This is extremely useful for a debate team, but facts and figures don’t matter in an argument because as soon as you tell someone they’re wrong they stop processing what you’re say and start working on what they’ll say next.
I came to the comment section to look for this type of comment. It's true, how can you argue with someone when they refuse to consider what you are saying? To have a good argument it takes two to tango. Not everyone is capable of arguing. So BASICALLY, instead of a good debate, it turns into a lesson on how to become a critical thinker which can become frustrating because such a feat can't be accomplished in a single conversation. You have to constantly bring them back to the relevant topic and constantly cater to their feelings to keep them reminded that a disagreement isn't a personal attack. And when you cite studies and even explain how said study was done, they completely disregard it because it simply doesn't fit their narrative...Speaking from personal experience. However, I do think debates in everyday life are important and there should be debates in the public sphere regardless of the lack of brains out there... But you don't get to see that often in popular media ... and i believe its simply because most people just aren't critical thinkers and as a result our society just feeds a cycle of non-critical thinkers... There needs to be a change in how arguments are done in the public sphere in order to start breaking the cycle.
@@TillyJones11That is why you use the RISA framework. If the other party is not in alignment with your goals and is closed minded, there simply is no point in having an intellectual discussion with them.
I am a middle schooler and I think that debate should be implemented into schools because it can help with feeling heard, practicing good arguments, and being able to better control your emotions and admit when you are wrong
Even at the lower levels of education at middle school you will be taught these subjects. Unless you live in the middle east or some dictatorship. I had all of these subjects in the early 2000s during my first year at middle/high school.
I appreciate your optimism. I wish I had it. But all I see are adults who won’t EVER admit to being wrong. Across the political spectrum. Hopefully you can set a better example.
my main takeaways: RISA Framework: Before challenging, ask 1. Is the disagreement REAl or a misunderstanding? 2. Is it important enough to justify? 3. Is it specific enough to make progress? 4. Are u or the other person aligned in the objectives to participate in the convo. Difficult to find alignment in interests to want to engage int he disagreement. Pride is alignment, but NOT the right kind that leads to productive convos. Can be applied in close community settings, such as with political views wtc. 1. start with a bit of agreement 2. name what you disagree with 3. Y do u want to engage in the disagreement? 4. remind ourselves of agreement made, bring back to parameters - Know what to challenge and what to let go. > Is this disagreement necessary to resolve in order to make progress? > If not, is us challenging it going to make progress on the dispute? can be judicious on what to disagree with. In order to be heard, you need to listen. >in your best interest to understand their argument in their shoes. dont twist its meaning or take it at its worst/fraction of it. Makes them feel they arent listened to. > respond to the STRONGEST version of the other side, build up so its better than its starting point Side switch exersizes: > put yourself in opponents shoes, write top 4 arguments of their side > look at the case through someone elses viewpoint > imagine world u lost and come up with reasonsy u did.
“Arguments are easy to start & hard to end. If intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument… wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts to respond to.” Hell yea brother. I need this book.
The Bible is the best book to discern how we are to live and interact with each other. Everything is rooted in Love is you follow Jesus... this is the Way!
I'm only learning the wisdom part...I tend to avoid arguments bc in my personal experience, these often become emotionally charged which is something I suck at handling. I always try to understand the rationale of things first and overexplain a lot. It took me until very recently to recognise when someone isn't even open to hearing another side, they just want to tell those who don't agree with them exactly that they're wrong. Before that realisation, I'd leave feeling pretty hopeless among other things, like I did something wrong or was a bad person because I'm just not able to agree based on feelings. Now I try to recognise if something is worth responding to in the first place, bc I'm not interested in talking if the goal isn't to learn something from the interaction I'm of course open to being wrong, probably a bit too much, bc I never assume I know enough to say something is a certain way for sure. But that doesn't seem to be how many people talk to each other.
@@sonnyh9774S,what to do with the whole old testament and the cruelty of the old god? I see christians talk like the old testamebt doesn't even exists unless it is about something in deuteromony lr leviticus that fits their world view.
@@lainhikaru5657 it's a good question that I hear a lot. I believe there may be a misunderstanding. God doesn't change. What did God do that was cruel in your eyes?
Let's all please keep in mind that it's not about winning an argument. It's about debating ideas, looking for the truth, building a bridge of communal understanding and nurturing a culture of constructive discussion rather than violent confrontation. Only then we can advance as a culture. Our history is paved with repeated failures of building bridges, mostly due to concurrence, blinding personal beliefs and interests. I once read: "When two cultures meet, they should bloom together."
I'm glad this comment is here. It seems like people only argue to let others know they're wrong and they are right instead of actually understanding and learning.
NOTES I TOOK✨✨✨ starting: 1. agree with the other 2. name the main disagreement 3. why+outcome deciding to answer: >is it necessary to resolve to move on >is us challenging lead to progress in your best interest: - see it through their eyes - respond to the strongest version and build up - research well - step in the shoes of sb completely against you - note the 4 best arguments - imagine being taken down and note your weak spots
He doesn't see debate how he wants to see it, he sees it how it is. Debates may be inherently negative, but they are not entirely negative. In fact the only reason people debate at all is because they have a desire for problems to be solved. That requires confrontation to some degree. Everyone gets into debates with the intention of there being a positive outcome, unless you are only interested in insulting someone but imo that means you aren't debating at all. The positive outcome in question is agreeing on an issue and being on the same page so that hopefully they can work together on a solution or not have that problem in the future.
Online arguments especially in gaming are just like that. Your sole goal should be to destroy your opponent because neither they're gonna change your opinions nor you're gonna change theirs
Well, it all boils down to what is useful to oneself or not so being right is not always the goal in every argument or debate but what will be beneficial to you in the long run. Justice does not matter to those at the top but what would fit in the overall bigger picture that they see. Hence why, people always say that the top echelon is dominated by psychopaths.
This is the exact thing that we should be learning in schools. Not as optional after school debate clubs, but as a big part of the curriculum. Thank you for this. Really insightful
Everyone should get a foundation in philosophy, psychology and debate in their education. Philosophy nurtures the rational, psychology the psyche and debate forges those together as a powerful tool that will be useful in ever aspect of your life. The reason you don't get this in your education is because it would also give you all the tools to critical to politicians, CEO's and religious leaders. It would upset the entire power structure if the average person could poke holes in their arguments, spot it when their emotions are manipulated and verbalize exactly how and why it is happening. That would be very uncomfortable.. for those at the top.
It may be useful for those at the top, it is in fact very useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s the reason. You are making a single cause logical fallacy. Sorry for having to criticize that argument 😊
those are fully available in the Canadian education system, im taking philosophy next year, and i’m in debate club where they teach you how to debate, and my friend is taking psychology (social sciences)
Most leadership in various groups have this kind of background, it does not stop them from completely failing to have proper conversations and in real world scenarios you can see people with this kind of training fail to adhere to any real structure. On the other hand, when I've worked with a number of STEM groups I've seen disciplined discussions and debates even when no one follows any particular rules at all, and generally the debates occur calmly and are casual back and forth, even on the odd off topic political issue. Higher Math gives a level of structure to logic I would say none of those subjects you mentioned really has a proper equivalent for. They do give a better sense of structured logic to some extent, but no where near the extent of just learning math or computer programming as a logical language.
Most people just dont care about it, being realistically, Just like when they argued philosophy sould be implemented in schools, at the end of the day 10% of the students liked it and the other 90% just thought "this is so boring and non sense", if we teach people to argue they will probably use it to fight and manipulate other people, or just wouldnt see the real importance of it, Atleast in my country i'd bet it would be very close to this.
Absolutely. Public education is training workers, not citizens of democracy. I don’t think it’s always been like this, just in different eras and in different places.
seriously wish this is what was taught in school. how to be a decent person. how to communicate. how to help in anyway possible. this is true character building.
Actually, this should be taught at HOME. Children should be respected and listened to. Then they will learn to respect and listen in turn. And yes - continue this into schools.
Defiance in children🤔 perhaps because they assume their voices won’t be heard from their experiences from adults!?!? The best way to teach children is not to ‘tell’ them what is good and bad, but adults ‘show’ them what is good.
@@brookekathryn1980I agree and understand that defiance in children and adolescents is important for their development, but the upper comment had not mentioned what is good or bad for young people’s development. The argument was that a home where adults listen and respect their children will guarantee a similar response that those kids will take into the world.
