More videos with Bo Seo - Debate world champion explains how to argue: ruclips.net/video/2pVdSEp-tT8/видео.html Why you should live an argumentative life: ruclips.net/video/Tk01uthNqzY/видео.html
I doubt this was intentional, but the imagery provided with the timing of the words showed a pattern. 3:01 This is the person for whom.. (focused on the male) 3:04 ...nothing is ever good enough (shot swings to the female) 3:10 "against everything that youre saying" (pans to the woman waving *no* with her hands) 3:40 "liar, they tell many"(the first image shown is Elizabeth Holmes, which isn't even the most recent case nor the biggest (coins hello?), and is more so an outlier in the vast quantity of corporate liars in the past 20 years) Every image shown that was singling out an individual for a negative word was paired with females, and 0% of the positive words, like the neutral end clips, were paired with females. You could argue Hillary was, but everyone knows she lost, and is too much of a emotionally charged figure anyways. I hope you consider re-editing for this video & future videos, given the name, Big Think.
Ben shapiro is an expert on attacking and avoiding questions, or agustin laje too... ignorant people who have practiced lying and manipulation for years...
@@cagneybillingsley2165not per se, but I bet correlation will show people who use dirty tactics don't have the substance to support their arguments...
Thanks, this breakdown was wonderful. The suggestion you gave for dealing with the Dodger is identical to a what I've learned in improvisational acting -- i.e., always maintain your point of view. Your examples early in the video were helpful. I found myself wishing you had provided one for _plug & replace,_ as well, since I believe that is a new concept for me.
Another thing to keep in mind that's often misunderstood is that debates are meant to convince a third party, not the person you're debating. Debates are _not_ a great way for two people to come to an understanding. When you put pressure on someone's views they're way more likely to double down than to reconsider. A better alternative is to ask nonprovocative questions from a place of genuine curiosity. And just listen. Their logic will be tested as they explain, and they'll probably be the first to realize if something doesn't add up.
Asking questions honestly. Good idea. What if they ignore the questions and start shifting to attempts of personal attacks ? Me then give hint, that question not replied to was, and topic is changed .. The angrier they get , that's fosho.
@@farrider3339 You could try to introduce the 'third party' to shift focus away from you. You could ask "How do I explain this to my brother/grandma/congress-man ?" or "How would you explain it to .../.../... ?"
@@farrider3339 Yeah if they're already defensive it won't be effective (but debates wont be either) so you may want to conceal the signs that you're testing their beliefs. And while I'm on the topic, putting it that way might make it seem like a deceptive and bad faith tactic, but I think it's close to the opposite honestly. After all it only works in the first place if you open yourself up to having your own mind changed too
One of the more common diversionary tactics I see by dirty debaters, is they hit you with a barrage of questions or points instead of sticking to the original argument, so now you feel like you're fighting on multiple fronts and getting further away from the main topic.
The Gish Gallop is so annoying. If I feel it happen I just call it out and insist on going point by point and slowing it down. A certain squeeky right wing commentator made a career out of the GG.
@pouya Nature commands every animal, and the beast obeys, eh? Rousseau might differ with you on that. He believes that humans are metaphysically free and that their freedom lifts them above the deterministic realm of nature inhabited by all other animals. More importantly, what in god's name does this have to do with dirty debaters?
You should reverse his strategy and use it on him to show how ridiculous a question it is. Ask him, "Why do YOU hate America?" And then ask him: "What makes you think that I hate America?"
"It's not the argument you're making, it's the one they're thrusting on you." This is commonly a form of straw man argument, where they act as though the person is arguing for something more extreme than the actual point being made. It works incredibly well, and most people have no idea it's happening. It's South Park, but in real life.
@@jonathanbarkins8480 I would disagree with that, entirely. I'm vehemently against certain religions, like Christianity, because they are intolerant of other religions and certain morally neutral acts. Any religion that posits that their way of living and thinking is absolute and correct is utterly toxic.
@@jonathanbarkins8480 I missed the part of the Middle Ages where entire armies were levied and inquisitors sent by atheists to oppress the religious masses in the name of atheism, oh wait that was the religious.
Most people are not persuaded by logic, but by appeal to emotion, changing the subject, using anecdotes instead of facts or misrepresenting the opponents position. You are not going to defeat your opponent in political debates by logic alone. In other words, critical thinking is a rare commodity.
😠 Indeed, but those in high places do not encourage critical thinking. That would be to empower those in low places, and thus to challenge those above them.
I learned a lot today. The lesson I'm keeping closer is the one that specially challenged my belief of not getting involved: "the power of bullies increases without challenge".
Actually it's quite the opposite. If you don't have courage enough to speak up against the bully, or at least attempt to argue your reasoning behind your position. Then that bully moves on to another and spreads. Missing your opportunity to change things for the better.
@@50-50_Grind it might be a worthwhile endeavor to think about what it means to be a bully. Is it just someone who is confident who disagrees with you? Can someone be a bully and also be correct? @Joe is coming across in a kind of "bullying" like way. I'm not sure if it's the twister archetype maybe more the Wrangler, speaking against other people's comments without providing useful hypotheses or inputs himself. Maybe he's trying to make a good point and is just over-eager.
Yeah, the audience is a huge factor and debates will leans towards whatever is more liked. Take for example Reddit. Reddit's karma system is supposed to work by using upvotes for comments you think contribute to the conversation and downvote distracting/irrelevant comments. But instead its a like/dislike button. It doesn't matter how many times that intention is explained, if it shows every time you hover over the "upvote" button, people are just going to treat it as a like. So Reddit conversations become less meaningful as a consequence and echo chambers become the norm.
@@time3735 that's because in scientific/academic debates the outcomes are usually black and white with little consequence, usually conducted between peers who might have all the same understanding or world views... Trying these debate techniques the author suggested would just make people feel like the other never listens...
Our esteemed presenter, Bo Seo, was a regular guest on an ABC TV current affairs program. His characteristic traits were to never be rushed and to never accept the premise or underlying assumptions of any question. As a rhetorician he’s like the low talker. He pauses before saying anything, and he presents an abstract idea before answering the question. He rarely needs to answer a question because he presents a parallel idea, and lets you answer the question for yourself. Super effective, because you’re compelled to listen.
I was listening to this video while playing a game but then when he said that i had to stop everything pay full attention lol. Didnt know we were learning defensive spells
I hear what you are saying. My frustration, as an American who watches our national debates, is that the debate moderators fail to apply the set rules. I think, in future debates, moderators NEED the power to cut mics, both when someone has gone over their time limit, and also when they interrupt their opponent incessantly. I feel those changes would make room for factuality and logic, and disarm shear volume and arrogance.
I agree, but sadly the media that broadcasts these kinds of debates has no interest in preventing these kinds of malicious strategies in the debates; the reality is that political debates are more characterized as "horse races", or simply a sporting event, in which the focus is on "who" scores the most points to win the game. Thus, the media's interest is in ratings rather than in informing the people- in the sense that sports competitions are far more attractive than the technocratic discussions our leaders should be having...
Doesn't that mean we need to trust the moderators' judgement? Are they trustworthy? After all, they work for the very same networks that refuse to change their ridiculous debate formats.
Until you realize that the moderator has no power to do so. For those who want to profit from these dark tactics, the goal is never to have a reasonable debate but to win over crowd. If the moderator were taking an action, they would immediately walk away and claim that the moderator is siding with the opponent and shutting them down. Either way, it is gonna be a win for the offender. Until the public has the awareness to withdraw support, should a candidate behave this way, these offenders will never stop, because it is bloody working well.
The video missed out on one of the most common bad debaters, and that it the Interrupter (who doesn’t let you finish your argument) and the Screamer (the one who has a louder voice than you so everyone else has to listen to that person). Those are difficult to deal with as you do not want to stoop to their level and they can use the dramatic effect to influence others.
That will come down to the audience if there is one, and the reason for the debate. If this is a one on one conversation and the interrupter is doing their thing, you need to call them out and make them aware of what they're doing. Possibly reassure them that there are no winners or losers here. What might be helpful is letting them know that you are not here to change their mind.
There are those who anger you by pointing at something completely unrelated in your personal life. Once you are distracted and angry, you are not at full capacity to think.
@@doomerbloomer6160 it's not the initial attack on past but the follow up angry or not they will completely slip out of argument, there's point they hit where say try making jokes about everything you say after that you can stop talking to that person because that's equivalent to talking to dog( it can't understand whatever you say to him)
Excellent speech. This is one of the few RUclips offerings that took notes on. I spend a lot of my thinking time examining lies and why they are so effective. I have found that the most effective lies are the ones the audience wants to hear. It amazes me on how effective such a lie can be, even if is so crudely fashioned that it is an obvious lie.
First of all, bad idea to use Trump. Now you have turned off half the country without really proving your point. Narrative is truth, and liberals have controlled the narrative since JFK via news, education system, and up to Twitter and FB. It is not a speech, it's lecturing.
@@DreadX10 I think The Good Wizard wants that added to his Holy Text. You don’t have to believe in Good Wizard (“G-d” for short) but He believes in you. We know He loves even the non magic people like us because his champion, Harry Potter, defeated the evil wizard so we too can go to Hogwarts if we believe his Holy Text.
I think that the best way to deal with bad debaters is to catch them on their tricks as soon as they make it, expose the fact that they are doing it and keep bringing it up throughout the rest of the debate at every chance you get to say anything, i.e. as soon as the opponent turns into a dirty debater it should be your job to make sure that if the audience remembers one thing from the debate it would be the dishonesty of your opponent. Dirty debaters thrive by playing on reputations instead of logic. They do it because they usually don't have much logic to give. If you make sure to pound their reputation as hard as possible they basically lose the only weapon they have and will never recover afterwards.
I have a long experience with dirty debaters, and dirty debaters in front of an audience (or online). These pieces of advice are definitely useful but they are no silver bullet against dirty debaters. WHY? 1) Unfortunately, it's often "your opinion against his one". The fact that your are exposing their blatant lies often results more like an opinion, rather than a fact. 2) If the audience is not rational, it may be prone to seeing in you someone who just tries to disqualify the opponent because of the lack of arguments. 3) The mere fact you're highlighting the lies of your opponents, his/her fallacies, his unfairness, keeps you talking about his argument and, basically, playing his/her game. And s\he excels in his/her game.
@@alessandrocasasso7299 That's a very interesting and constructive debate I'm intersted in. What would you do to counter a dirty debater? I think remaining calm and respectful is an important aspect, although "tough" people like conservatives like bully-esque attitudes.
Although there's a fair thing about conservatives. Politics really is tough, even more on an international stage. So someone with character who stands their ground or even imposes a bit is required (wether it is a sad reality or not)
Dirty debaters I find really hard to go against because they're playing under their own rules. They try to rig it by using human impulse against you. It's not honest or ethical to debate like that, but that is easily lost upon an audience. People who do this are not interested in a good discussion, they simply want to win at any cost and feel like they have "destroyed" their opponent for their own ego.
My favourite come back is when you ask someone a question and they answer with another question. So I dig my heels in and say ‘ you cant answer a question with a question so answer my question.’ They don’t like that lol
SUMMARY 1. Dodger: change topic, BEING THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE POINT 2. Twister: misrapresents your point, CORRECT THEM 3. Wrangler: critics everything without alternatives, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? REVERSE QUESTION 4. Liar: lies, REPLACE LIE WITH A TRUTH. MAIN POINT: If not challenged, the bullies gain confidence and go forth. Thanks for sharing!
