How dirty debaters win against better opponents | Bo Seo

More videos with Bo Seo - Debate world champion explains how to argue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pVdSEp-tT8 Why you should live an argumentative life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk01uthNqzY

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.

My dad liked to condense all five of these debate cheats into one: "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!"

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.

"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.

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.

The biggest difference between a scientific debate and a presidential debate: the audience.

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".

“Defense against the dark arts” A man of culture I see. 🧙‍♂️

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.

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.

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.

Excellent speech. This is one of the few YouTube 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.

I wish we could have seen a real live example of each of these as he was going.

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.

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.

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.

"The power of bullies increases without challenge"

"Winning the world universities debate championship" this guy's so lucky my mom wasn't invited

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.