrated and simultaneously mind-blowing statement that everyone should absorb and heed to.
Excellent interview and timely topic.
When it comes to studies, I like to ask, “sure one study might say one thing, but what do the majority of studies say?”
We have the technology and all journalists need to be using it: someone needs to be fact checking in real-time during every interview.
This was a cool interview. I feel like debates are most of the time ineffective performances that people do publicly to assert their side's superiority in a persuasive manner. They can be entertaining to watch and even educational to a degree, but I think most people watching any debate are already biased towards another person's side before any arguments have been presented, and the people debating especially in a public setting are understandably unlikely to waver on any issue because it's giving up the appearance of their side's superiority
Great interview yall
I'm going DIRECTLY to find out more about Jonathan and his work !!
Awesome interview! And I loved that Revisionist History episode - Malcolm Gladwell ate it at a debate and humbly sought Conyers' help.
Such a great interview.
Great interview!!!
I’m no expert but I sometimes have to stand up and talk to groups etc. My experience is that if you’re nervous, it’s just because you haven’t connected your speaking to your knowing. If you know and/or believe something, let that do the talking, and then it gets much easier.
I am looking forward to learning new strategies. My main debate strategy is... I'm right, so there!
Hoping I can update to actually debate. 😅✌️
The best outcome for a debate is that you give it your best honest attempt but still lose, because you will learn something. If you can hold that statement to be true in your mind then your ability to grow will be boundless.
"Take over the room." So cool people can learn to use their voice to do that! 😮
Anecdotally, I feel like a lot of the best debates happen in private. Debating for an audience introduces some bad incentives, constrains time management, disproportionately favors certain personality types, and turns even well-meaning participants into performers rather than truth-seekers.
Cool subject!
Great conversation 💜🙏🏻
🇺🇲Thank you for sharing this important information.🇺🇲
This was fascinating and he's right in that of course you want to do your own diligence in making sure you have your points and citations ready to go but it's equally just as important to research about the person you're planning to go up against. Boxers do a similar thing where they spend a lot of time in the gym sparring and exercising but they will also sit and spend several hours reviewing tape of previous fights their opponents participated in to memorize the quirks and techniques they utilize. Some boxers will even review tapes of themselves in previous fights to see which mistakes they made and why. Ultimately it's impossible you anticipate what your opponent will pull during a debate so it's best to utilize as much as you can beforehand to minimize those moments from occurring in the first place.
David P should take a phil160 class over and over and over and over and over again! 🤩
I wish you add other languages' subtitles for other countries' politicians to learn how to debate, instead of resorting to embarrassing insult, scold, fight, condescend, argue/quarrel, and intimidate.
Just a thought: David and Jonathan could team up to write a Children's book on How to Debate.
RUclips has auto-generated subtitles in quite a few languages
Unfortunately one can read all the books on strategy they want, but the brain's ability to access working memory is based on how much emotional resilience they have and that's a much longer process to develop.
"the brain's ability to access working memory is based on how much emotional resilience they have"
that doesn't sound right at all. what exactly are you talking about? do you have a source?
I am not on the left or a fan of David Pakman, but I cant ignore he is a good debater
I was excited to click on this to improve my debating skills against theists. I was very disappointed he wanted the opposition to "pray" to do research. Why don't we skip that step and "pray" the opposition holds whatever belief we want them to? Because prayer doesn't fking work!
Lawyer here. I’d rather argue than debate. And yes, they *are* two different things. Why are you conflating them?
You want to “argue” and he wants to “debate.” Nevertheless, neither of you care about what’s true. Your goal is to win…weather you’re on the right side or not.
Depending on the format, if a debater can ask a question of the opponent that is providing multiple obscure studies, then it may be helpful to ask the opponent about the quality/methodology of each study. Likely, the methodology will be poor (which is why it’s not part of the scientific community’s discussion) or the opponent will not know the methodology.
Even if your win over the crowd with a bigger impact that still doesn't mean that you're correct. It's so layered and complicated.
And sadly enough its always the one with the bigger impact that people gravitate towards. Regardless if they where correct or not.
David, please help, we can’t seem to buy your books here in Australia without having to use Amazon, I’ve been waiting to see if our local book shop has the opportunity to order but no luck so far?
Pakman could definitely learn some lessons here bc he was kind of disappointing when he debated that MLM goon, PBD !
Even though he got under PBD's skin and PBD was visibly ruffled, there were moments when he could have delivered a k.O. but he appeared unprepared!
He didn't study PBD enough.
In JR. High, I was on the Speech and Debate Team. Like your guest stated Speech and Debate are fundamentally different. When I competed in Bel Air on the SPEECH side, there were and sill are categories of speech.(Expository, Persuasive, Dramatic Interpretation) on the Debate side, we had to prepare to argue for a side. IN THE REBUTTAL, is where I shined and won for my team. Essentially it is speaking in response to advversal comments to make coherent arguments. My male team mate was speechless and so a half black girl like me pulled the weight and our school won. Not all black educated women are ignorant.
Pakman, they had Speech and Debate Teams in the early 1980's.
Pakman I guess you never joined the group but DEBATE is about FACTS
SPEECH INTERPRETATION varies and hinges on theatrics.