Even if the people taking part in a debate are honest, sincere, and do not resort to any of the tactics the video mentioned, debates are one of the worst things that anyone can use for information on which to base a decision, be it who to vote for, or who would win in a fight between two comic book characters. The public, in general, usually base who they believe won a debate using fairly shallow criteria. Who gave the better, more polished performance? Did the person start viewing the debate with a bias toward one of the participants, issues, or common ideology? Who was better looking, or more honest looking? Someone who is a poor public speaker is at a huge disadvantage, even if their ideas are far superior. If one participant is significantly better looking than their opponent, that gives them an advantage. Supposedly, one of the reasons JFK was viewed as the winner in his first debate with Nixon was that he looked better on TV. They say Kennedy won the debate with the TV audience and Nixon won with those listening on radio. Also, most people tend to support one side or the other before the debate even starts. Debates are not all that different from the "Trial by Combat" days. The victor in both is not necessarily determined by who is right, but by who puts on the stronger performance. We live in a time where people want quick answers with minimal effort on their part. For better or worse, that's what debates provide.
There are discussions out there people have that are great for information. I think the greatest strategy to get an exchange ideas without making people defensive is to ask a lot of questions, and avoid complex and unintuitive concepts when inserting your own statements. An oral explanation that takes more than 50 words is going to be hard for 80% of people to follow. This is assuming you are talking to someone with an open heart.
I greatly appreciate content such as this. Dozens of argumentative errors and logical fallacies are practiced by these “bad debaters” on social media, television, and even in educational settings. It truly saddens me that the lust for power leads so many to sacrifice the pursuit of truth and genuine understanding. Just as sad is the fact that such crude tactics seem to work on so many people. Human beings experience life subjectively. Each person has unique values and there will always be differences that lead to disagreements and their resulting conversations. Still, as a society, there are some very common goals that we may often fail to realize are shared between one group and it’s “opposition”. Debate itself is indeed a tool. When misused, it causes frustrations, further misunderstandings and even conflicts. These are not only harmful on their own, they also can lead us further astray from the truth as well as stigmatize differing and potentially insightful perceptions. When debate is used properly, it can help people learn about each other and about themselves. It can allow us to determine what works best to reach our common goals. At its best, debate helps us understand everyone more deeply, more intricately. It helps us love.
Great explanation, very thoughtful and well presented. Sadly, honest debate is now the realm of clubs within academia, even interdisciplinary and disciplinary debates have become corrupted. Politicians and activists of all stripes have little interest in honest debate, so all inevitably resort to the tactics you have described. One type of debater I think you omitted is the shouter/screamer. This debate tactic is almost always employed by someone with ideological tendencies when faced with facts that refute or outright debunk their talking points. Excellent video.
its because dirty debates is more entertaining on television. they dont really care about good honest debates if dirty bad debates attract a bigger audience.
I have experienced 'the shouter' in all of his examples. Unlike academic debates, emotions are 'acceptable' in our kitchens, park soap boxes, and grocery store parking lots all over the world. My daughter took debate as a freshmen, and she's good at it, but with her dad, the shouting under all those circumstances is impossible.
@@dfn808 Even in a class setting (without proper scaffolding and trust between students) a debate often ends up being polar opposite opinions against each other. But yes we should for sure try our best to facilitate good debates and culture around it being okay to have different opinions.
@@Munchausenification I agree. I used to give my students rules and a moderator. Among the rules were such things as only researching and presenting facts and no talking over their opposition. Where possible, I liked to get the students opinions or feelings on a topic up for discussion and make put them on the opposing side of the debate, thus encouraging them to at least look at the possibility of a differing view point. All that is great for a debate within a University setting but in the real world opinions, feelings and emotions have no real place, though listening to alternative perspectives certainly does.
*"Where embarrassment was the currency"* It shows how a lot of democracy is a performance and needs to be further analysed, because the masses can be so easily pleased by entertainment.
The only decisive debate wins i've seen in US presidential politics have been decided on appearance (Nixon sweating v Kennedy), sound bytes ("Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"), or slip of the tongue.
I learnt about how politicians win debates from my father, as soon as my logic became to much hassle for him, he would change the argument from the subject to who has the biggest emotion and then use that moment to often change the subject entirely. I don't waste my time arguing with him or those like him anymore as there is nothing to be gained and only something to be lost.
I remember arguing with someone in a silly comment section about how rating someone's appearance unsolicited can be harmful in many ways. For one, it is objectifyig, rude, and perpetuates unreasonable standards in general. This sort of creates the lookism/extremism everyone "hates" so much. My comment was: "what entitlement do yall have? are yall judges?" My point was to highlight how commenting on people looks and being harsh is clear that you think you have a sort of entitlement as judges do because judges can be harsh and blunt. However, this one person was so fixated on my comparison, saying: "youre implying that only judges can judge." which, of course was NOT what i was implying. For hours, unfortunately we went back n forth. They began to insult my occupation, intelligence, and literacy all because my "comparison was nonsensical". They had completely shifted the main focus and it went on for so long that they began to make no sense; I could make no sense of their words. And because I was willing to understand in good faith, I had no clue they were playing a game. I eventually asked "okay, so tell me your stance." They never replied. Essentially, i totally agree with the solution when debating a "wrangler"--to ask them their claim, they cannot answer or if they do it will be bs that make no sense.
I found this helpful because 1, it identified the problem and gave a solution and 2, rare on RUclips, it was to the point and succinct. Respect to Bo Seo.
We all have a touch of all forms of these persons, but the awareness of these like this insightful video has exposed puts us in a place of consciousness when debating. And with others we can now know how to effectively have a meaningful debate. Thank you for sharing this valuable video. Debating is really important topic and valuable on its own.
I remember my very first debate, I was so excited because I love debating. Arguing where nobody's feelings are hurt always appeals to me. I was so disappointed when I went against my first opponents, they gaslighted and manipulated both me, my partner and the judges. Whenever we would rebuttal or POI them, they would claim that they never said that. After our debate, a friend of mine overheard them talking about how they had to manipulate the judges since they were losing. I don't think I had ever been more upset in my life, especially when the judges didn't notice that they were lying because they simply didn't care enough to closely listen to the whole debate. The worst part of it all was that they won first place.
The real issue with liars is that making up lies is a lot easier than knowing the truth about every topic they might lie about, particularly in real time. And even if it only takes 3 seconds of research to figure out where a lie comes from and how it can be pinned down as a lie - at that time it's already too late.
Ofc,the nature of people are rhey dont want to think far, so whatever one give they take, to validate or verify takes shttons of time and efforts than creating lies/conspiracy
A really good example of a dirty debate was the Gonzalo Lira debate that happened recently. Lazerpig's persistence and calm manners ultimately made Lira the one who started using insults and other low level things against him, while the whole time his strategy of annoyance planned to make the other side do that
This guy is all over the place. He starts out talking about how to win in a formal debate and then at the end shifts to dealing with bullies. Those aren't the same thing at all. Ultimately, he sounds like he's very skilled in the science of debate and very naive in the art of persuasion and in dealing with hostile opponents.
I have found that people watching a debate are not interested in learning anything from it. Rather, they are interested in their views showing dominance over the opposing views. It doesn't matter to them the form that dominance takes.
Former debater here. As a matter of fact, I had to debate frequently with people on daily basis in academic spheres, social media platforms, etc etc. So, I had to upgrade my strategy and make a certain method to nullify the standpoints of opponents even before the debate rolls further. I learned about Logical Fallacies. The first point made here about The Dodger is a fallacy called the "Red Herring Fallacy". The second point about Twister is similar to "Strawman Fallacy". I learned about 30 Logical Fallacies and I can confidently say that I don't need to debate unnecessarily now. And now it is much easier to identify who to debate with or who to not.
There is a difference between a good faith debate and a marketing platform. Trump wasn't trying to win a debate, he was marketing his brand. By constantly challenging a marketeer on their selected topics, all you are doing is allowing them to repeat the big lie often enough for it to take hold. By repeating the same phrase over and over again, the listener becomes familiar with it, then eventually repeats it themself.
Statistics in a debate are so stupid. You can use your own studies to make the opposite argument than your opponent. Also you can use the same study to argue both sides
Bravo! This is exactly how it's done. It's not just debate, it's honest dialogue. Keep emotions at bay and stay on point. Some you win and some you lose, this is life. Always keep on the high road, it will always win... Eventually facts are indisputable.
I LOVE this episode. Identifying the Dodger, Twister, Wrangler, and Liar, is a valuable skill in debate. These people are more interested in Winning an argument than getting to a truth. However, If I were to play Devil's Advocate, I would point out that the "debate cheats" are also trying to accomplish something else: They are wishing to push connotations of negative intent-and-interest onto their opponents as well. Meaning, the dictionary gives us the shared foundation with which to communicate with people outside of our heads. But words also have another hidden meaning, which is the degree of intensity of those words, wherein we could choose "stronger" or euphemistic words. For example, I could say "I hate painters. Why? Because Hitler was a painter." Creating an association between my "argument opponent" and Hitler "works" for some emotional people. It is the reason for all Straw Man Arguments. Effective debaters can ALSO use this technique to hammer down the position of their debate opponents.
*I used to debate in college (around the time Trump was running for President) what I learned is that unfortunately the louder person in the room typically works even if it seems comical, I won many debates that I knew I should have lost simply because I was more aggressive & assertive*
When I encounter someone making an outlandish claim, and I try to have a good faith debate with them, I usually discover quickly where the outlandish claim comes from: 1) unreliable, deliberately misleading sources, and 2) a very cloudy sense of reason.
It's really interesting to hear about the different tactics that bad faith arguers use, like the dodger, the twister, the wrangler, and the liar. It's important to recognize and respond to these tactics in order to have productive and meaningful discussions. It's also powerful to be able to challenge bullies and bad faith actors, especially when they are present in our lives. It's great to have tools and strategies to do so effectively.
And you are the "Saint", pretends to argue in a constructive ways, while dismissing other people thoughts. While using every bad manner tactic to put himself/herself/itself into the spotlight of the conversation...
I think the well has already been poisoned once the assumption of "bad faith" is made. Dodging and twisting are perfectly valid depending on context, and merely pointing out the other person is making these types of arguments doesn't make your position true.
@@quintessenceSL what contexts is it okay to dodge or twist? Dodging allows you to not actually engage with the argument at hand and twisting is inherently dishonest because of willful misinterpretation/misdirection.
@@connorpeppermint8635 The presumption of bad faith assumes the type or argument the person is making and to what effect. Per his example, changing the topic presumes only one person gets to set the agenda for the debate, and pointing out another's hypocrisy for such a nebulous statement is valid. Double standards and controlling the direction of a debate is an indicator of bad faith. "Misrepresentation" assumes the intent of the speaker. A different point may be being made, but to dismiss it out of hand as misrepresentation means you are not engaging the other's points yourself. Dialogue requires at least two parts, and dictating the course of the discussion is disingenuous.
i paused at 0:59 to write this you said EVERYTHING. everytime i get to debate it turns out like a competition over who has the better phrase to shut the other up
Oh I learned this quickly in high school debate lmao. They don’t pay attention to any of the details, just the better speaker who can manage to twist people’s words around.
In the first example, the dodger who says "but you're driving a SUV", isnt dodging anything. He only points out to the audience that the person who asked the question is not honnest and seed in their mind that they may have an agenda. Why would you trust an obese personal trainer? Same thing here. It's not dodging, it's pointing out that the question can't be serious and honnest if the person who is asking it doesnt live by those rules.
no. one can advocate for a national policy, like reducing reliance on fossil fuels, while also using fossil fuels. this is not hypocritical. i want better public transportation, but we don't have it yet, so i drive a car. that is not hypocritical; i can advocate for better public transportation while also living in the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. an individual's choice to drive an SUV versus an electric car has essentially zero impact on climate change, because it's only an individual choice. a nation's choice to, say, continue subsidizing oil companies or to take those subsidies and redirect them to more sustainable forms of energy production can have an appreciable impact on climate change. you can work to influence a nation's choices in a better direction while still personally driving an SUV without contradiction or hypocrisy.