I was on the debating team in High School. I remember it being very difficult, stressful, and requiring lots of research. Our coach was fantastic and worked hard at getting us prepared. Now, 50 some odd years later, I look back on that as being one of the most enjoyable times of my life. I learned so much at such a young age about working through a topic from all angles. The positive and negative. Listening, remaining calm, thoughtful demeanor. It has kept me open-minded throughout my life when dealing with all the challenging issues that have come down the pike. Whenever I mentioned to someone that I was on the debating team in high school I usually get a snicker and then called a nerd. They just have no idea how valuable it was.
"If intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts of an argument to respond to" -Bo Seo
You can be completely closed-minded and use these strategies since they're in your best interest. They help create more convincing ideas and can help you sound more persuasive when you sound more open-minded. I think some people are just either dumb or don't care about the truth or have bad faith their goal is to make you angry. I think their solutions to all of these types of peeps.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of us westerners very rarely utilize our own human survival instincts anymore. Therefore it's our egos that get hit the most when our core values are challenged. Most people can't humble themselves enough to let their ego go to make space for truth.
it’s actually logical to not really switch bcz if ur wrong about ur side, how would u trust that ur right about this other side uve barely known about?
Shouts out to Bo for educating people on debate. For a lot of the people in the comments saying "I wish this was taught at schools" Speech and Debate teams exist at the middle school, high school, collegiate, and now even in the post academic world where anyone can participate. Its never too late to join no matter where you are in life and if those resources don't exist fight for them. Many of the first speech and debate programs in high school and college were started by people with 0 experience who had the urge to learn about it and compete in it. If you want it to continue please donate to your local high school debate league or even to the National Urban Debate League.
I've never viewed "winning an argument" as a goal. I only seek the truth. As a physics teacher, I welcome questions from pupils that I can't answer. I try to pose a question to their question in order to encourage the thought process. Whoever is "right" doesn't matter to me, as long as we learn as people.
@@jeffreywp He didn't say "whichever", he said "whoever." What is right/correct matters, that is not what he is saying. He meant that there is no ego involved, and he doesn't place argument before truth: if he's wrong and someone else is right, he'll be happy to learn from it.
My brother and I have so much fun disagreeing with eachother. So when we are talking one of us will intentionally disagree. When we do this we get into fun and interesting conversations where we contest both sides of an idea. It’s honestly something I wish I could do with other people in relaxed settings but almost always the struggle to find the alignment for said disagreement is difficult and mostly nonexistent. I encourage everyone around me to debate and challenge other ideas because of the knowledge it brings both sides. When you have different opinions it opens up a whole new world of conversation to one another but it only works if both parties are willing to listen. This video is eye opening because while I was doing these things before I never really thought about it or understood why disagreements would go so wrong for me and other people. Now I get it and I can potentially apply this to my life with others.
OMG, yes! My brother and I also enjoyed many a disagreement, and the intent was never to hurt, only to well explore a position or premise. There aren't many people who are capable of engaging in such an exchange without becoming emotional and even abusive. But we truly were friends and both enjoyed the process. He's been gone 22 years now, he died way too young, and I'm near tears just typing this. You are so lucky to have such a brother. Siblings don't always express appreciation of each other. Another family member was dying of cancer when he died suddenly, as a result of that other impending death, on our last phone call we did share those appreciative sentiments, with no clue what was coming. Don't take that relationship for granted over the years, you are extremely fortunate!
responding to the strongest part of the other argument is probably the most important piece of advice he gave us. this makes them feel heard and really helps you put yourself in the other's shoes. responding to the weakest part of their argument will end in everyone being pissed off.
@@bohoo1226 "I think you never listen to people and you're always ignoring everyone else's thoughts like you did last week when we asked you to clean up." Take this as an example. The parts of the argument: 1. You never listen to people 2. You ignore everyone else's thoughts 3. You didn't clean up last week If you just responded to Part 3 (the weakest) then it would completely avoid the argument at hand. It's a weak point to argue back and makes you seem very self-centred. They've given you their thoughts on your lack of listening skills and you respond to why you didn't clean up. That's never going to solve the problem, because you aren't addressing why you never listen and why you ignore everyone else's thoughts. However, if you started with Part 1 - asked them to expand on the main problem here, which is that you never listen to people. You would be solving both Parts 2 and 3 in the process because they branch off from this point in their argument. I hope this helps a little xx
I felt like one thing that always gave me the upper hand in an argument was to remain calm. Very old and basic term but very useful. When you burst in outrage or in any emotion it shows where you're vulnerable. It's like you insulting someone and the person targeted has little to no emotions, then you feel the need to insult them again so they show a "weak spot". Being calm and collected is almost like a power move, it asserts dominance without over doing it.
@@micha-fc8lg I can say that is false but only from my experience. I always stay calm and collected and mean no harm, so when the person I am speaking to gets mad they're is seen as the one losing, is irrational, and doesn't know what they're talking about. I understand it may be different for other people but that is just my experience
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🗣️ Public conversations are in crisis due to a lack of good argument skills, leading to unproductive shouting matches. 01:42 🤝 The 'RISA Framework' helps in choosing disagreements wisely by checking if they are real, important, specific, and align with objectives. 04:24 🤝 Applying the RISA Framework can improve family discussions during holidays by setting parameters and aligning objectives. 07:21 🎧 Active listening involves understanding the opposition's argument as they do and responding to the strongest version of their case. 10:25 🤔 The 'side-switch exercises' promote humility, empathy, and open-mindedness, particularly in political and ideological disputes.
"First step is to name the disagreement in front of you. The second thing is to check, well, why do you want to engage in this disagreement, and can we come to an agreement about what it is that we're hoping to get out of this conversation?" "Are you really in this, hoping to persuade me to change my mind?" "This is what we're disagreeing about, and these are the reasons why we're engaging in that dispute." These are easily the most practical parts of the video by far. Thanks!
My problem with arguing or debating someone comes from my lack of awareness in a conversation. Specifically when I’m being lead onto a bunch of different points until we eventually have a completely different conversation from the one we are having. I definitely need to do better at keeping myself and the other person on track. As well as engaging in the conversation in such a way where the person feels like I actually am trying to understand their point. Those are probably my biggest flaws. Edit: and when to just let the argument go. Sometimes you can’t reason with someone. And at that point the conversation becomes pointless. Letting my pride go even if it might seem to the other person that “I lost” is another thing I need to work on.
He really is a debate championship, he is one of the most convincing and fluential speaker on this channel for me so far. Thanks for introducing Bo Seo.
These are all great tips and things to think about. I'd like to see more videos about how to converse or debate with people who do not follow the rules, interrupt, deflect, lie, etc. This is the problem we see too often today in politics, social media, and even among our families and neighbors.
I learned this “technique” from a podcast about how to de-escalate an argument and it’s to repeat back what the other person is saying. Not verbatim of course, but it allows you to digest what they are saying, and allows the other person to feel heard. It also allows them to correct you if they feel they were not heard right. I believe feeling heard is the majority of any conversation. My partner and I been trying to practice this, and at first I thought it’d be too obvious but it’s actually effective! It’s disarming and you could continue the conversation from there. Update: lol I didn’t finish the video while writing this. He sort of covered this in the later section about listening well.
Jesus was East Asian, and his brother, who was Hong Xiuquan, went on to start the Taiping rebellion. "Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全), born "Hong Huoxiu", was the third and youngest son of a Hakka family.[5][6] Some sources claim his family was "well to do".[7] He was born in Fuyuan Springs, Hua county (now part of Huadu District) in Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong to Hong Jingyang, a farmer and elected headman, and Madam Wang.[8][9][10] He and his family moved to Guanlubu Village shortly after his birth.[2] Upon marrying his wife Lai Xiying, Hong received the courtesy name "Renkun." His sister, Hong Xuanjiao, became the commander of the female battalion during the Taiping Rebellion.[2] Hong showed an interest in scholarship at an early age, so his family made financial sacrifices to provide a formal education for him, in the hope that he could one day complete all of the civil service examinations.[5] Hong began studying at a primary school in his village at the age of five.[6] He was able to recite the Four Books after five or six years. He then took the local xiucai preliminary civil service examinations and placed first.[11] A few years later, he traveled to the nearby city of Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations.[11] He was unsuccessful and, his parents being unable to afford to continue his education, he was forced to return to agricultural work.[11] The next year, he accompanied a wealthy schoolmate elsewhere for a year of study and became a village schoolteacher upon his return.[11] In 1836, at the age of 22, Hong returned to Guangzhou to retake the imperial examinations.[11] While in Guangzhou, Hong heard Edwin Stevens, a foreign missionary, and his interpreter preaching about Christianity.[12] From them, Hong received a set of pamphlets entitled "Good Words for Exhorting the Age", which were written by Liang Fa, Stevens's assistant, and contained excerpts from the Bible along with homilies and other material prepared by Liang.[13] Supposedly, Hong only briefly looked over these pamphlets and did not pay much attention to them at the time.[5] Unsurprisingly, he again failed the imperial examinations, which had a pass rate of less than one percent.[14]" - Your mother.