Pakman please understand the difference.
How does an "expert" drop in so many "ums" and "uhs?"
Is he in heaven? 😇😇😇
I think so 😂
😂😂😂😂
Some could say he’s a masterdebator
Debates are all just theater, so have fun with it. All you need is a hook and if you can lead your opponent and the audience on a story full of laughs, wonder, and intrigue then you can win.
So he’s a Master Debater
I have to start deep breathing to keep myself calm. Nothing overt or anything, just long inhale and exhales, cause I get pretty frustrated at the Everest sized mountain of bullshit that fills some of my family/friends' brains. It calms me, helps me stay on track when all of a sudden I'm bringing up facts and they're like 'I'm done with that, I'm moving onto something else', and I calmly keep plowing through until I've said what I have to say on that point. I've lost my shit a few times.
I think this is missing the part about being willing to have your viewpoints changed.
but thats not what a debate is about at all. a debate is simply winning over the crowd, perusading them your point is correct. if you simply have your viewpoint changed by the other debater. you've simply lost the debate. youve conceded your point.
@@EasyWinking if having your mind changed is seen as a failure of debate, then i'm not sure how much we need that kind of debate
@@_w_h_y i agree. Modern debate is pointless. Its not 2 people presenting facts and then we decide whos right and change our side to who made the most sense. Its more so who can be the most charming and persuade the crowd into beliving them. Even without any facts on their side
@@EasyWinking agreed. people gush over idiotic one-liners and "mic drops" without actually understanding the arguments
@@EasyWinking Why bother if there is no chance you could be wrong? It's disrespectful.
Excuse me, but people ARE capable of shelving their biases. It’s called honesty. This guy doesn’t believe it’s possible for judges to be unbiased??? It’s so funny whenever I hear a statement like that-it reveals that the person is dishonest, or so jaded that they’ve decided lying is okay…that sometimes you have to accept it. No you don’t.
I invite you to take a few implicit bias tests which you may find online very easily. You may find out that the idea your mind functions exactly according to how you wish it does not play out in reality.
@@freded1 implicit in your statement is a misunderstanding of my comment. Perhaps my comment doesn’t mean what you wish it to mean.
@@dusty3913 if you don't know what implicit bias is, just say so.
Everyone should be armed with honorable speech and debate skills, plus the ability to recognize the dirty rhetorical devices and techniques, (such as straw man, gish gallop, etc) when they hear them. I know I've learned to in the last few years.
The surprising thing is WHERE I recognize tactics being used. For sure MAGA media, but ...mainstream? For sure randos, but ...mon ami?
I’m not tryna be racist, but besides that weird gollum black horribly spoken trump jerkin dude, this guy shows how u can get strait to the point and answer the exact question.
He should debate destiny
Destiny is a bum
Would probably be very cordial
Then there's also the Vivek Ramaswamy method - fill the air with the incessant sound of your own voice, so that your adversary doesn't get a chance to speak.
Tell lies with conviction! 😂
Greaview.t interview.
How to win an argument in David's mind, to just always repeat the word misinformation, conspiracy and crazy cultists over and over.
@@kurteisner67 just like you people never insult republicans to begin with.
@@kurteisner67 you watch David packman, I don't even need to say anything else. To be labeled as someone who has never grown up and has the intellectual capabilities of a toddler when you watch him is a compliment. And you hate democrats when you watch David? It would be like me who watches fox and would hate republicans.People are always embarrassed about themselves when someone calls them a democrat so they just pretend that they aren't. I'd be embarrassed to be a democrat as well.
Nice deleting of your comment
@@kurteisner67 while you just deleted your comment, irony sure is dead. Going to delete that one too?
@@kurteisner67 I saw that comment you made that I have the intellectual capabilities of a toddler and now it's gone. Sure you didn't delete any comments.....
hkunˉ hawˉ hkanˇ ve awˬ co-e htaˇ ‸mvuhˇ ˍvenˇ awˬ hkʼaw lo paw la ve yoˬ oˇ htaˇ, cuˇ yiˍ cawˬ paˍ teˇ hpaˍ mvuhˇ nyi tawˆ hpawˇ lo tu la leh, venˇ lo gaˬ la ve yoˬ
This video is a failure because your guest didn't explain what a debate flowchart is and you never asked
You know what? I’m still gonna watch it
So, at the start of the interview Conyers stated that you dont have to be truthful in a debate. And then we have long philosophical discussions about the bad influence of misinformation in our daily lives. While our kids are literally trained to lie. You honestly think the lying is gonna stay on the debate stage and not seep into the debater's every day life? Colour me pink with blue stripes and red dots.
It's even worse than that - have you heard of a subject called drama or theatre school? Not only do they get trained to say things that aren't true but also pretend they're someone else 😱😱😱. The schools are basically teaching kids how to develop a false identity 😱😱😱
Come on, you don't really believe what you wrote do you?
@@davidhughes4089 How did you come up with that? Comparing drama and theatre to debate. You're comparing apples to fish. Bit stupid today?
@@davidhughes4089if I understand him properly, he has a point. Debate, is about picking a side and WINNING. It’s not about exposing the truth. In the end, we know debating is about dominating your opponent.