@@slablargemeat8954 Yes it is. If you want to change the way people live you have to opt in and lead by example. It is utter hypocrisy for anyone to demand that everyone needs to change, whilst they hide behind "personal choice" for their polluting choices. My nation represents less then 2% of global C02 emissions. if we cut our emissions to zero not "net zero" bullshit but if we actually end all our industry and commercial based emissions it will have zero impact on the climate. Should we therefore do nothing? of course not, you know this, i know this. Everyone has to play there part, we can't get others on board cutting their emissions if we won't do it ourselves. We would be a lot further along in action on climate change if people like yourself held individuals you see as ally's to higher standards instead of making excuses for them. It's no different then the pope telling people not to seek riches whilst sitting on a golden throne.
@@louiscypher4186 no, i don't agree with that at all. these individual-level purity tests are only a counter-productive distraction. it literally does not matter what car a politician drives, especially if that "gotcha" is being used against them when they're proposing a reform that actually WOULD make an appreciable difference. the exchange in the video was "we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels" vs. "you drive an SUV". those are unrelated: a politician's personal vehicle has nothing to do with, say, increasing our usage of nuclear power, which would reduce reliance on fossil fuels. if i'm proposing building more nuclear power plants and you're complaining that I drive an SUV, you're not engaging with the point. that's why it's bad debating. in your analogy, the pope is hypocritical because the pope is supposed to be a moral authority. politicians aren't supposed to be moral leaders. our response to climate change is a pragmatic issue, not a moral one. we should focus our efforts where they will have actual impact. once you give in to the moral purity tests, there's no end to the roadblocks that a bad-faith opponent can throw up: oh, you stopped driving an SUV? well you still eat meat. oh, you stopped eating meat? well, you still have heat in your home. oh, you moved to a cabin in the woods? well, you still have children. etc, etc.
@@slablargemeat8954 and now i would say your acting in bad faith here. First off all politicians claim moral authority it's everywhere, the "opponent" is always villainous. This extends to climate change there are no pragmatic approaches to climate change being seriously debated in politics, some scientists in a backroom might. But not on the politics side, pretending any politician is just being "pragmatic" is a piss take and you know it. It's all threats of fire and brimstone and how we must stand up and do what's right. Additionally nobody brings up SUV's in regard's to nuclear power. The comment is specific and applies in the context of taxing and/or banning of vehicles which burn fossils fuels. There is no "we" in reducing fossil fuel use when "you" get to burn as much fuel as you like. Likewise comments on eating meat apply to those politicians who demand cuts to farming and increasing prices on meat. We are talking about major changes to our way of life which will absolutely negatively impact a lot of lives and you have the politicians who demand these changes not even bothering to do the bare minimum. It's hypocrisy, It's the same reason trump was called out for his shitty little hats being made in china, You can easily make the same argument. "oh it doesn't matter where his hat is made because he wants to bring back manufacturing" bullshit, it does. If you say you support American manufacturing you bloody well do it.
@@louiscypher4186 first, specifically about the exchange in the video: "we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels because of climate change" vs. "why do you drive a four-wheel drive"? that is a dodge of a response, because one can simultaneously advocate for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and drive a big car without contradiction. logically, there's nothing in the statement "we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels" that precludes driving a big car. "reduce" is not "eliminate", and "our" doesn't not necessarily mean "yours and mine, individually". for example, there are ways to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that have nothing to do with cars, like the one i mentioned: increasing our use of nuclear power for electricity. therefore, logically, pointing out that someone drives a big car is not responsive to the claim that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. both of those can be true at once. an example of a response that engages with the claim might be "no we don't, because fossil fuels don't cause climate change." that statement is in direct tension with the claim. it is not a dodge. in regards to your other points, i don't really see a contradiction in the examples you gave either, as long as the politicians abide by their proposed laws if passed. a person can eat meat and also think it should be more expensive. a person can drive an SUV and be in favor of taxes on them. it would be hypocritical to take a moral stance, like "driving an SUV is wrong", while still personally driving one, but that's not what the video was talking about.
In the first minute, Bo Seo starts off his video stating that he's going to talk about bullies in debates, but almost everything else (his 4 personas he explained) has nothing to do with bullying in the sense that non-bullies do those things even more than bullies do. Bullies tend to prefer things like talking over you, ad hominem, use of humor to ridicule... The reason I bring this up is that, a minute into the video, I thought to myself, "The bullying is bad, but frankly, the more sneaky tactics are a far bigger problem." ...only to have him seemingly show he agrees with me by spending the rest of the video talking only about sneakier tactics. I wonder if this is the type of thing I've heard youtubers say they've learned is necessary to get views (which they don't like, but begrudgingly accept), which is to bait people's interest with one thing so you can then spend the rest of the video talking about the thing you really care more about.
The title is about dirty debate trickers so I don't think its a huge pivot. I think part of it is just that it's impossible to do any kind of in-depth video in 5 minutes. You have to choose a single topic and explain it quickly. Might be an algorithm thing like you alluded to. From a supposedly world-class debater, it's a little disappointing to just hear something kind of basic.
@@Novastar.SaberCombatYou don't know the first thing about Brazil, yet here you are talking shit about the best president we ever had. People like you don't know anything about our problems but because you hear some journazist from mainstream media blabbing lies you end up believing and thinking you're well informed. The only sociopathic narcissist you should be calling is our current left wing, organized crime supporter, president Lula, who's driving our economy to shit (again) while also returning to his old habits of stealing that put him in jail in 2018.
As far as I understood it is taking a lie representative of the argument "the liar" is making and showing their dishonesty by filling in the truth for that lie. E.G. in Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman?" he talk about a certain drug used to postpone puberty in trans teens, paints a picture of transition as harm and mutilation, and drops that the company producing the drug had to pay a massive penalty. The "Plug and Replace" approach would then adress that the penalty was for Medicare- (or Medicaid-, can't remember) fraud, that puberty blockers for 65yos and up (to qualify for that programm you have to be that age) would be ridiculous, and in this way demonstrate Walsh's dishonest way of arguing in a broaders sense.
Guess we have to buy his book. (And I absolutely will, this interview was excellent. I cannot believe we aren't focusing more on the problem of bad faith discourse.)
Point out the lie in an argument and tell the truth. For example: Debate about earth’s water crisis: Person 1: We have so many consumable water companies. The state of earth’s water has never been better. Person 2: False. Earths’ waters are polluted with more heavy metals everyday from industrial plants. The state of earths’ waters are not better, they are deteriorating. The lie is that earths’ waters have never been better. The truth is the state of earths’ waters have been better because of constant water pollution occurring today.
By my estimation, the 'plug and replace' strategy requires you to: (1) identify the lie during the argument, (2) identify the true claim that should be in its place, then (3) point out the implications of the lie. For instance, in a debate about whether COVID-19 is a hoax, when engaging with an interlocutor one might say: "(1) You claim that COVID-19 is a hoax. (2) However, this is patently false [for x reasons], the pandemic is in fact a real virus. (3) Were one to accept this lie, they would be exposing themselves and their families to potentially deadly infection, and undermining public health more broadly." This approach helps to identify not just lies, but what they mean and to reveal the indelicacies of the arguments that our interlocutor makes.
@@springergabriel1804 But how does that work? You didn't explain it. All you did was replace the "lie". There was a hell of a lot more than just replacing it or else it'd just be called replace
The answer to the title, immediately in my head, before opening the video, was the same as almost always to all debates, and remained the same throughout the video and after it was done: the audience. The “dark art” of knowing how low you can go on every level that “wins” over the kind of audience you have. That example of presidential debate in this video taught the world at the time more about the state of the american population than it did of any topic approached.
Even beyond formal debate stratagems, one of the approaches I see used with a good amount of success again bad faith debaters is, odd as it may sound, _silliness._ Partially because it comes at the situation from an angle completely outside the norm. When we debate earnestly, we strive for truth, but debating in bad faith is not about that pursuit. Some people want something emotional out of the debate, others are often trying to present an image to the audience (often things like strength, authority or competence) Silliness is difficult, though not impossible, to turn towards anything with pomp and circumstance built up around it but by that same token it is _superb_ for shifting emotional context or shattering image. How does one maintain an air of regal authority when the court jester does everything in their power to undermine it? One doesn't. The truth can survive a little lack of pomp. The desire to puff oneself up cannot.
What I don’t like about these is that they are yelling over each other, and I feel like continuously being polite to your opponent would 1. Throw them off, and 2. Make more people like you?
I never argue, I make bets on facts that I have already investigated. Funny the way people pull back when when you offer to bet on the results of information, but be sure to define the terms of the bet first. It's best to let the other person define those terms before the bet, and I never collect, because that was never the point. The bet just made them look at the information and do a hopeless search to win their argument.
My ex-girlfriend was a pro dodger. She proudly explained to me that it wasn't important to win a debate but to leave the impression that you won it by changing the topic to something else where you were sure to have the upper hand or to keep changing topics until the other one was done with it and quitted. I first was impressed by this trick and thought she was smart. Only realized later how stupid and toxic this is. The topic wasn't important as long as she won.
I quit my high school's debate team, because it turns out I'm not so smart after all. In the last competition, I got beat by a guy who's 17 and in the _tenth_ grade. And that's not all: I go to my city's public high school; he goes to the much smaller and less popular charter school that accommodates certain students. I know him because he's my friend's cousin, and it didn't take long to know his character. He is slow; he always needs clarification and accommodations to the instructions you give him. I felt for sure I could beat him in the debate competition, but he actually had--and this really does pain me to say this--greater points to counter mine. They were so deep and logical. After losing to a guy who often "doesn't get it" and will be twenty by the time he graduates I realized I didn't have what it takes for debate team after all. I always thought I was so smart, but it looks like I'm stupid, huh?
@@johnrainsman6650 graduating late doesn't mean someone isn't smart. it means they don't listen to orders well. most school work doesn't determine intelligence, it's more following orders/directions and completing projects. I, myself, did graduate but I also wasn't making honor roll as I would get good test scores and slack off on everything else. Humble yourself
In my experience, the Wrangler tends to start falling apart quite quickly once you start asking them about their own opinions. It's not uncommon for them to be chronic moaners with little to add to the conversation.
Wrangling is one that I could take issue with, or perhaps I am now wrangling, but I will substantiate my concern. It is an easy matter if you know otherwise to a person who makes an assertion, you see it as incorrect and can offer the correct position. Sometimes though one can sense that something is not right, but do not know enough to provide the correct or alternative point. Maybe one is just sensing from other cues that the person is just making things up or is not so sure. An example for me in the last few months since the Ukrainian war was hearing the assertion that the "US organised a coup in Ukraine in 2014". There were some aspects of this assertion that did not immediately make sense to me, but I did not know enough to challenge confidently and offer an alternative, or rather factual recount of the sequence of events that led to Yanukovych, Ukrainian President, fleeing the country. Much research and weeks later, I was able to put together the timeline and events which eventually led to Yanukovych fleeing the country (Yanukovych not following the Ukrainian Parliament's decision to seek closer ties with the EU but instead proposing to seek membership of the Eurasian Economic Union, after the intervention of Putin, university students' small (in 100s) "Euromaiden" protests followed by police brutality of students leading to mass protests (in 100s of thousands) protests against Yanukovych). Thus it was a sequence of escalating events initiated over Ukraine's EU ties, not USA interventions, leading to a "revolution" rather than a "coup" of replacing one president by another. So I do not think just because someone critique's a point of view or statement it is always wrangling when being unable to provide at the time alternative accounts. It is more if the person is habitually critiquing in a destructive negative way as a debating style. IMO.