"Lie", huh... that's one easy part in debate; ask for the evidence. "Falsified evidence" is another story though. I end my debate competition career since "providing falsified data is okay as long the opposition don't know the truth". Nah, maybe I was just being idealist.
If it's a public debate, the moderator or audience must be smart enough to see through it when it's called out. Otherwise there's no defense against a Gish Gallop (when someone rattles off more lies than the opponent can debunk, leaving most of them unchallenged), logical fallacies, and other dishonest debate tactics.
But by entering a disagreement with an assumption that the other person is a narcissist, you likely will not be approaching the conversation constructively and may become unwilling to acknowledge or accept new ideas yourself. If both people assume the other is a narcissist, then there is little hope that either will convince the other of anything,
A good idea is to think of the reason they became a narcissist, being or becoming narcissist is sometimes a coping method for certain events that may have happened in someone's life or if one of their parents were a narcissist and if they took that trait from them.
NSDA debater in high school here. I did policy debate as my main focus, and his idea of framework is spot on in terms of applying what a debate round looks to to a real world conversation. In debate you’d talk about other things in theory but in framework you’d talk about things such as impacts, but in round and out of, and can even address rhetoric. Honestly debating in high school is something I’d recommend for anyone, after going to nats 3 times (once in worlds debate like him, once in policy, and once in congressional debate) I have been looking forward to coaching in the future in low socioeconomic communities once I get my teaching degree.
it's actually my first time hearing of debating contests and i don't have that in my high school or in my state because i live in a third world country but it's a really intersting topic and the idea of having arguments for a positive reason and in a respectful manner changes my view towards arguments and debating in general, and you seem like a pretty intersting guy tbh
I am a student teacher and debate club is definitely something I would love to start if possible!! Our world is becoming more diverse so it’s becoming more important to listen to others and also have your own thoughts organized. I love the idea of steal-manning an opponent, I think the character building here is invaluable.
The world isn’t “becoming more diverse”….the world has ALWAYS been diverse but colonialism and white supremacy made it so only people who belonged to the prevailing race/group were heard. Saying it’s “becoming” more diverse communicates you literally didn’t see people of color until now.
@@BicycleStuff Great question!! For my first year (two practicums) I was in the same kindergarten class which had a different schedule than the rest of the school. Clubs are generally held at lunch (kids usually bus home after school) so because I didn’t have the same lunch hour I couldn’t host any club. I have one more year to try it out 😊 I really appreciate you genuinely asking and starting a little fire under me, stay awesome!
The information below is if you have not participated in High School debate before. If you have, then you already know the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you live in the USA and wish to set up a debate team for Middle/High Schoolers, there should be a pretty well established scene through regional leagues and national tournaments. However, the type of debate that the person in the video(Bo Seo) does is Parliamentary debate. Unless you live in like California, New York, or maybe Florida, there is no Parliamentary debate or World Schools debate for that matter which is the closest event in rhetoric and structure. Most of the debate you will see is Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. But still, in both of these debate forms, weighing requires the the steel-manning, speaking requires organization, and flowing requires listening, so you might achieve your goals one way or another. Debate in the USA is much more research based so that would be the greatest benefit, but the speaking is not as pleasant as one would like. Watch the 2019 NSDA Nationals LD Finals round to understand the structure of debate, but most debate will probably be worse than this, because it is peak.
This is exactly how I have learned to "argue" or even critique other people's work in design school. Name something you like about the art first, your critique + why and loop around in a way! Informative!
The aspect of making sure both parties agree what they are disagreeing about is so important. So many disagreements spur from different understandings of larger topics or even just the misunderstanding of a single word! Been in multiple arguments where it turns out we just had different definitions of the same word, and it seemed we were in disagreement about the larger topic but really it was just the word. Words are important
Excellent teaching. I would add that when you or your debate partner is emotionally spun up it’s much harder to stay inside the lines. An agreed pause is a vital tool.
Considering if the person you're arguing with really wants to change your mind or just give you a piece of their mind really helps when deciding if it's worth it or not
When being challenged on a particular point of view, Mr. Seo demonstrates the capacity to control his emotions in the face of such confrontations. Possessing the capacity to control oneself in such situations has always been one of my greatest aspirations. Far too often, I will start off well in a debate, but then quickly descend into a flight or fight mode.
That just makes you human. Much more preferable to be aware of this process, than to pretend that emotions have no influence on your arguments or outright deny it, as so many "debaters" tend to do. Too often, people mistake "controlling emotions" with "not showing emotions", or worse, "not having emotions".
@@m.f.1156 To further my point, and acknowledging my humanity, I would often become too emotional when engaging in discussions on substantive issues. In doing so, I missed opportunities to properly convey my opinions. Thankfully, age has afforded me the opportunity to develop better communication skills.
@@stoneymcneal2458 Age & experience! I am similar to you, and the older I get the less i care about trite things. congrats on your uncanny self-awareness and your touching vulnerability. Its very refreshing to see!
RISA Framework: Before challenging, ask 1. Is the disagreement REAl or a misunderstanding? 2. Is it important enough to justify? 3. Is it specific enough to make progress? 4. Are u or the other person aligned in the objectives to participate in the convo. Difficult to find alignment in interests to want to engage int he disagreement. Pride is alignment, but NOT the right kind that leads to productive convos. Can be applied in close community settings, such as with political views wtc. 1. start with a bit of agreement 2. name what you disagree with 3. Y do u want to engage in the disagreement? 4. remind ourselves of agreement made, bring back to parameters - Know what to challenge and what to let go. > Is this disagreement necessary to resolve in order to make progress? > If not, is us challenging it going to make progress on the dispute? can be judicious on what to disagree with. In order to be heard, you need to listen. >in your best interest to understand their argument in their shoes. dont twist its meaning or take it at its worst/fraction of it. Makes them feel they arent listened to. > respond to the STRONGEST version of the other side, build up so its better than its starting point Side switch exersizes: > put yourself in opponents shoes, write top 4 arguments of their side > look at the case through someone elses viewpoint > imagine world u lost and come up with reasonsy u did.
As someone who engages in this behavior often, it only works if you both want it to. No one wants to be wrong, it’s simple, arguments are looking for truth, and rarely both parties are looking for truth.
My preference is for the art of negotiation, as opposed to engaging in debates solely for the purpose of winning through competitive means. In the context of such discussions, lies are often accepted and even encouraged.
This is absolutely accurate and it annoys me. i have come to conclusion that ALWAYS when someone is making a genius argument, if the other person they are talking too is charming or starts making jokes, making you seem ridiculous (but still maintaining their charm) or straight up lying and getting specific parts of your argument and taking it out of context changing the entire topic, MANIPULATING all your argument and changing it entirely. they ALWAYS win. Not mattering if what they say is true or not or not even if they havent made a single reasonable argument, if it seems true, feels truthful, you "win" the thing of "dont raise your voice, improve your arguments" is not accurate most of the times since the person who raises their voice will probably seem as the right one anyways. Unless you are speaking to a decent person who actually wants to discuss respectfully with you, otherwise it is impossible, that is why the smartest guys at the room can be seem as dumb and the dumb ones seem as smart
@@ceodasala3297 well one of the reasons why I do not like modern debates is because the more charming one wins the person who wins the heart of the people even if they do not have a single reasonable argument but in the end who cares about the crowd's opinions during a debate if the crowd had some kind of prejudice or bias against you then theyre more likely going to choose your opponent and thats what i call a biased sample. like if a person said anti semmetic shit on a pro-nazi rally most of the perople there woulbe a d agree but if you account for the whole world mostly everyone would disagree right? However, not carring for the crowd's opinions could be a double edge sword as you might become ignorant
How to argue: 1- We need to reconsider what's an argument and how to better argue it. 2- Be very agreeable. Limit the disagreement. 3- If intelligence is the ability to argue ,then wisdom is the ability to find out which argument to fight for. 4- RISA framework Is it real? Is it important? Is it specific enough? Are you aligned with the person? Limitation: the main limitation of The RISA framework is to find out the right alignment of the person. A- every disagreement should start with an agreement about the topic. B- what we are hoping to get out of the argument? C- This forms a contract, and it limits both sides to a specific topic rather than expanding or discussing the irrelevant ideas. D- Find out which arguments to challenge and which arguments to let go. The best way to find out is to look for if helping in this or engaging in this disagreement would help to overall progress the disagreement. F- Be active listener. And understand the opponent's argument in their own perspective. Don't twist it. G- Respond to the strongest version of the argument. If the opponent does not present the strongest version then try to rephrase the strongest version of your opponent's argument and try to respond it H- Switch the perspective. Side- Switch exercise. Pick a paper and jot down all the strongest and important arguments your opponent can raise, and try to answer. It helps to expand the understanding of the topic of argument.
this is something I struggle with too, and I get really frustrated because I'm trying to simply have a conversation about why they think the way they do and why I agree or disagree, but some people don't want to listen to anything except complete support without question.