@@davidhowse884 You're right that providing an alternative point of view by default isn't wrangling. For it to be wrangling it has to be a pattern, where a person tends to resort to nitpicking and complaining as their only defense.
It's helpful to keep in mind that political debates aren't true debates in the traditional sense. It's like comparing professional wrestling to olympic wrestling. Political debates have looser rules, more active moderator participation, and no penalties for misbehavior.
I actually think the wrangler is the least dirty in the list since they, at the very least, help you find flaws in your argument, sort of like playing devil's advocate
@@MiketheNerdRanger i mean the Wrangler maybe ask a numerous questions out of curiosity tho. Just because they want a high standards of answers doesn't mean they are wrong to ask them. Extraordinary claim need an extraordinary evidence. Hitchen's razor
Wrangler are just people who oppose for the sake of opposing. There is little value brought to table nor solutions. We encounter all these characters at work from time to time.
Unless you're a world champion debater, search for the full "you can't grow concrete" video to see a perfect example of dealing with a bad faith actor by saying as little as possible and letting show the flaws in their own arguements.
I dislike debates because it assumes that if you're bad at public speaking, your point is less valuable. In truth, some of the most intelligent people I know are terrible at public speaking, and some of the most selfish people I know are great at it. I don't think this means that the terrible speakers are any less valid, any less wrong, and I do think that we as a society could place less value on how people say things versus what they're actually saying. I also think that online debates are very powerful tools to educate the public because your readers are able to process information at their own pace, and you can't just move on from a bad point because it's there for everyone to read forever.
As a Polish person who watched my national politics since 2015, I know EXACTLY what this video is about even tho I didn't watch it yet. Considering the president we have right now, I know exactly what tactics worse debaters use to win by dominating their opponents and strawmaning their arguments.
The points made are constructive and instructive. I seen debates where the bad debater used all four of your strategies. I would like to add another one that seems strangely prevalent in my time. The practice of debating rudely and loudly with such interruption that it turns into chaos. The stability and respect has gone all out of debates. Even Parliament and Congress have a long history of this sort of behavior.
You keep using Trump as an example. None of your solutions would have worked against any of his debates. Whichever of those 4 categories he falls into, here's another one: the interrupter. You need a moderator who can make such a person shut the hell up when it's not his turn. You need someone who can (and will) cut the interrupter's microphone and maybe even turn on some sound cancelling speakers if this particular interrupter is loud enough to do without a mic.
I don't often engage in debate, because I'm more of a "try to understand and find common ground" kind of person who sees her "opponent" not even as an opponent. I ask neutral, non-loaded questions to gain an understanding and I try my best not to judge the other person's views. I only state my views when directly asked. At the same time, I let them know that if they ask bad-faith questions, they're far more likely to get a sarcastic answer. If they provide a really good argument, I will consider and further research what they told me, even if I conclude they were wrong, I still appreciate being given food for thought. People like to feel like they're heard, being friendly and open has allowed more people to listen to what I'm saying, even if they previously thought my positions were extreme. I'm a socialist, which some consider extreme, but I understand why some don't like socialism. and I won't think less of you for disagreeing with me.
I relate to this, but 1) some people will take any question at all as criticism (sometimes out of defensiveness because they don't necessarily remember why/how they reached their opinion), and 2) finding common ground requires common sources of truth, and I sometimes find it difficult to validate and acknowledge a person's perspective without being transparently disingenuous. Often the best I can do is, "I hear that you've been hurt by the government and feel that it doesn't represent you, and as a result it's difficult for you to trust what the government says." Which is my line for "if you believe the CDC and every other government agency is just a propaganda vehicle, then this conversation only serves to learn about your fictional world." And at that point I don't *really* feel like I'm being honest, so I have to say something like, "I personally believe there are a lot of good people in government--especially local government--that care about accurate data and improving people's lives. But of course, everybody has to decide for themselves who to trust." I feel like that line bends over backward to find common ground, so I'm always disappointed when the response is a jab about my gullability. My view has shifted over time. If someone argues in bad faith, I want to try to make them comfortable so they will start sharing what they really believe. But if they continue to argue in bad faith, I try not to keep engaging. I want to empathize, not be a doormat.
“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” - Bill Murray In general circumstances, silence is the best way to win pointless debates with stupid ones. They do not seek, nor even need the truth, but your acceptance to every single statement of theirs as the truth. Of course, I may keep smiling in silence, but do not take it as acceptance. When the opposite one does not have, or does not use logical thinking, nor common sense, what is the point of a debate?
The best way to debate with most people on the internet, is not to engage in the first place. People hiding behind an anonymous screen, with no recourse for their beliefs or statements, are free to be as absolutely stupid as possible and you’d have no idea if they’re trolling or genuinely dumb. Best not to start.
I don't debate, but some times people say something that's very... strange, peculiar, weird, you name it. My curiosity always gets the best of me, and I find it fun to poke and prod with genuine curiosity at people's statements. Their responses are generally enough as proof of foolishness. Though I agree, it's a waste of time to try and argue with someone on the internet, but that's because arguing/debating has the implication of persuading someone they're wrong. Just let them elaborate and dig their own heels lol
@@ElsaChan597 I agreed with what you said, The debate would be a waste of time under those circumstances. Therefore, instead of debating, sometimes we just need to ask a few questions that can direct their minds to find their own answers. But don't expect too much, just keep calm, and thanks. :)
If they just thinking dmb sht that only affect and harm themselves thats okay but when their lies and bs are about discriminating or harm others, thats the problem. You can do nothing while the other guy influence more people like herd of sheeps, they won nonetheless.
I am very good at debates, the best at debates. I have done billions and billions of debates. A friend of mine, a very good friend of mine said “Donny, you’re the best!”
Winging an argument against an expert is difficult. Winning an argument with an idiot is impossible. Simple life hack that will make existence more enjoyable is this. You can’t reason people out of things they were not reasoned into. Soon as you realise there are some people for whom the topic is emotional not logical, just give up and get on with your life.
Talking with most Americans today, on “my side” or not, is a constant challenge. I remember talking with Americans in the 80s, 90s, early 00s (middle school, high school, college, graduate school). Nowhere similar today. The internet has changed people. Or, rather, the weak have allowed the internet to change them for the worst. Especially social media platforms.
Nobody thinks they are the liers . Everyone is just fighting their corner. It’s not their truth it’s not their frame . It’s simply a frame battle with status .
@@time3735 Those who did not understand one bit about science but think they can slap it as a label on themselves and that makes everything they say automatically correct? Yeah, they are everywhere. Many people have not become more scientific. They only realized that science has some authority.
@@Ninjaananas Exactly!! Trying to attack science by using science itself. Their intention to understand science is to only disprove it and to ultimately prove their religious points. And they never succeed in doing so because they never actually understand it.
These are great points on an intellectual level, but I utterly reject the idea that Hillary is a "better opponent." Don had so much momentum specifically because she was a horrible opponent. She was a dirty Warhawk responsible for the disasters in Libya and Syria. She was the poster child for establishment corruption. She was already bordering on senile incompetence, taking breaks as secretary of state for those explicit reasons. She was the obvious DNC pick, muscling out far better candidates with nepotism and back room deals. The primary reason I disliked Obama's presidency was because of Hillary's actions as secretary of state. I loathed her from the beginning.
In the debate, she was the better behaved half. She held herself a lot better than Trump. He talked over her profusely and argued in bad faith constantly.
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
More videos with Bo Seo -
Debate world champion explains how to argue: ruclips.net/video/2pVdSEp-tT8/видео.html
Why you should live an argumentative life: ruclips.net/video/Tk01uthNqzY/видео.html
I doubt this was intentional, but the imagery provided with the timing of the words showed a pattern.
3:01 This is the person for whom.. (focused on the male)
3:04 ...nothing is ever good enough (shot swings to the female)
3:10 "against everything that youre saying" (pans to the woman waving *no* with her hands)
3:40 "liar, they tell many"(the first image shown is Elizabeth Holmes, which isn't even the most recent case nor the biggest (coins hello?), and is more so an outlier in the vast quantity of corporate liars in the past 20 years)
Every image shown that was singling out an individual for a negative word was paired with females, and 0% of the positive words, like the neutral end clips, were paired with females.
You could argue Hillary was, but everyone knows she lost, and is too much of a emotionally charged figure anyways.
I hope you consider re-editing for this video & future videos, given the name, Big Think.
being a "dirty" debater doesn't make you wrong, just while we're being objective and intellectually honest here.
Ben shapiro is an expert on attacking and avoiding questions, or agustin laje too... ignorant people who have practiced lying and manipulation for years...
@@cagneybillingsley2165not per se, but I bet correlation will show people who use dirty tactics don't have the substance to support their arguments...
Thanks, this breakdown was wonderful. The suggestion you gave for dealing with the Dodger is identical to a what I've learned in improvisational acting -- i.e., always maintain your point of view.
Your examples early in the video were helpful. I found myself wishing you had provided one for _plug & replace,_ as well, since I believe that is a new concept for me.
Another thing to keep in mind that's often misunderstood is that debates are meant to convince a third party, not the person you're debating. Debates are _not_ a great way for two people to come to an understanding. When you put pressure on someone's views they're way more likely to double down than to reconsider. A better alternative is to ask nonprovocative questions from a place of genuine curiosity. And just listen. Their logic will be tested as they explain, and they'll probably be the first to realize if something doesn't add up.
Asking questions honestly. Good idea. What if they ignore the questions and start shifting to attempts of personal attacks ?
Me then give hint, that question not replied to was, and topic is changed ..
The angrier they get , that's fosho.
@@farrider3339 You could try to introduce the 'third party' to shift focus away from you. You could ask "How do I explain this to my brother/grandma/congress-man ?" or "How would you explain it to .../.../... ?"
@@farrider3339 Yeah if they're already defensive it won't be effective (but debates wont be either) so you may want to conceal the signs that you're testing their beliefs.
And while I'm on the topic, putting it that way might make it seem like a deceptive and bad faith tactic, but I think it's close to the opposite honestly. After all it only works in the first place if you open yourself up to having your own mind changed too
exactly, it's a form of showmanship, not actually close at all to rhetorics or philosophic discussion in the academic sense.
Very true!
One of the more common diversionary tactics I see by dirty debaters, is they hit you with a barrage of questions or points instead of sticking to the original argument, so now you feel like you're fighting on multiple fronts and getting further away from the main topic.
The Gish Gallop is so annoying. If I feel it happen I just call it out and insist on going point by point and slowing it down. A certain squeeky right wing commentator made a career out of the GG.
@@maplesyrup76 Ah right, the Gish Gallop, couldn't remember what it was called. I run into that more than any other dirty tactic online.
@pouya Nature commands every animal, and the beast obeys, eh? Rousseau might differ with you on that. He believes that humans are metaphysically free and that their freedom lifts them above the deterministic realm of nature inhabited by all other animals. More importantly, what in god's name does this have to do with dirty debaters?
@@zyrrhos no humans are not free our brains are made from particles and our brains are also physically limited
@@zyrrhos why are humans and other animals differentiated in your point that makes no sense
My dad liked to condense all five of these debate cheats into one:
"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!"
You should reverse his strategy and use it on him to show how ridiculous a question it is. Ask him, "Why do YOU hate America?" And then ask him: "What makes you think that I hate America?"
Four and the reply is, "Only someone who hates Americans would question their love for the fatherland. So why do you hate Americans?"
Why do you, Windy?
@@lain7758 "why are you racist"
“Why r u gae”
"It's not the argument you're making, it's the one they're thrusting on you."
This is commonly a form of straw man argument, where they act as though the person is arguing for something more extreme than the actual point being made. It works incredibly well, and most people have no idea it's happening. It's South Park, but in real life.
Yeah the strawman is pretty much what fuels all interreligious (including atheism) debates and at least half of political ones
@@jonathanbarkins8480 just wanna point out atheism isn’t a religion but good point altogether
@@kingofgrim4761 technically true, but many people are more religious about not believing than most Christians or Muslims are about their beliefs
@@jonathanbarkins8480 I would disagree with that, entirely. I'm vehemently against certain religions, like Christianity, because they are intolerant of other religions and certain morally neutral acts. Any religion that posits that their way of living and thinking is absolute and correct is utterly toxic.
@@jonathanbarkins8480 I missed the part of the Middle Ages where entire armies were levied and inquisitors sent by atheists to oppress the religious masses in the name of atheism, oh wait that was the religious.
Most people are not persuaded by logic, but by appeal to emotion, changing the subject, using anecdotes instead of facts or misrepresenting the opponents position. You are not going to defeat your opponent in political debates by logic alone. In other words, critical thinking is a rare commodity.
😠 Indeed, but those in high places do not encourage critical thinking. That would be to empower those in low places, and thus to challenge those above them.
common sense, which is not necessarily a good thing. Extraordinary sense now that's what we all need. 👍
It's best summarized as "My feelings don't care about your facts".
Winning a debate and winning an election require opposing strategies.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat The term critical thinking has become corrupted.
I learned a lot today. The lesson I'm keeping closer is the one that specially challenged my belief of not getting involved: "the power of bullies increases without challenge".
@@Joe-sg9ll challenge the bully
Actually it's quite the opposite. If you don't have courage enough to speak up against the bully, or at least attempt to argue your reasoning behind your position. Then that bully moves on to another and spreads. Missing your opportunity to change things for the better.
@@Joe-sg9ll 👈 comes across as a twister.
@@Joe-sg9ll No because I don't act in bad faith, I don't use "the dark arts".
@@50-50_Grind it might be a worthwhile endeavor to think about what it means to be a bully. Is it just someone who is confident who disagrees with you? Can someone be a bully and also be correct? @Joe is coming across in a kind of "bullying" like way. I'm not sure if it's the twister archetype maybe more the Wrangler, speaking against other people's comments without providing useful hypotheses or inputs himself. Maybe he's trying to make a good point and is just over-eager.
The biggest difference between a scientific debate and a presidential debate: the audience.
Yes, a rational audience would not put up with such bad discussions that serve nothing but eristic.
All of these tactics used by bullies don't work in a scientific debate.
@@time3735 exactly :)
Yeah, the audience is a huge factor and debates will leans towards whatever is more liked. Take for example Reddit. Reddit's karma system is supposed to work by using upvotes for comments you think contribute to the conversation and downvote distracting/irrelevant comments. But instead its a like/dislike button. It doesn't matter how many times that intention is explained, if it shows every time you hover over the "upvote" button, people are just going to treat it as a like. So Reddit conversations become less meaningful as a consequence and echo chambers become the norm.
@@time3735 that's because in scientific/academic debates the outcomes are usually black and white with little consequence, usually conducted between peers who might have all the same understanding or world views...
Trying these debate techniques the author suggested would just make people feel like the other never listens...
This guy would lose to Trump in a debate. He is too logical.
Boy would I pay to see it
Our esteemed presenter, Bo Seo, was a regular guest on an ABC TV current affairs program. His characteristic traits were to never be rushed and to never accept the premise or underlying assumptions of any question.
As a rhetorician he’s like the low talker. He pauses before saying anything, and he presents an abstract idea before answering the question. He rarely needs to answer a question because he presents a parallel idea, and lets you answer the question for yourself.
Super effective, because you’re compelled to listen.
“Defense against the dark arts”
A man of culture I see. 🧙♂️
The dark hearts 🖤
Harry Potter fucking sucks
Gang gang
I was listening to this video while playing a game but then when he said that i had to stop everything pay full attention lol.
Didnt know we were learning defensive spells
I hear what you are saying. My frustration, as an American who watches our national debates, is that the debate moderators fail to apply the set rules. I think, in future debates, moderators NEED the power to cut mics, both when someone has gone over their time limit, and also when they interrupt their opponent incessantly. I feel those changes would make room for factuality and logic, and disarm shear volume and arrogance.
100%
Also the debaters need to be in separate rooms with a videolink.
I agree, but sadly the media that broadcasts these kinds of debates has no interest in preventing these kinds of malicious strategies in the debates; the reality is that political debates are more characterized as "horse races", or simply a sporting event, in which the focus is on "who" scores the most points to win the game. Thus, the media's interest is in ratings rather than in informing the people- in the sense that sports competitions are far more attractive than the technocratic discussions our leaders should be having...
Doesn't that mean we need to trust the moderators' judgement?
Are they trustworthy? After all, they work for the very same networks that refuse to change their ridiculous debate formats.
Until you realize that the moderator has no power to do so. For those who want to profit from these dark tactics, the goal is never to have a reasonable debate but to win over crowd. If the moderator were taking an action, they would immediately walk away and claim that the moderator is siding with the opponent and shutting them down. Either way, it is gonna be a win for the offender. Until the public has the awareness to withdraw support, should a candidate behave this way, these offenders will never stop, because it is bloody working well.
The video missed out on one of the most common bad debaters, and that it the Interrupter (who doesn’t let you finish your argument) and the Screamer (the one who has a louder voice than you so everyone else has to listen to that person). Those are difficult to deal with as you do not want to stoop to their level and they can use the dramatic effect to influence others.
That will come down to the audience if there is one, and the reason for the debate. If this is a one on one conversation and the interrupter is doing their thing, you need to call them out and make them aware of what they're doing. Possibly reassure them that there are no winners or losers here. What might be helpful is letting them know that you are not here to change their mind.
I don't think those really fall under the scope of debate. You might as well include the "Puncher" who punches you if they disagree.
There are those who anger you by pointing at something completely unrelated in your personal life. Once you are distracted and angry, you are not at full capacity to think.
literally just don't get angry. Anger is probably the easiest emotion to control
@@doomerbloomer6160 based as fuck
That's a fallacy called "Ad Hominem". In a situation where that happens, just point out the argument's irrelevancy.
@@doomerbloomer6160 it's not the initial attack on past but the follow up angry or not they will completely slip out of argument, there's point they hit where say try making jokes about everything you say after that you can stop talking to that person because that's equivalent to talking to dog( it can't understand whatever you say to him)
@@doomerbloomer6160 definitely not the easiest
I wish we could have seen a real live example of each of these as he was going.
He gave examples. Watch the video again
Tons of examples in the video.
@@willynelson8750 you literally. missed my point.
@@myhappygecko2895 They’re an example of dodgers 😆
@@Slavic_Socialist you, are the best.
Excellent speech.
This is one of the few RUclips offerings that took notes on.
I spend a lot of my thinking time examining lies and why they are so effective.
I have found that the most effective lies are the ones the audience wants to hear. It amazes me on how effective such a lie can be, even if is so crudely fashioned that it is an obvious lie.
Wizards first rule: "People believe lies because they want them to be true or because they fear them to be true!"
First of all, bad idea to use Trump. Now you have turned off half the country without really proving your point. Narrative is truth, and liberals have controlled the narrative since JFK via news, education system, and up to Twitter and FB. It is not a speech, it's lecturing.
@@DreadX10 I think The Good Wizard wants that added to his Holy Text. You don’t have to believe in Good Wizard (“G-d” for short) but He believes in you. We know He loves even the non magic people like us because his champion, Harry Potter, defeated the evil wizard so we too can go to Hogwarts if we believe his Holy Text.
@@blondequijote I want whatever this guy is having.
@@blondequijote ayo
Sergio Massa was really playing every single one of the mentioned roles on Argentina's presidential debate
"The power of bullies increases without challenge"
I’m gonna put some dirt in your eye
True
National Team debater here; My coach has from day one said "Debate is not about being right, it's about sounding right"
I think that the best way to deal with bad debaters is to catch them on their tricks as soon as they make it, expose the fact that they are doing it and keep bringing it up throughout the rest of the debate at every chance you get to say anything, i.e. as soon as the opponent turns into a dirty debater it should be your job to make sure that if the audience remembers one thing from the debate it would be the dishonesty of your opponent. Dirty debaters thrive by playing on reputations instead of logic. They do it because they usually don't have much logic to give. If you make sure to pound their reputation as hard as possible they basically lose the only weapon they have and will never recover afterwards.
I have a long experience with dirty debaters, and dirty debaters in front of an audience (or online).
These pieces of advice are definitely useful but they are no silver bullet against dirty debaters.
WHY?
1) Unfortunately, it's often "your opinion against his one". The fact that your are exposing their blatant lies often results more like an opinion, rather than a fact.
2) If the audience is not rational, it may be prone to seeing in you someone who just tries to disqualify the opponent because of the lack of arguments.
3) The mere fact you're highlighting the lies of your opponents, his/her fallacies, his unfairness, keeps you talking about his argument and, basically, playing his/her game. And s\he excels in his/her game.
@@alessandrocasasso7299 That's a very interesting and constructive debate I'm intersted in. What would you do to counter a dirty debater? I think remaining calm and respectful is an important aspect, although "tough" people like conservatives like bully-esque attitudes.
Although there's a fair thing about conservatives. Politics really is tough, even more on an international stage. So someone with character who stands their ground or even imposes a bit is required (wether it is a sad reality or not)
Dirty debaters I find really hard to go against because they're playing under their own rules. They try to rig it by using human impulse against you. It's not honest or ethical to debate like that, but that is easily lost upon an audience. People who do this are not interested in a good discussion, they simply want to win at any cost and feel like they have "destroyed" their opponent for their own ego.
@@alessandrocasasso7299 "Never mud wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, and the pig loves it." - Mark Twain
"Winning the world universities debate championship" this guy's so lucky my mom wasn't invited
My favourite come back is when you ask someone a question and they answer with another question. So I dig my heels in and say ‘ you cant answer a question with a question so answer my question.’
They don’t like that lol
Playing devils advocate here, I feel like I’d just ask you another question back lol
"Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" - Obi Wan's best Jedi mind trick
SUMMARY
1. Dodger: change topic, BEING THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE POINT
2. Twister: misrapresents your point, CORRECT THEM
3. Wrangler: critics everything without alternatives, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? REVERSE QUESTION
4. Liar: lies, REPLACE LIE WITH A TRUTH.
MAIN POINT: If not challenged, the bullies gain confidence and go forth.
Thanks for sharing!
Even if the people taking part in a debate are honest, sincere, and do not resort to any of the tactics the video mentioned, debates are one of the worst things that anyone can use for information on which to base a decision, be it who to vote for, or who would win in a fight between two comic book characters. The public, in general, usually base who they believe won a debate using fairly shallow criteria. Who gave the better, more polished performance? Did the person start viewing the debate with a bias toward one of the participants, issues, or common ideology? Who was better looking, or more honest looking? Someone who is a poor public speaker is at a huge disadvantage, even if their ideas are far superior. If one participant is significantly better looking than their opponent, that gives them an advantage. Supposedly, one of the reasons JFK was viewed as the winner in his first debate with Nixon was that he looked better on TV. They say Kennedy won the debate with the TV audience and Nixon won with those listening on radio. Also, most people tend to support one side or the other before the debate even starts. Debates are not all that different from the "Trial by Combat" days. The victor in both is not necessarily determined by who is right, but by who puts on the stronger performance. We live in a time where people want quick answers with minimal effort on their part. For better or worse, that's what debates provide.