If your goal is to find truth and not simply to be combative, below are the steps summarised. 1. Agree on what you are disagreeing about, 2. Understand your own and your opponents goal, 3. Listen to your opponents argument and attempt to understand it as they do, 4. Seek to extract their strongest and most compelling points, 5. Decipher which are necessary to tackle in order to progress the debate, 6. Empathise with your opponent’s perspective and critically reevaluate your points from their perspective to anticipate where your arguments may fall, 7. Make your best case and hope your opponent will listen to you as you have them. Good luck!
A productive discussion requires two things: - Willingness to listen to each other - Willingness to truly consider a counterpoint Foundationally, these require respect for the other party. Not all discussions are worth having at all times, so you have to pick your spots. Furthermore, there is NO requirement to agree about everything, and it's actually a very good thing that we disagree on certain points. Personally, I think the reason arguing and conversations in today's society have regressed is because parties do not respect one another or feel their points are more important than anyone else's. Additionally, people are uncomfortable with disagreeing with one another and want to push and push and push until the other person agrees, and if they don't agree they must be evil or stupid or unworthy of respect. We have to be ok walking away from conversations agreeing to disagree, and we have to understand that we can still love one another in those situations.
The key to understanding debate is to understand "values". People come to a debate with values that shape their thinking. Examples: "incarceration is evil", "fossil fuels are evil", "nuclear power is evil", "eating meat is evil". Complicating the debate; both sides have their truths. Both sides hang on to their truths and will ignore the other sides truths. It is the people's values that leads to adopting one sides truths verses the other sides truths. This implies to me that a debate must question values before moving on to each sides truths.
@@雷-t3j An example of both sides have truths: "is nuclear power evil?". Nuclear power plants caused troubles: Three Mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Nuclear power plants are the largest source of clean power. (NO CO2 emissions). Both statements are "true". "Is eating meat evil?" Eating meat is how we evolved, good source of protein. Eating meat is evil as we kill animals when we could just eat vegetables. Both sides have their "truths". Our values such as "I like how hamburgers taste." or "slaughtering animals is unnecessary and evil". We choose our values and those values are compared to both sides "truths". We choose which truth to ignore and which truth to pay attention to.
Great advice! As someone who argues primarily to shift opinions-either my own or others'-I've often found myself in frustrating conversations. I didn't realize that some people engage in arguments simply for the enjoyment of exploring different viewpoints. This difference in goals has led to significant miscommunication and misunderstanding. I often feel dismissed, as if my time is being wasted, while the other person experiences confusion and hurt, thinking I'm intentionally misrepresenting their views or taking things too seriously. This disconnect has caused numerous arguments and strained relationships until I recognized that some individuals genuinely enjoy debating. Understanding this has changed my perspective on discussions, especially regarding debate club!
Thanks for the great video. I think we also need a change of culture, I've seen too many times a clickbait like "THIS FEMINIST GOT DESTROYED IN THIS ARGUMENT" or "THE RESPONSE THAT WILL SHUT UP ANY CLIMATE DENIERS". It just feeds into this narrative that you always have to conclusively win an argument and somehow either convince or humiliate the other, when in fact that behaviour only serves to widen the fracture. But even with this, the issues we have don't just arise from misunderstanding each other anymore, but grow deeper from a chasm in people's perception, set of values and logic. And there is a dire need for people who understand what all sides of the society really mean.
Jesus was East Asian, and his brother, who was Hong Xiuquan, went on to start the Taiping rebellion. "Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全), born "Hong Huoxiu", was the third and youngest son of a Hakka family.[5][6] Some sources claim his family was "well to do".[7] He was born in Fuyuan Springs, Hua county (now part of Huadu District) in Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong to Hong Jingyang, a farmer and elected headman, and Madam Wang.[8][9][10] He and his family moved to Guanlubu Village shortly after his birth.[2] Upon marrying his wife Lai Xiying, Hong received the courtesy name "Renkun." His sister, Hong Xuanjiao, became the commander of the female battalion during the Taiping Rebellion.[2] Hong showed an interest in scholarship at an early age, so his family made financial sacrifices to provide a formal education for him, in the hope that he could one day complete all of the civil service examinations.[5] Hong began studying at a primary school in his village at the age of five.[6] He was able to recite the Four Books after five or six years. He then took the local xiucai preliminary civil service examinations and placed first.[11] A few years later, he traveled to the nearby city of Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations.[11] He was unsuccessful and, his parents being unable to afford to continue his education, he was forced to return to agricultural work.[11] The next year, he accompanied a wealthy schoolmate elsewhere for a year of study and became a village schoolteacher upon his return.[11] In 1836, at the age of 22, Hong returned to Guangzhou to retake the imperial examinations.[11] While in Guangzhou, Hong heard Edwin Stevens, a foreign missionary, and his interpreter preaching about Christianity.[12] From them, Hong received a set of pamphlets entitled "Good Words for Exhorting the Age", which were written by Liang Fa, Stevens's assistant, and contained excerpts from the Bible along with homilies and other material prepared by Liang.[13] Supposedly, Hong only briefly looked over these pamphlets and did not pay much attention to them at the time.[5] Unsurprisingly, he again failed the imperial examinations, which had a pass rate of less than one percent.[14]" - Your mother.
I think the bigger question is why would someone be drawn to that kind of video or topic in the first place? It’s only clickbait if people give into it and you have to wonder why a person would be interested in watching someone “get destroyed.” Says a lot about the person clicking and their insecurity and weaknesses as a human being.
1. put on other shoes 2. debate/fight only if it leads to reach ur goal 3. beat opponent biggest point is better 4. for family, put agreement before disagreement
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🗣️ *Understanding the Crisis in Public Conversations* - Public conversations are in crisis, marked by people firmly holding views and shouting from a distance. - Skills of good argument are diminishing, leading to unproductive and degrading conversations. - Bo Seo emphasizes the need to restore confidence in disagreements and highlights their potential for both good and ill. 01:02 🌍 *Bo Seo's Journey and the Importance of Debate* - Bo Seo's love for debate is tied to a life of constant relocation and language barriers. - Joining the debate team became a form of salvation from disruptive disagreements. - Intelligence is responding to any argument, while wisdom lies in choosing which arguments to respond to. 02:50 🤔 *The RISA Framework for Wise Disagreements* - Bo Seo introduces the RISA Framework for picking disagreements wisely. - Four key questions include assessing the reality, importance, specificity, and alignment in objectives. - The framework aims to give conversations the best possible chance of going well. 04:55 🤝 *Applying the RISA Framework in Family Disagreements* - The RISA Framework helps navigate family disagreements during gatherings like Thanksgiving. - Starting with agreement and clarifying objectives sets parameters for a more productive conversation. - Making a contract about the disagreement's focus prevents sidetracking and ensures meaningful discussion. 06:25 🗣️ *Selective Engagement in Debates* - Not all arguments within a debate need to be contested; strategic choices are crucial. - Debaters evaluate whether challenging a disagreement is necessary for overall progress. - Preventing arguments from becoming unruly requires careful consideration of engagement. 08:53 👂 *Active Listening in Debate* - Debaters actively listen by understanding the opposition's argument as they would. - Responding to the strongest version of the other side enhances the quality of the conversation. - Actively challenging and strengthening the opposing case fosters a better exchange of ideas. 10:53 🌐 *Empathy and Humility in Debates* - "Side-switch exercises" in debate foster empathy, humility, and openness to opposing views. - Applying empathy and humility is crucial not only in personal disagreements but also in political and ideological disputes. - Bo Seo emphasizes the need for a broader scope and improved discourse in contentious issues. Made with HARPA AI
Great thanks to the speaker, it was pleasure. I never verbalized it for myself, but can confirm that an argument turns into something completely different the moment one side starts honestly working out the problem from another one's pov, while making sure that the progress is made.
Love the Risa framework. If only it were easy to rationally use when an argument is one of the least rational exercises. At least it confirms that most arguments if they're not *aligned* in their goal should just always be avoided, and I think this is the sentiment emotionally from a majority of arguments in practice.
Listening is the key. ACTUALLY, listening and doing your best to understand the person changes everything. You can listen to their arguments and clearly remember what they said, but you shouldn't do it just so you can respond with the thoughts you had already prepared and were going to say, no matter what their answer is about.
Depends. For human rights I don’t think so since real lives are being impacted so a compromise won’t be a compromise it will still be morally wrong. But in other areas compromise is good.
As a middle school debater, I must say, this video has really improved my arguments and being able to understand both sides of an argument and handle a argument so its been a lot of help.
Beautiful, so many takeaways like the Side switch method, starting an argument with agreement, active listening and choosing the arguments to respond to with wisdom.
how to argument in a correct way: 1)agree on what your disagreeing on 2)check the motive of the person(if they want to persuade or just want you to get angry) 3) apply RISA (real[is their a problem to be addressed] ,importance[is it important enough to justify], specific [making sure that the argument does not subvert its original path and stays on topic],aligned[step2] ) 4) try to understand their point within their perspective while listening and develop their point yourself so that you response will be more well rounded 5)if any points of disagreement occur,only address points that need to be resolved to progress in the argument/ points that matter to the overall argument. 6)engage in side switch exercises before a new debate where you think about: the main points the opposition may make, what a critic may point out about your points and reasons why you would lose the debate, these exercises create empathy allowing your beliefs to center closer to the truth
00:00 🗣 Public conversations suffer due to a lack of effective argument skills, leading to divisive and unproductive discussions. 02:17 🤔 The 'RISA Framework' helps navigate disagreements by assessing their reality, importance, specificity, and alignment of objectives, promoting more constructive conversations. 05:23 🤝 In family gatherings or discussions with differing opinions, starting with agreement and clearly defining the disagreement's purpose enhances the chances of a fruitful conversation. 07:21 👂 Listening actively involves understanding the opposition's argument as they intend it and responding to the strongest version, fostering a more constructive exchange of ideas. 10:53 🌐 Empathy and humility, cultivated through exercises like 'side-switch,' are crucial in addressing political and ideological disputes, promoting humane and productive dialogue.
I love to be able to have an argument with people that share the value of trying to understand the other and work in a constructive way towards an agreement that both parties feel comfortable with. Or try to share different ideas so we can learn from each other. Sadly, I find in many situations that when the other person doesn’t agree with you, or feels like you are wrong, they close of to any constructive discussion. So for a debate to work, both parties have to share the value of wanting to let the other person speak and to accept that disagreeing is not a bad thing but a way of looking at things from a different perspective.
There are ways around this if you are persistent enough & creative enough. Change your mindset from Debater to Interviewer and ask him/her about their opinions, how they arrived at them, what they use to support them (sources of info) etc. Our Lizard brain (not everyone subscribes to this model, but its still useful if not 100% accurate) is always in fight flight or freeze modes, so when people argue/debate, they tend to fall into that mode. Your mission, should you choose to accept it is to try your best so people do not fall into that mode. You will appreciate your level of influence of others when you can successfully keep people from falling into it, or once fallen, help bring them out of it with your calm reassuring demeanor and words. Try to win people over as a friend or confidant and the debates will often take care of themselves.
I think the biggest thing is to not get mad. No matter what they do or say(within reason, because if they attack you that’s different). As long as you maintain a good argument trying to seek to learn I think discussions will be much better
This is the most valuable skill set anyone can learn, and Bo explains the basics brilliantly. I was very lucky to randomly find my way to a debate club when I was 15, over 20 years ago, and the advantage it gave me in life was immense. Unfortunately, most people in the world never get such opportunity. Not sure why - it's literally the cheapest thing to teach (you don't even need textbooks), and I've never heard anyone argue against the value of teaching rhetoric, who's a teacher or school administrator. It's just not in the DNA of modern education systems. Even the term for being educated - literacy - omits speech. Don't get me wrong, books and maths are great, but speech is on par with those two by any reasonable definition or theory.
To YOU!!.... it's the MOST VALUABLE SKILL SET ANYONE CAN LEARN,....you must be a very insecure little person to believe what you think is true.....hopefully in time you'll become wise and realize how flawed your thinking is.
Debate was an incredible experience. I recommend everyone who has a team in their school to give it a try. Especially for English learners, it's fun and addictive and empowering. You learn and mature a lot, while making friends:)
I come from an abusive and verbally violent home. If someone paid me to be in debate I'd refuse the money and put a restraining order on them.😂 I don't want any form of argument in my life.
@@patricklukcy13 debate teaches you to understand fallacies, omissions, and verbal manipulations. No one says you have to argue at all. People like this are hard to gaslight, demean or degrade, because they understand you're wrong and WHY you're wrong. No need to say anything- the mind is solid and defends itself. That's the basis of confidence for many debaters.
NOTES I TOOK starting: 1. agree with the other 2. name the main disagreement 3. why+outcome deciding to answer: >is it necessary to resolve to move on >is us challenging lead to progress in your best interest: - see it through their eyes - respond to the strongest version and build up - research well - step in the shoes of sb completely against you - note the 4 best arguments - imagine being taken down and note your weak spots
The risa framework works for people you are respectful and stable. There are some people not capible of having fruitful debates because of either some sort of disorder or just because they had a bad day. I think if a debate is about to start it is important to analyze the person you are debating so there isnt much chance in that. Id also like to add that emotions are difficult in debates because people feel them and it isnt really a choice when they do for most people, a debate shouldnt permanent be haulted because of emotions and it takes a lot of emotional maturity to put it on pause until you feel better to debate.
Clicked on this video thinking: "Oh sweet, this will help me to shitpost, provoke, argue online and make random people pissed off more efficiently!" I was severely disappointed.
in brief: The video features Bo Seo, a two-time world debate champion, former coach of the Australian national debating team, and the Harvard College Debating Union. 1. **State of Public Conversations**: Bo Seo begins by discussing the current state of public conversations, describing them as being in a crisis. He believes that the skills of good argument have been deteriorating, leading to unproductive disagreements. 2. **Introduction to Bo Seo**: Bo shares his personal journey, explaining how moving from South Korea to Australia without knowing English influenced his passion for debate. He was drawn to debate because it provided a platform where he wouldn't be interrupted. 3. **Intelligence vs. Wisdom**: Bo differentiates between intelligence (the ability to respond to any argument) and wisdom (knowing which arguments to respond to). He emphasizes the importance of focusing on specific disagreements to avoid arguments from becoming chaotic. 4. **The RISA Framework**: Bo introduces the RISA framework, which stands for "Real, Important, Specific, and Aligned." This framework helps individuals approach disagreements more effectively: - **Real**: Ensure the disagreement is genuine and not a misunderstanding. - **Important**: Determine if the disagreement is significant enough to address. - **Specific**: Focus on a specific topic to make progress. - **Aligned**: Ensure both parties have aligned objectives for the conversation. 5. **Applying the RISA Framework**: Bo provides an example of using the RISA framework during family gatherings, like Thanksgiving, where disagreements might arise. He emphasizes starting with an agreement and understanding the purpose of the disagreement. 6. **Picking Arguments Wisely**: Bo discusses the importance of choosing which arguments to challenge and which to let go. He suggests focusing on disagreements that are necessary to resolve or those that help make progress in the overall argument. 7. **Listening Actively**: Bo highlights the importance of active listening in debates. He stresses understanding the opposition's argument as they see it and responding to the strongest version of their argument. 8. **Side-Switch Exercises**: Bo introduces the concept of "side switch exercises," where debaters put themselves in their opponent's shoes and consider the strongest arguments from the opposing side. This exercise promotes empathy and humility. 9. **Conclusion**: Bo concludes by emphasizing the importance of empathy in both personal disagreements and broader political and ideological disputes. He believes that exercises like the side switch can improve conversations about contentious issues in compassionate and productive ways. The video ends with a call to action to explore more content from Big Think.