There are discussions out there people have that are great for information.
I think the greatest strategy to get an exchange ideas without making people defensive is to ask a lot of questions, and avoid complex and unintuitive concepts when inserting your own statements.
An oral explanation that takes more than 50 words is going to be hard for 80% of people to follow.
This is assuming you are talking to someone with an open heart.
I greatly appreciate content such as this. Dozens of argumentative errors and logical fallacies are practiced by these “bad debaters” on social media, television, and even in educational settings. It truly saddens me that the lust for power leads so many to sacrifice the pursuit of truth and genuine understanding. Just as sad is the fact that such crude tactics seem to work on so many people. Human beings experience life subjectively. Each person has unique values and there will always be differences that lead to disagreements and their resulting conversations. Still, as a society, there are some very common goals that we may often fail to realize are shared between one group and it’s “opposition”. Debate itself is indeed a tool. When misused, it causes frustrations, further misunderstandings and even conflicts. These are not only harmful on their own, they also can lead us further astray from the truth as well as stigmatize differing and potentially insightful perceptions. When debate is used properly, it can help people learn about each other and about themselves. It can allow us to determine what works best to reach our common goals. At its best, debate helps us understand everyone more deeply, more intricately. It helps us love.
Well said.
Excellent input!
For this reason, I no longer use reddit for anything more than humour.
this is beautiful
Perfectly worded
Great explanation, very thoughtful and well presented. Sadly, honest debate is now the realm of clubs within academia, even interdisciplinary and disciplinary debates have become corrupted. Politicians and activists of all stripes have little interest in honest debate, so all inevitably resort to the tactics you have described. One type of debater I think you omitted is the shouter/screamer. This debate tactic is almost always employed by someone with ideological tendencies when faced with facts that refute or outright debunk their talking points. Excellent video.
its because dirty debates is more entertaining on television. they dont really care about good honest debates if dirty bad debates attract a bigger audience.
I have experienced 'the shouter' in all of his examples. Unlike academic debates, emotions are 'acceptable' in our kitchens, park soap boxes, and grocery store parking lots all over the world.
My daughter took debate as a freshmen, and she's good at it, but with her dad, the shouting under all those circumstances is impossible.
@@Munchausenification Yes, for TV, RUclips or other media platforms it is very performative. That, however, doesn't explain so-called serious debates.
@@dfn808 Even in a class setting (without proper scaffolding and trust between students) a debate often ends up being polar opposite opinions against each other. But yes we should for sure try our best to facilitate good debates and culture around it being okay to have different opinions.
@@Munchausenification I agree. I used to give my students rules and a moderator. Among the rules were such things as only researching and presenting facts and no talking over their opposition. Where possible, I liked to get the students opinions or feelings on a topic up for discussion and make put them on the opposing side of the debate, thus encouraging them to at least look at the possibility of a differing view point. All that is great for a debate within a University setting but in the real world opinions, feelings and emotions have no real place, though listening to alternative perspectives certainly does.
*"Where embarrassment was the currency"* It shows how a lot of democracy is a performance and needs to be further analysed, because the masses can be so easily pleased by entertainment.
The only decisive debate wins i've seen in US presidential politics have been decided on appearance (Nixon sweating v Kennedy), sound bytes ("Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"), or slip of the tongue.
Debates are no longer needed when you can hide in a basement and rely on low information voters.
Bunker Boy Trump
@@xensonar9652 Warmonger Xensonar.
Biden strategy and a complicit Media works like a charm on low information voters.
@@xensonar9652
No you Moron.
Biden hid in his basement and the Media covered for him.
@@jimsmith9853 Are you saying Trump lost because people saw more of him?
I never lose debates because I simply eat my opponent.
I learnt about how politicians win debates from my father, as soon as my logic became to much hassle for him, he would change the argument from the subject to who has the biggest emotion and then use that moment to often change the subject entirely. I don't waste my time arguing with him or those like him anymore as there is nothing to be gained and only something to be lost.
I remember arguing with someone in a silly comment section about how rating someone's appearance unsolicited can be harmful in many ways. For one, it is objectifyig, rude, and perpetuates unreasonable standards in general. This sort of creates the lookism/extremism everyone "hates" so much. My comment was: "what entitlement do yall have? are yall judges?" My point was to highlight how commenting on people looks and being harsh is clear that you think you have a sort of entitlement as judges do because judges can be harsh and blunt. However, this one person was so fixated on my comparison, saying: "youre implying that only judges can judge." which, of course was NOT what i was implying. For hours, unfortunately we went back n forth. They began to insult my occupation, intelligence, and literacy all because my "comparison was nonsensical". They had completely shifted the main focus and it went on for so long that they began to make no sense; I could make no sense of their words. And because I was willing to understand in good faith, I had no clue they were playing a game. I eventually asked "okay, so tell me your stance." They never replied. Essentially, i totally agree with the solution when debating a "wrangler"--to ask them their claim, they cannot answer or if they do it will be bs that make no sense.
I found this helpful because 1, it identified the problem and gave a solution and 2, rare on RUclips, it was to the point and succinct. Respect to Bo Seo.
Logical people: They're not debating well.
Television executives: Look at the chaos! This is great for ratings!
real world works differently, the "well" is subjective
It was when I started reading the different types of fallacies there are that I started realizing them in everyday conversation, it was mind-boggling.
We all have a touch of all forms of these persons, but the awareness of these like this insightful video has exposed puts us in a place of consciousness when debating. And with others we can now know how to effectively have a meaningful debate.
Thank you for sharing this valuable video. Debating is really important topic and valuable on its own.
"Never argue with a stupid person. They'll drag you down to their level of stupidity, and beat you with experience"
That statement is also miss used tho. It’s often used by dumb people who don’t want to argue anymore cuz it got hard.
I remember my very first debate, I was so excited because I love debating. Arguing where nobody's feelings are hurt always appeals to me. I was so disappointed when I went against my first opponents, they gaslighted and manipulated both me, my partner and the judges. Whenever we would rebuttal or POI them, they would claim that they never said that. After our debate, a friend of mine overheard them talking about how they had to manipulate the judges since they were losing. I don't think I had ever been more upset in my life, especially when the judges didn't notice that they were lying because they simply didn't care enough to closely listen to the whole debate. The worst part of it all was that they won first place.
The real issue with liars is that making up lies is a lot easier than knowing the truth about every topic they might lie about, particularly in real time. And even if it only takes 3 seconds of research to figure out where a lie comes from and how it can be pinned down as a lie - at that time it's already too late.
So true even since the 70s people like Pelosi, Biden, Clinton and Trump have been lying to the American people.
Ofc,the nature of people are rhey dont want to think far, so whatever one give they take, to validate or verify takes shttons of time and efforts than creating lies/conspiracy
A really good example of a dirty debate was the Gonzalo Lira debate that happened recently. Lazerpig's persistence and calm manners ultimately made Lira the one who started using insults and other low level things against him, while the whole time his strategy of annoyance planned to make the other side do that
Lazerpig's tactic is to wear Gonzalo out and make him resort to desperate tactics
W reference
This guy is all over the place. He starts out talking about how to win in a formal debate and then at the end shifts to dealing with bullies. Those aren't the same thing at all. Ultimately, he sounds like he's very skilled in the science of debate and very naive in the art of persuasion and in dealing with hostile opponents.
Just watch his WUDC speech, you might change your mind
He clearly summarized the purpose and contentof this video, please rewatch.
The Twister is basically Twitter users
Good debaters win the argument while bad debaters win the crowd.
I hope someone pauses time and plays this video the next time I'm in an argument
I’m disappointed that there aren’t more comments going about this man’s absolute style. Hexagon glasses, the lad
thats what im sayin, those things are 🔥🔥🔥
True that not confronting the bullies early on only encourages them to double down.
I have found that people watching a debate are not interested in learning anything from it. Rather, they are interested in their views showing dominance over the opposing views. It doesn't matter to them the form that dominance takes.
Former debater here. As a matter of fact, I had to debate frequently with people on daily basis in academic spheres, social media platforms, etc etc. So, I had to upgrade my strategy and make a certain method to nullify the standpoints of opponents even before the debate rolls further. I learned about Logical Fallacies. The first point made here about The Dodger is a fallacy called the "Red Herring Fallacy". The second point about Twister is similar to "Strawman Fallacy".
I learned about 30 Logical Fallacies and I can confidently say that I don't need to debate unnecessarily now. And now it is much easier to identify who to debate with or who to not.
These dirty debaters always prefer verbal arguments. When you move to written form, they are so terrible and easily dismantled.
There is a difference between a good faith debate and a marketing platform. Trump wasn't trying to win a debate, he was marketing his brand. By constantly challenging a marketeer on their selected topics, all you are doing is allowing them to repeat the big lie often enough for it to take hold. By repeating the same phrase over and over again, the listener becomes familiar with it, then eventually repeats it themself.
That's the core of business politics. Repeat a narrative long enough and it becomes the truth.
Statistics in a debate are so stupid. You can use your own studies to make the opposite argument than your opponent. Also you can use the same study to argue both sides
Bravo! This is exactly how it's done. It's not just debate, it's honest dialogue. Keep emotions at bay and stay on point. Some you win and some you lose, this is life. Always keep on the high road, it will always win... Eventually facts are indisputable.
you can never win a debate but you can reach an understanding in a discussion
So what should you do when one of the debaters shows they have no emotion and could care less through their actions?
True debaters know it's never about winning. That's why real debaters don't find debate fun and fake debaters do.
I LOVE this episode. Identifying the Dodger, Twister, Wrangler, and Liar, is a valuable skill in debate. These people are more interested in Winning an argument than getting to a truth. However, If I were to play Devil's Advocate, I would point out that the "debate cheats" are also trying to accomplish something else: They are wishing to push connotations of negative intent-and-interest onto their opponents as well. Meaning, the dictionary gives us the shared foundation with which to communicate with people outside of our heads. But words also have another hidden meaning, which is the degree of intensity of those words, wherein we could choose "stronger" or euphemistic words. For example, I could say "I hate painters. Why? Because Hitler was a painter." Creating an association between my "argument opponent" and Hitler "works" for some emotional people. It is the reason for all Straw Man Arguments. Effective debaters can ALSO use this technique to hammer down the position of their debate opponents.
Debating Is about winning arguments not getting to the truth. Dialogue and discussion aims to get to a universal understanding.
First rule of debate: you don't talk to you opponent, you talk to audiences.
*I used to debate in college (around the time Trump was running for President) what I learned is that unfortunately the louder person in the room typically works even if it seems comical, I won many debates that I knew I should have lost simply because I was more aggressive & assertive*
When I encounter someone making an outlandish claim, and I try to have a good faith debate with them, I usually discover quickly where the outlandish claim comes from: 1) unreliable, deliberately misleading sources, and 2) a very cloudy sense of reason.
It's really interesting to hear about the different tactics that bad faith arguers use, like the dodger, the twister, the wrangler, and the liar. It's important to recognize and respond to these tactics in order to have productive and meaningful discussions. It's also powerful to be able to challenge bullies and bad faith actors, especially when they are present in our lives. It's great to have tools and strategies to do so effectively.
And you are the "Saint", pretends to argue in a constructive ways, while dismissing other people thoughts. While using every bad manner tactic to put himself/herself/itself into the spotlight of the conversation...
@@majormononoke8958 That definition doesn't feel concise enough. I feel like you could slap that label into anyone having a passionate disagreement.
I think the well has already been poisoned once the assumption of "bad faith" is made.
Dodging and twisting are perfectly valid depending on context, and merely pointing out the other person is making these types of arguments doesn't make your position true.