Knowing and understanding logical fallacies is extremely helpful. I am unsure about other countries, but the U.S. is completely missing out on this area of education.
I use to debate everyone, particularly Christians because as a Christian myself, I found the incredible ignorance and bias and hate incredible. It would go for several posts, it was exhausting and at some point, I realised that a large proportion of society doesn't want to think critically, they want to win, they want to hold onto their hates, fears, loves, and I gave up on humanity. I don't engage very much anymore. I've had to learn that people don't want to think, they just want to get through the day. I've grown quieter but lonelier too. It's the only way to get through life, by not engaging in debate.
Denounce your idol worship and worship God alone. Submit your life to him, do the contact prayers and give from the day of harvest to charity, to the ones in need.
Champion Debater Bo Seo is brillant here, really appreciate his suggestion you understand your opposition so WELL, you can improve your -Oppositions- argument !!
I've already been arguing like this but my emotions get the better of me and I cry without wanting to. Noone ever listened to me my whole life so I just break down sometimes.
I feel you 😢 i even feel safer to just write cause i can think of it beforehand but when speaking it's like i have to be ready and i'll always get emotional till the point i am out of words
One time I felt I "won" an argument against my wife was I kept reminding her "I will only respond to the thing we are talking about, and will ignore everything else you say that is irrelevant". She seemed caught off guard and stopped. But ever since it seems she has found a way around it and back to her "winning streak". I am still figuring how.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🗣️ Public conversations are in crisis due to a lack of good argument skills. 01:02 🌍 Moving between countries led the speaker to appreciate debate as a way to be heard without interruption. 02:17 🧠 The RISA Framework helps in choosing when and how to engage in a disagreement. 03:52 💡 Finding alignment in objectives is crucial for productive conversations. 06:25 🤝 Naming the disagreement and setting clear objectives can improve conversations. 07:55 📣 Actively listening and responding to the strongest version of the opposition enhances the debate. 10:25 🤔 Side-switch exercises foster humility and empathy, vital for political and ideological discussions. Made with HARPA AI
The biggest issue with arguments is that the INTENTION between the two arguing people/parties is usually different. My experience has been that people fall into one of two camps: 1) Either the person wants to come to an understanding and reach common ground OR 2) they just want to be right (Or prove the other person wrong). Unless you're both on the same page of wanting to reach common ground, arguing is pointless. It will accomplish nothing and both people are wasting their time in a futile exercise that will result in some inevitable negative result at the conclusion of the argument. This is why "picking your battles" is really important; it will save you wasted time and will allow you to channel your energy on things that will bring your life more positivity.
Rule number one: an argument isn't *you* against *them* , it's working together, sharing opinions, points of view, agreements and disagreements for the purpose of reaching commonground, or a mutual conclusion. That is what so many people get wrong, they take it personally and they make it a VS, when it should be a teamwork. I love the part about: building up the other side's argument, because it shows that we aren't fighting, we are trying to reach peace, to understand each other to the fullest and ultimately so that BOTH SIDES feel satisfied with the conclusion. At least for everyday arguments, debating is it's whole other thing.
We had a team debate for our final English exam, and one of the grading requirements was that you had to give expert opinions and statistics. And with my teammate, we thought, wouldn't it be funny if we made those up to support random arguments. Obviously the opposing team fell for them because they had no way to check the sources during the debate. I don't know if our assessors also fell for it (i.e. if they took the time to check the sources) but we did get away with good grades, so there's that 😂 (Tbf, it's entirely possible that the opposing team made up their sources as well. At the end of the day, it's not necessarily the source that makes an argument good most of the time, it's how well you defend it)
You need to get in touch with the DNC & CNN! You guys would be perfect for their propaganda! but I admit, it is very funny!. I am sure your professors had a clue, even if they couldnt offer specifics. if they have dont that awhile, they learn the tricks or maybe even tried some themselves! LOL
Make the conversation impersonal. It's not about you. Its not about me. It's about the process. It's about the idea. Let's contribute to it collectively. Let's build something new together. Let's channelize our energies in a synergistic manner. It's as simple as that. I have used this technique with an extremely high success rate. Here's a breakdown of the key points: Make the conversation impersonal: This means avoiding personal biases, emotions, or self-centered attitudes during the discussion. Instead, the focus should be on the topic itself. It's not about you. It's not about me: The conversation should not revolve around any one individual's opinions or experiences. Everyone involved should approach the discussion with an open mind and a willingness to consider different perspectives. It's about the process. It's about the idea: The primary focus is on the process of exchanging ideas and the ideas themselves. The participants should explore and evaluate the concepts being discussed objectively. Let's contribute to it collectively: Encourages collaboration and a group effort in generating insights and solutions. No one person dominates the conversation; instead, all individuals actively participate in contributing their thoughts. Let's build something new together: Implies the desire to create innovative and fresh ideas through collective effort, rather than merely rehashing old concepts. Let's channelize our energies in a synergistic manner: Suggests aligning efforts and working together harmoniously to achieve a greater outcome. Synergy refers to the combined effect of individuals working together being greater than the sum of their individual effects. It's as simple as that: Indicates that this approach is straightforward and easy to follow. I have used this technique with an extremely high success rate: The speaker claims to have applied this approach in conversations previously and has found it to be very effective. Overall, I advocate for a collaborative and open-minded approach to discussions, where the collective focus is on ideas and the mutual goal of building something valuable together. By eliminating personal biases and ego-driven behavior, participants can create a more productive and successful conversation.
I'd refine your sentiment ever so slightly as follows; _"If only people were _*_willing to be_*_ as reasonable and precise..."_ I think we all have the ability to be, but that not all of us have the **will** to grow into our abilities. Cheers!
“Our public conversation, are in a state of crisis.. it’s people fully convinced of their views, shouting at each other from a distance.” My man’s started the video with straight facts; many people of only willing to prove why they’re right instead of unpacking multiple perspective.
By now as an adult you should know instinctively that telling someone or a group that they are wrong is the worst way to resolve any kind of disagreement. Everyone believes they are right and the other person is wrong, that's why there is a disagreement in the first place, but saying right off the bat that whomever you are having the disagreement with is wrong, makes them shut down immediately and they won't hear anything you say after that. Here's the thing about these kinds of videos, they don't make it clear that you have to unlearn bad habits and learn new ones. You have to walk down a sidewalk with sharp stones everyday but you do so without shoes. How many times are you going to walk down that sidewalk until you tell yourself that you better put some shoes on the next time you walk down that sidewalk. It seems like the techniques he's applying to real life won't work in the same way they work in a structured environment, but like anything unfamiliar, you have to learn how to adjust and apply to RL. One reason disagreements devolve into chaos is that we have come to perceive them as someone is right and someone is wrong. Those thoughts are never going to produce resolution. Actually, calming down first and saying ok we agree how this is going to go in the first place, starts you on the road to, if not resolution, at least to a place of respect. An unbiased third party works too because we can jump off track pretty easily when we become heated. The third party acts as a pressure release valve that says ok let's just take a moment and remember what this conversation is about in the first place. I've seen comments that say, well that's works good in that particular environment but it won't work here. Of course it won't if you don't try applying it to RL. If the way things are going isn't working for you, isn't it worth trying another way?
“The only way to win an argument is to avoid it completely” Dale Carnegie. “Arguments are a loose - loose” “with both contestants walking away convinced more than ever that he or she is absolutely right”
Jesus was East Asian, and his brother, who was Hong Xiuquan, went on to start the Taiping rebellion. "Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全), born "Hong Huoxiu", was the third and youngest son of a Hakka family.[5][6] Some sources claim his family was "well to do".[7] He was born in Fuyuan Springs, Hua county (now part of Huadu District) in Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong to Hong Jingyang, a farmer and elected headman, and Madam Wang.[8][9][10] He and his family moved to Guanlubu Village shortly after his birth.[2] Upon marrying his wife Lai Xiying, Hong received the courtesy name "Renkun." His sister, Hong Xuanjiao, became the commander of the female battalion during the Taiping Rebellion.[2] Hong showed an interest in scholarship at an early age, so his family made financial sacrifices to provide a formal education for him, in the hope that he could one day complete all of the civil service examinations.[5] Hong began studying at a primary school in his village at the age of five.[6] He was able to recite the Four Books after five or six years. He then took the local xiucai preliminary civil service examinations and placed first.[11] A few years later, he traveled to the nearby city of Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations.[11] He was unsuccessful and, his parents being unable to afford to continue his education, he was forced to return to agricultural work.[11] The next year, he accompanied a wealthy schoolmate elsewhere for a year of study and became a village schoolteacher upon his return.[11] In 1836, at the age of 22, Hong returned to Guangzhou to retake the imperial examinations.[11] While in Guangzhou, Hong heard Edwin Stevens, a foreign missionary, and his interpreter preaching about Christianity.[12] From them, Hong received a set of pamphlets entitled "Good Words for Exhorting the Age", which were written by Liang Fa, Stevens's assistant, and contained excerpts from the Bible along with homilies and other material prepared by Liang.[13] Supposedly, Hong only briefly looked over these pamphlets and did not pay much attention to them at the time.[5] Unsurprisingly, he again failed the imperial examinations, which had a pass rate of less than one percent.[14]" - Your mother.
Make the conversation impersonal. It's not about you. Its not about me. It's about the process. It's about the idea. Let's contribute to it collectively. Let's build something new together. Let's channelize our energies in a synergistic manner. It's as simple as that. I have used this technique with an extremely high success rate.
Needed that. Thank you. I'm going to practice those concepts and apply them into every facet of my social-isms. Especially with those whom I love. Could put my stress impact in reverse.
I can't stand when people say "things used to be good, but now they're terrible" about social dynamics that have been around forever. People in general have never been good at arguing. This is not something that has "been atrophying for some time." The idea that we collectively used to "view argument as something to be worked at" before right now is laughable.
Debate is an amazing learning tool for how to be a Rational community. The basis is AGREEMENT ON THE RULES. The decency and respect that once guided our discourse, and even the rule of law, are increasingly preempted by ego. If we could just agree on the ground rules (values) and as Bo Seo says, on the actual, specific arguments, we could have conversations that produce understanding and just maybe, progress.
This is extremely useful for a debate team, but facts and figures don’t matter in an argument because as soon as you tell someone they’re wrong they stop processing what you’re say and start working on what they’ll say next.
Your right! So I stopped doing that and it was instantly easier to win people over
I came to the comment section to look for this type of comment. It's true, how can you argue with someone when they refuse to consider what you are saying? To have a good argument it takes two to tango. Not everyone is capable of arguing. So BASICALLY, instead of a good debate, it turns into a lesson on how to become a critical thinker which can become frustrating because such a feat can't be accomplished in a single conversation. You have to constantly bring them back to the relevant topic and constantly cater to their feelings to keep them reminded that a disagreement isn't a personal attack. And when you cite studies and even explain how said study was done, they completely disregard it because it simply doesn't fit their narrative...Speaking from personal experience. However, I do think debates in everyday life are important and there should be debates in the public sphere regardless of the lack of brains out there... But you don't get to see that often in popular media ... and i believe its simply because most people just aren't critical thinkers and as a result our society just feeds a cycle of non-critical thinkers... There needs to be a change in how arguments are done in the public sphere in order to start breaking the cycle.
You're exactly right.
@@TillyJones11That is why you use the RISA framework. If the other party is not in alignment with your goals and is closed minded, there simply is no point in having an intellectual discussion with them.
You need to work on making them feel safe first...
I am a middle schooler and I think that debate should be implemented into schools because it can help with feeling heard, practicing good arguments, and being able to better control your emotions and admit when you are wrong
In my school, one of our language chapters is argumentation and we also all have one hour of philosophy class
Even at the lower levels of education at middle school you will be taught these subjects. Unless you live in the middle east or some dictatorship. I had all of these subjects in the early 2000s during my first year at middle/high school.
I appreciate your optimism. I wish I had it.
But all I see are adults who won’t EVER admit to being wrong. Across the political spectrum.
Hopefully you can set a better example.
@@blrryanii_ blud lives in vatican city
No one cares
my main takeaways:
RISA Framework:
Before challenging, ask
1. Is the disagreement REAl or a misunderstanding?
2. Is it important enough to justify?
3. Is it specific enough to make progress?
4. Are u or the other person aligned in the objectives to participate in the convo.
Difficult to find alignment in interests to want to engage int he disagreement. Pride is alignment, but NOT the right kind that leads to productive convos.
Can be applied in close community settings, such as with political views wtc.
1. start with a bit of agreement
2. name what you disagree with
3. Y do u want to engage in the disagreement?
4. remind ourselves of agreement made, bring back to parameters
- Know what to challenge and what to let go.
> Is this disagreement necessary to resolve in order to make progress?
> If not, is us challenging it going to make progress on the dispute?
can be judicious on what to disagree with.
In order to be heard, you need to listen.
>in your best interest to understand their argument in their shoes. dont twist its meaning or take it at its worst/fraction of it. Makes them feel they arent listened to.
> respond to the STRONGEST version of the other side, build up so its better than its starting point
Side switch exersizes:
> put yourself in opponents shoes, write top 4 arguments of their side
> look at the case through someone elses viewpoint
> imagine world u lost and come up with reasonsy u did.
Thank you :)
RISA Framework
- Real
- Important
- Specific
- Aligned
thank you for the summary ... now dont need to buy his book...
"In order to be heard, you must first listen." - Bo Seo. What a quote love it!
Yep. Two ears one mouth - Seneca
You can listen to them all you want, most will not listen to you
@@OldSchoolBaller Once you listen to them, you know their point of view. Then you can speak FROM their point of view.
Yeah only works if it's in good faith
I don't think that logical statement is true, that doesn't make any sense
“Arguments are easy to start & hard to end. If intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument… wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts to respond to.” Hell yea brother. I need this book.
Exactly what I said 😂
The Bible is the best book to discern how we are to live and interact with each other. Everything is rooted in Love is you follow Jesus... this is the Way!
I'm only learning the wisdom part...I tend to avoid arguments bc in my personal experience, these often become emotionally charged which is something I suck at handling. I always try to understand the rationale of things first and overexplain a lot. It took me until very recently to recognise when someone isn't even open to hearing another side, they just want to tell those who don't agree with them exactly that they're wrong. Before that realisation, I'd leave feeling pretty hopeless among other things, like I did something wrong or was a bad person because I'm just not able to agree based on feelings. Now I try to recognise if something is worth responding to in the first place, bc I'm not interested in talking if the goal isn't to learn something from the interaction
I'm of course open to being wrong, probably a bit too much, bc I never assume I know enough to say something is a certain way for sure. But that doesn't seem to be how many people talk to each other.
@@sonnyh9774S,what to do with the whole old testament and the cruelty of the old god?
I see christians talk like the old testamebt doesn't even exists unless it is about something in deuteromony lr leviticus that fits their world view.
@@lainhikaru5657 it's a good question that I hear a lot. I believe there may be a misunderstanding. God doesn't change. What did God do that was cruel in your eyes?
"Always bring a pistol to a debate, you never know when you'd need it. "
~Sun Tzu, Art of War
damn!
shit happens......
Not sure where you got this quote but are you aware that pistols were not invented until long, long after Sun Tzu wrote?
@@Zenocratit’s a joke
Hahaha American sun Tzu
Let's all please keep in mind that it's not about winning an argument. It's about debating ideas, looking for the truth, building a bridge of communal understanding and nurturing a culture of constructive discussion rather than violent confrontation. Only then we can advance as a culture. Our history is paved with repeated failures of building bridges, mostly due to concurrence, blinding personal beliefs and interests.
I once read: "When two cultures meet, they should bloom together."
I'm glad this comment is here. It seems like people only argue to let others know they're wrong and they are right instead of actually understanding and learning.
@@deanbond007 I mean it's not a bone we're fighting for. We're either building or destroying a bond through interaction.
Yeah they try so hard to win the argument instead of just sharing their ideas
Damn right.