@@quintessenceSL what contexts is it okay to dodge or twist? Dodging allows you to not actually engage with the argument at hand and twisting is inherently dishonest because of willful misinterpretation/misdirection.
@@connorpeppermint8635 The presumption of bad faith assumes the type or argument the person is making and to what effect.
Per his example, changing the topic presumes only one person gets to set the agenda for the debate, and pointing out another's hypocrisy for such a nebulous statement is valid. Double standards and controlling the direction of a debate is an indicator of bad faith.
"Misrepresentation" assumes the intent of the speaker. A different point may be being made, but to dismiss it out of hand as misrepresentation means you are not engaging the other's points yourself. Dialogue requires at least two parts, and dictating the course of the discussion is disingenuous.
i paused at 0:59 to write this
you said EVERYTHING. everytime i get to debate it turns out like a competition over who has the better phrase to shut the other up
"Never argue with an idiot. Because he'll drag you down to his level, and win by experience." - someone said.
that's pretty much refuting the message in the video. he says bullies need to be dealt with because without a challenge they're even worse.
Mark Twain said that
Oh I learned this quickly in high school debate lmao. They don’t pay attention to any of the details, just the better speaker who can manage to twist people’s words around.
In the first example, the dodger who says "but you're driving a SUV", isnt dodging anything. He only points out to the audience that the person who asked the question is not honnest and seed in their mind that they may have an agenda. Why would you trust an obese personal trainer? Same thing here. It's not dodging, it's pointing out that the question can't be serious and honnest if the person who is asking it doesnt live by those rules.
no. one can advocate for a national policy, like reducing reliance on fossil fuels, while also using fossil fuels. this is not hypocritical. i want better public transportation, but we don't have it yet, so i drive a car. that is not hypocritical; i can advocate for better public transportation while also living in the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. an individual's choice to drive an SUV versus an electric car has essentially zero impact on climate change, because it's only an individual choice. a nation's choice to, say, continue subsidizing oil companies or to take those subsidies and redirect them to more sustainable forms of energy production can have an appreciable impact on climate change. you can work to influence a nation's choices in a better direction while still personally driving an SUV without contradiction or hypocrisy.
@@slablargemeat8954 Yes it is. If you want to change the way people live you have to opt in and lead by example.
It is utter hypocrisy for anyone to demand that everyone needs to change, whilst they hide behind "personal choice" for their polluting choices.
My nation represents less then 2% of global C02 emissions. if we cut our emissions to zero not "net zero" bullshit but if we actually end all our industry and commercial based emissions it will have zero impact on the climate. Should we therefore do nothing? of course not, you know this, i know this. Everyone has to play there part, we can't get others on board cutting their emissions if we won't do it ourselves.
We would be a lot further along in action on climate change if people like yourself held individuals you see as ally's to higher standards instead of making excuses for them.
It's no different then the pope telling people not to seek riches whilst sitting on a golden throne.
@@louiscypher4186 no, i don't agree with that at all. these individual-level purity tests are only a counter-productive distraction. it literally does not matter what car a politician drives, especially if that "gotcha" is being used against them when they're proposing a reform that actually WOULD make an appreciable difference.
the exchange in the video was "we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels" vs. "you drive an SUV". those are unrelated: a politician's personal vehicle has nothing to do with, say, increasing our usage of nuclear power, which would reduce reliance on fossil fuels. if i'm proposing building more nuclear power plants and you're complaining that I drive an SUV, you're not engaging with the point. that's why it's bad debating.
in your analogy, the pope is hypocritical because the pope is supposed to be a moral authority. politicians aren't supposed to be moral leaders. our response to climate change is a pragmatic issue, not a moral one. we should focus our efforts where they will have actual impact. once you give in to the moral purity tests, there's no end to the roadblocks that a bad-faith opponent can throw up: oh, you stopped driving an SUV? well you still eat meat. oh, you stopped eating meat? well, you still have heat in your home. oh, you moved to a cabin in the woods? well, you still have children. etc, etc.
@@slablargemeat8954 and now i would say your acting in bad faith here.
First off all politicians claim moral authority it's everywhere, the "opponent" is always villainous.
This extends to climate change there are no pragmatic approaches to climate change being seriously debated in politics, some scientists in a backroom might. But not on the politics side, pretending any politician is just being "pragmatic" is a piss take and you know it. It's all threats of fire and brimstone and how we must stand up and do what's right.
Additionally nobody brings up SUV's in regard's to nuclear power.
The comment is specific and applies in the context of taxing and/or banning of vehicles which burn fossils fuels. There is no "we" in reducing fossil fuel use when "you" get to burn as much fuel as you like.
Likewise comments on eating meat apply to those politicians who demand cuts to farming and increasing prices on meat.
We are talking about major changes to our way of life which will absolutely negatively impact a lot of lives and you have the politicians who demand these changes not even bothering to do the bare minimum.
It's hypocrisy, It's the same reason trump was called out for his shitty little hats being made in china, You can easily make the same argument. "oh it doesn't matter where his hat is made because he wants to bring back manufacturing" bullshit, it does. If you say you support American manufacturing you bloody well do it.
@@louiscypher4186 first, specifically about the exchange in the video: "we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels because of climate change" vs. "why do you drive a four-wheel drive"? that is a dodge of a response, because one can simultaneously advocate for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and drive a big car without contradiction. logically, there's nothing in the statement "we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels" that precludes driving a big car. "reduce" is not "eliminate", and "our" doesn't not necessarily mean "yours and mine, individually". for example, there are ways to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that have nothing to do with cars, like the one i mentioned: increasing our use of nuclear power for electricity.
therefore, logically, pointing out that someone drives a big car is not responsive to the claim that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. both of those can be true at once. an example of a response that engages with the claim might be "no we don't, because fossil fuels don't cause climate change." that statement is in direct tension with the claim. it is not a dodge.
in regards to your other points, i don't really see a contradiction in the examples you gave either, as long as the politicians abide by their proposed laws if passed. a person can eat meat and also think it should be more expensive. a person can drive an SUV and be in favor of taxes on them. it would be hypocritical to take a moral stance, like "driving an SUV is wrong", while still personally driving one, but that's not what the video was talking about.
In the first minute, Bo Seo starts off his video stating that he's going to talk about bullies in debates, but almost everything else (his 4 personas he explained) has nothing to do with bullying in the sense that non-bullies do those things even more than bullies do. Bullies tend to prefer things like talking over you, ad hominem, use of humor to ridicule...
The reason I bring this up is that, a minute into the video, I thought to myself, "The bullying is bad, but frankly, the more sneaky tactics are a far bigger problem." ...only to have him seemingly show he agrees with me by spending the rest of the video talking only about sneakier tactics. I wonder if this is the type of thing I've heard youtubers say they've learned is necessary to get views (which they don't like, but begrudgingly accept), which is to bait people's interest with one thing so you can then spend the rest of the video talking about the thing you really care more about.
The title is about dirty debate trickers so I don't think its a huge pivot.
I think part of it is just that it's impossible to do any kind of in-depth video in 5 minutes. You have to choose a single topic and explain it quickly. Might be an algorithm thing like you alluded to.
From a supposedly world-class debater, it's a little disappointing to just hear something kind of basic.
they just wanted to make it about trump.
It doesn't hurt to be sociopath either.
Exactly. Or a narcissistic megalomaniac like XiXi, Chump, Theranos chick, Alec Jonez, Jing-un, Puton, Shenko, Bolsanaro, etc. They're EVERYWHERE. 😕
@@Novastar.SaberCombatYou don't know the first thing about Brazil, yet here you are talking shit about the best president we ever had. People like you don't know anything about our problems but because you hear some journazist from mainstream media blabbing lies you end up believing and thinking you're well informed. The only sociopathic narcissist you should be calling is our current left wing, organized crime supporter, president Lula, who's driving our economy to shit (again) while also returning to his old habits of stealing that put him in jail in 2018.
Can’t wait to use this to win arguments in my Overwatch lobbies
I didn't quite understand how the 'plug and replace' tactic works in practice. Does anyone have an example of how this might be used?
As far as I understood it is taking a lie representative of the argument "the liar" is making and showing their dishonesty by filling in the truth for that lie.
E.G. in Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman?" he talk about a certain drug used to postpone puberty in trans teens, paints a picture of transition as harm and mutilation, and drops that the company producing the drug had to pay a massive penalty.
The "Plug and Replace" approach would then adress that the penalty was for Medicare- (or Medicaid-, can't remember) fraud, that puberty blockers for 65yos and up (to qualify for that programm you have to be that age) would be ridiculous, and in this way demonstrate Walsh's dishonest way of arguing in a broaders sense.
Guess we have to buy his book. (And I absolutely will, this interview was excellent. I cannot believe we aren't focusing more on the problem of bad faith discourse.)
Point out the lie in an argument and tell the truth. For example:
Debate about earth’s water crisis:
Person 1: We have so many consumable water companies. The state of earth’s water has never been better.
Person 2: False. Earths’ waters are polluted with more heavy metals everyday from industrial plants. The state of earths’ waters are not better, they are deteriorating.
The lie is that earths’ waters have never been better. The truth is the state of earths’ waters have been better because of constant water pollution occurring today.
By my estimation, the 'plug and replace' strategy requires you to: (1) identify the lie during the argument, (2) identify the true claim that should be in its place, then (3) point out the implications of the lie. For instance, in a debate about whether COVID-19 is a hoax, when engaging with an interlocutor one might say: "(1) You claim that COVID-19 is a hoax. (2) However, this is patently false [for x reasons], the pandemic is in fact a real virus. (3) Were one to accept this lie, they would be exposing themselves and their families to potentially deadly infection, and undermining public health more broadly." This approach helps to identify not just lies, but what they mean and to reveal the indelicacies of the arguments that our interlocutor makes.
@@springergabriel1804 But how does that work? You didn't explain it. All you did was replace the "lie". There was a hell of a lot more than just replacing it or else it'd just be called replace
The answer to the title, immediately in my head, before opening the video, was the same as almost always to all debates, and remained the same throughout the video and after it was done: the audience. The “dark art” of knowing how low you can go on every level that “wins” over the kind of audience you have. That example of presidential debate in this video taught the world at the time more about the state of the american population than it did of any topic approached.
Even beyond formal debate stratagems, one of the approaches I see used with a good amount of success again bad faith debaters is, odd as it may sound, _silliness._ Partially because it comes at the situation from an angle completely outside the norm.
When we debate earnestly, we strive for truth, but debating in bad faith is not about that pursuit. Some people want something emotional out of the debate, others are often trying to present an image to the audience (often things like strength, authority or competence) Silliness is difficult, though not impossible, to turn towards anything with pomp and circumstance built up around it but by that same token it is _superb_ for shifting emotional context or shattering image. How does one maintain an air of regal authority when the court jester does everything in their power to undermine it? One doesn't.
The truth can survive a little lack of pomp. The desire to puff oneself up cannot.
What I don’t like about these is that they are yelling over each other, and I feel like continuously being polite to your opponent would 1. Throw them off, and 2. Make more people like you?
I never argue, I make bets on facts that I have already investigated. Funny the way people pull back when when you offer to bet on the results of information, but be sure to define the terms of the bet first. It's best to let the other person define those terms before the bet, and I never collect, because that was never the point. The bet just made them look at the information and do a hopeless search to win their argument.
Ben Shapiro has built a career on all these archetypes.
My ex-girlfriend was a pro dodger. She proudly explained to me that it wasn't important to win a debate but to leave the impression that you won it by changing the topic to something else where you were sure to have the upper hand or to keep changing topics until the other one was done with it and quitted. I first was impressed by this trick and thought she was smart. Only realized later how stupid and toxic this is. The topic wasn't important as long as she won.
I quit my high school's debate team, because it turns out I'm not so smart after all. In the last competition, I got beat by a guy who's 17 and in the _tenth_ grade. And that's not all: I go to my city's public high school; he goes to the much smaller and less popular charter school that accommodates certain students. I know him because he's my friend's cousin, and it didn't take long to know his character. He is slow; he always needs clarification and accommodations to the instructions you give him. I felt for sure I could beat him in the debate competition, but he actually had--and this really does pain me to say this--greater points to counter mine. They were so deep and logical. After losing to a guy who often "doesn't get it" and will be twenty by the time he graduates I realized I didn't have what it takes for debate team after all. I always thought I was so smart, but it looks like I'm stupid, huh?
Don't be too arrogant dude, we might think a person is stupid but they are not, they can surprise you like your cousin did.
@@javierpacheco8234 Not my cousin. My friend's cousin.
What are you talking about? He graduates at TWENTY. TWO grades below. And he is a slow learner.
It stings, huh
@@cryptic_shock well duh. Wouldn’t it for you?
@@johnrainsman6650 graduating late doesn't mean someone isn't smart. it means they don't listen to orders well. most school work doesn't determine intelligence, it's more following orders/directions and completing projects. I, myself, did graduate but I also wasn't making honor roll as I would get good test scores and slack off on everything else. Humble yourself
In my experience, the Wrangler tends to start falling apart quite quickly once you start asking them about their own opinions. It's not uncommon for them to be chronic moaners with little to add to the conversation.
Wrangling is one that I could take issue with, or perhaps I am now wrangling, but I will substantiate my concern.
It is an easy matter if you know otherwise to a person who makes an assertion, you see it as incorrect and can offer the correct position. Sometimes though one can sense that something is not right, but do not know enough to provide the correct or alternative point. Maybe one is just sensing from other cues that the person is just making things up or is not so sure.
An example for me in the last few months since the Ukrainian war was hearing the assertion that the "US organised a coup in Ukraine in 2014". There were some aspects of this assertion that did not immediately make sense to me, but I did not know enough to challenge confidently and offer an alternative, or rather factual recount of the sequence of events that led to Yanukovych, Ukrainian President, fleeing the country. Much research and weeks later, I was able to put together the timeline and events which eventually led to Yanukovych fleeing the country (Yanukovych not following the Ukrainian Parliament's decision to seek closer ties with the EU but instead proposing to seek membership of the Eurasian Economic Union, after the intervention of Putin, university students' small (in 100s) "Euromaiden" protests followed by police brutality of students leading to mass protests (in 100s of thousands) protests against Yanukovych). Thus it was a sequence of escalating events initiated over Ukraine's EU ties, not USA interventions, leading to a "revolution" rather than a "coup" of replacing one president by another.
So I do not think just because someone critique's a point of view or statement it is always wrangling when being unable to provide at the time alternative accounts. It is more if the person is habitually critiquing in a destructive negative way as a debating style. IMO.
@@davidhowse884 You're right that providing an alternative point of view by default isn't wrangling. For it to be wrangling it has to be a pattern, where a person tends to resort to nitpicking and complaining as their only defense.
@@maggiepie8810 Thank you!
It's helpful to keep in mind that political debates aren't true debates in the traditional sense. It's like comparing professional wrestling to olympic wrestling. Political debates have looser rules, more active moderator participation, and no penalties for misbehavior.
I actually think the wrangler is the least dirty in the list since they, at the very least, help you find flaws in your argument, sort of like playing devil's advocate
On the other hand, their objective by wrangling may not be so good faith. So it is still dirty enough to be taken as debate bullying.
@@MiketheNerdRanger i mean the Wrangler maybe ask a numerous questions out of curiosity tho. Just because they want a high standards of answers doesn't mean they are wrong to ask them.
Extraordinary claim need an extraordinary evidence.
Hitchen's razor
I think the Wrangler is just a Contrarian.
Wrangler are just people who oppose for the sake of opposing.
There is little value brought to table nor solutions.
We encounter all these characters at work from time to time.
Unless you're a world champion debater, search for the full "you can't grow concrete" video to see a perfect example of dealing with a bad faith actor by saying as little as possible and letting show the flaws in their own arguements.
That guy went on to be praised for saying that lmao
I dislike debates because it assumes that if you're bad at public speaking, your point is less valuable. In truth, some of the most intelligent people I know are terrible at public speaking, and some of the most selfish people I know are great at it. I don't think this means that the terrible speakers are any less valid, any less wrong, and I do think that we as a society could place less value on how people say things versus what they're actually saying. I also think that online debates are very powerful tools to educate the public because your readers are able to process information at their own pace, and you can't just move on from a bad point because it's there for everyone to read forever.
As a Polish person who watched my national politics since 2015, I know EXACTLY what this video is about even tho I didn't watch it yet. Considering the president we have right now, I know exactly what tactics worse debaters use to win by dominating their opponents and strawmaning their arguments.
This guy is the only man in the world who can talk back to his wife
If you can’t talk back to your wife, I feel bad for your abusive relationship
the key is to not engage in the name calling and the taunts, that brings you down to their level
The points made are constructive and instructive. I seen debates where the bad debater used all four of your strategies. I would like to add another one that seems strangely prevalent in my time. The practice of debating rudely and loudly with such interruption that it turns into chaos. The stability and respect has gone all out of debates. Even Parliament and Congress have a long history of this sort of behavior.
I never lose a debate because I'm a master debater.
You keep using Trump as an example. None of your solutions would have worked against any of his debates. Whichever of those 4 categories he falls into, here's another one: the interrupter. You need a moderator who can make such a person shut the hell up when it's not his turn. You need someone who can (and will) cut the interrupter's microphone and maybe even turn on some sound cancelling speakers if this particular interrupter is loud enough to do without a mic.
How to win an American presidential debate: just be loud
I don't often engage in debate, because I'm more of a "try to understand and find common ground" kind of person who sees her "opponent" not even as an opponent. I ask neutral, non-loaded questions to gain an understanding and I try my best not to judge the other person's views. I only state my views when directly asked. At the same time, I let them know that if they ask bad-faith questions, they're far more likely to get a sarcastic answer. If they provide a really good argument, I will consider and further research what they told me, even if I conclude they were wrong, I still appreciate being given food for thought. People like to feel like they're heard, being friendly and open has allowed more people to listen to what I'm saying, even if they previously thought my positions were extreme. I'm a socialist, which some consider extreme, but I understand why some don't like socialism. and I won't think less of you for disagreeing with me.
I relate to this, but 1) some people will take any question at all as criticism (sometimes out of defensiveness because they don't necessarily remember why/how they reached their opinion), and 2) finding common ground requires common sources of truth, and I sometimes find it difficult to validate and acknowledge a person's perspective without being transparently disingenuous. Often the best I can do is, "I hear that you've been hurt by the government and feel that it doesn't represent you, and as a result it's difficult for you to trust what the government says." Which is my line for "if you believe the CDC and every other government agency is just a propaganda vehicle, then this conversation only serves to learn about your fictional world." And at that point I don't *really* feel like I'm being honest, so I have to say something like, "I personally believe there are a lot of good people in government--especially local government--that care about accurate data and improving people's lives. But of course, everybody has to decide for themselves who to trust." I feel like that line bends over backward to find common ground, so I'm always disappointed when the response is a jab about my gullability.
My view has shifted over time. If someone argues in bad faith, I want to try to make them comfortable so they will start sharing what they really believe. But if they continue to argue in bad faith, I try not to keep engaging. I want to empathize, not be a doormat.
If they win a debate. They are not the bad debator.
So the dodger is just the red herring, the twister is just the straw man.
The shape of his spectacles frame captures my attention more than the content. Love the eccentric shape of it!
“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.” - Bill Murray
In general circumstances, silence is the best way to win pointless debates with stupid ones. They do not seek, nor even need the truth, but your acceptance to every single statement of theirs as the truth.
Of course, I may keep smiling in silence, but do not take it as acceptance. When the opposite one does not have, or does not use logical thinking, nor common sense, what is the point of a debate?
The best way to debate with most people on the internet, is not to engage in the first place. People hiding behind an anonymous screen, with no recourse for their beliefs or statements, are free to be as absolutely stupid as possible and you’d have no idea if they’re trolling or genuinely dumb. Best not to start.
@@itcouldbewill Good advice of yours.
I don't debate, but some times people say something that's very... strange, peculiar, weird, you name it. My curiosity always gets the best of me, and I find it fun to poke and prod with genuine curiosity at people's statements. Their responses are generally enough as proof of foolishness.
Though I agree, it's a waste of time to try and argue with someone on the internet, but that's because arguing/debating has the implication of persuading someone they're wrong. Just let them elaborate and dig their own heels lol
@@ElsaChan597 I agreed with what you said, The debate would be a waste of time under those circumstances. Therefore, instead of debating, sometimes we just need to ask a few questions that can direct their minds to find their own answers. But don't expect too much, just keep calm, and thanks. :)
If they just thinking dmb sht that only affect and harm themselves thats okay but when their lies and bs are about discriminating or harm others, thats the problem. You can do nothing while the other guy influence more people like herd of sheeps, they won nonetheless.
I do all 4 and establish a fake moral highground and then win from the audience favouring emotional sentiment rather than objectivity
Thoughtful, articulate, and compelling. Well done.
I am very good at debates, the best at debates. I have done billions and billions of debates. A friend of mine, a very good friend of mine said “Donny, you’re the best!”
Winging an argument against an expert is difficult. Winning an argument with an idiot is impossible.
Simple life hack that will make existence more enjoyable is this. You can’t reason people out of things they were not reasoned into. Soon as you realise there are some people for whom the topic is emotional not logical, just give up and get on with your life.
Talking with most Americans today, on “my side” or not, is a constant challenge. I remember talking with Americans in the 80s, 90s, early 00s (middle school, high school, college, graduate school). Nowhere similar today. The internet has changed people. Or, rather, the weak have allowed the internet to change them for the worst. Especially social media platforms.
They DON’T win. She lost.
Nobody thinks they are the liers . Everyone is just fighting their corner. It’s not their truth it’s not their frame . It’s simply a frame battle with status .
This is a great video. I personally have came across all four types many times.
Me too. Especially the dumb rightists in science comment sections.
@@time3735
Those who did not understand one bit about science but think they can slap it as a label on themselves and that makes everything they say automatically correct? Yeah, they are everywhere. Many people have not become more scientific. They only realized that science has some authority.
And just as often, some or all 4 types are in the same person.
@@emtheslav2295
That is not suprising. Dishonest people naturally grasp for any straw, so they circulate between tactics.
@@Ninjaananas Exactly!! Trying to attack science by using science itself. Their intention to understand science is to only disprove it and to ultimately prove their religious points. And they never succeed in doing so because they never actually understand it.
The better debater wins, there's no "dirty wins against better".
Civil debate is for the academics.
When you debate in front of the common man only percieved truth and emotions matter.
These are great points on an intellectual level, but I utterly reject the idea that Hillary is a "better opponent." Don had so much momentum specifically because she was a horrible opponent.
She was a dirty Warhawk responsible for the disasters in Libya and Syria. She was the poster child for establishment corruption. She was already bordering on senile incompetence, taking breaks as secretary of state for those explicit reasons. She was the obvious DNC pick, muscling out far better candidates with nepotism and back room deals.
The primary reason I disliked Obama's presidency was because of Hillary's actions as secretary of state. I loathed her from the beginning.
In the debate, she was the better behaved half. She held herself a lot better than Trump. He talked over her profusely and argued in bad faith constantly.