Okay but I’m right though
NOTES I TOOK✨✨✨
starting:
1. agree with the other
2. name the main disagreement
3. why+outcome
deciding to answer:
>is it necessary to resolve to move on
>is us challenging lead to progress
in your best interest:
- see it through their eyes
- respond to the strongest version and build up
- research well
- step in the shoes of sb completely against you
- note the 4 best arguments
- imagine being taken down and note your weak spots
ok and
cool
Thanks alot
@_now_or_never_ but who are you ?
you don't have to agree with the other. You need to understand that both sides have the same objective on the argument
I like the way he sees a debate to be brought in a productive direction, not a debate that just destroys the opponent
He doesn't see debate how he wants to see it, he sees it how it is. Debates may be inherently negative, but they are not entirely negative. In fact the only reason people debate at all is because they have a desire for problems to be solved. That requires confrontation to some degree. Everyone gets into debates with the intention of there being a positive outcome, unless you are only interested in insulting someone but imo that means you aren't debating at all. The positive outcome in question is agreeing on an issue and being on the same page so that hopefully they can work together on a solution or not have that problem in the future.
Online arguments especially in gaming are just like that. Your sole goal should be to destroy your opponent because neither they're gonna change your opinions nor you're gonna change theirs
@@crappyspidersucksthemost This
If intelligence is the ability to respond to an argument, wisdom lies in the ability to know which arguments to respond to
~ Bob Seo
Bo
Wow, beautiful
Yes, thats why this emoji 🤓exist.... Some poeple just wanna be 🤓
Amen
This was something I realized but growing up I had issues with carrying it out, the fact that I’m surrounded by hooligans is hard for me
… a most excellent way to get an education! “Thinking is hard. Therefore most people judge.” - C G Jung😊
Well, it all boils down to what is useful to oneself or not so being right is not always the goal in every argument or debate but what will be beneficial to you in the long run. Justice does not matter to those at the top but what would fit in the overall bigger picture that they see. Hence why, people always say that the top echelon is dominated by psychopaths.
What if you judge right about something? Why do ppl judge?
What an awesome summary!
I don’t think thinking is hard. Thinking accurately is hard.
Doesn't judgement require thinking though?
This is the exact thing that we should be learning in schools. Not as optional after school debate clubs, but as a big part of the curriculum. Thank you for this. Really insightful
I think this is one of the most important things for schools to be teaching in this day and age
I agree. Most people graduate from school not knowing anything and become a 'yes man' in work
Everyone should get a foundation in philosophy, psychology and debate in their education. Philosophy nurtures the rational, psychology the psyche and debate forges those together as a powerful tool that will be useful in ever aspect of your life. The reason you don't get this in your education is because it would also give you all the tools to critical to politicians, CEO's and religious leaders. It would upset the entire power structure if the average person could poke holes in their arguments, spot it when their emotions are manipulated and verbalize exactly how and why it is happening. That would be very uncomfortable.. for those at the top.
It may be useful for those at the top, it is in fact very useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s the reason. You are making a single cause logical fallacy. Sorry for having to criticize that argument 😊
those are fully available in the Canadian education system, im taking philosophy next year, and i’m in debate club where they teach you how to debate, and my friend is taking psychology (social sciences)
Most leadership in various groups have this kind of background, it does not stop them from completely failing to have proper conversations and in real world scenarios you can see people with this kind of training fail to adhere to any real structure. On the other hand, when I've worked with a number of STEM groups I've seen disciplined discussions and debates even when no one follows any particular rules at all, and generally the debates occur calmly and are casual back and forth, even on the odd off topic political issue.
Higher Math gives a level of structure to logic I would say none of those subjects you mentioned really has a proper equivalent for.
They do give a better sense of structured logic to some extent, but no where near the extent of just learning math or computer programming as a logical language.
Most people just dont care about it, being realistically,
Just like when they argued philosophy sould be implemented in schools, at the end of the day 10% of the students liked it and the other 90% just thought
"this is so boring and non sense", if we teach people to argue they will probably use it to fight and manipulate other people, or just wouldnt see the real importance of it,
Atleast in my country i'd bet it would be very close to this.
Absolutely. Public education is training workers, not citizens of democracy. I don’t think it’s always been like this, just in different eras and in different places.
seriously wish this is what was taught in school. how to be a decent person. how to communicate. how to help in anyway possible. this is true character building.
Actually, this should be taught at HOME. Children should be respected and listened to. Then they will learn to respect and listen in turn. And yes - continue this into schools.
@@danbev8542 yes and no. Defiance in children is developmentally required for individual growth. It's important to have both slack and boundaries.
Defiance in children🤔 perhaps because they assume their voices won’t be heard from their experiences from adults!?!? The best way to teach children is not to ‘tell’ them what is good and bad, but adults ‘show’ them what is good.
gl with that dream
@@brookekathryn1980I agree and understand that defiance in children and adolescents is important for their development, but the upper comment had not mentioned what is good or bad for young people’s development. The argument was that a home where adults listen and respect their children will guarantee a similar response that those kids will take into the world.
I was on the debating team in High School. I remember it being very difficult, stressful, and requiring lots of research. Our coach was fantastic and worked hard at getting us prepared. Now, 50 some odd years later, I look back on that as being one of the most enjoyable times of my life. I learned so much at such a young age about working through a topic from all angles. The positive and negative. Listening, remaining calm, thoughtful demeanor. It has kept me open-minded throughout my life when dealing with all the challenging issues that have come down the pike. Whenever I mentioned to someone that I was on the debating team in high school I usually get a snicker and then called a nerd. They just have no idea how valuable it was.
"If intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts of an argument to respond to" -Bo Seo
Commenting so the is saved. Seriously such a fantastic quote
Bo seo is such a smart guy
@@karimitickaeloogreattemlor3486He is not too bad, for an Australian! Australians arent GOD's best creation, but we love them anyway! LMAO
@@inconnu4961 lmao
Sounds like wisdom is to cherry pick.
It takes a certain level of open-mindedness to be able to side switch. Most people are comfortable living perpetually in their ecochambers
You can be completely closed-minded and use these strategies since they're in your best interest. They help create more convincing ideas and can help you sound more persuasive when you sound more open-minded. I think some people are just either dumb or don't care about the truth or have bad faith their goal is to make you angry. I think their solutions to all of these types of peeps.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of us westerners very rarely utilize our own human survival instincts anymore.
Therefore it's our egos that get hit the most when our core values are challenged. Most people can't humble themselves enough to let their ego go to make space for truth.
I'm sceptical of all Ivy League and Oxbridge types. They are part of the establishment and have dominated discourse for too long.
it’s actually logical to not really switch bcz if ur wrong about ur side, how would u trust that ur right about this other side uve barely known about?
@@iceswallow7717 Dammnn
Shouts out to Bo for educating people on debate. For a lot of the people in the comments saying "I wish this was taught at schools" Speech and Debate teams exist at the middle school, high school, collegiate, and now even in the post academic world where anyone can participate. Its never too late to join no matter where you are in life and if those resources don't exist fight for them. Many of the first speech and debate programs in high school and college were started by people with 0 experience who had the urge to learn about it and compete in it. If you want it to continue please donate to your local high school debate league or even to the National Urban Debate League.
I've never viewed "winning an argument" as a goal. I only seek the truth. As a physics teacher, I welcome questions from pupils that I can't answer. I try to pose a question to their question in order to encourage the thought process.
Whoever is "right" doesn't matter to me, as long as we learn as people.
You are the exception. Majority of people don’t care about truth and facts: they just want to win the argument.
I'm upvoting this because it's nice to see that there are others who think like me out there.
Huh? How can you “seek the truth” and say “Whichever is “right” doesn’t matter to me”?
@@jeffreywp He didn't say "whichever", he said "whoever." What is right/correct matters, that is not what he is saying. He meant that there is no ego involved, and he doesn't place argument before truth: if he's wrong and someone else is right, he'll be happy to learn from it.
@@jeffreywp I said "whoever" not whichever.
I found what he said about being able to speak and make your case without interruption to be highly relatable on why debate is an attractive activity.
My brother and I have so much fun disagreeing with eachother. So when we are talking one of us will intentionally disagree. When we do this we get into fun and interesting conversations where we contest both sides of an idea. It’s honestly something I wish I could do with other people in relaxed settings but almost always the struggle to find the alignment for said disagreement is difficult and mostly nonexistent. I encourage everyone around me to debate and challenge other ideas because of the knowledge it brings both sides. When you have different opinions it opens up a whole new world of conversation to one another but it only works if both parties are willing to listen. This video is eye opening because while I was doing these things before I never really thought about it or understood why disagreements would go so wrong for me and other people. Now I get it and I can potentially apply this to my life with others.
OMG, yes! My brother and I also enjoyed many a disagreement, and the intent was never to hurt, only to well explore a position or premise. There aren't many people who are capable of engaging in such an exchange without becoming emotional and even abusive. But we truly were friends and both enjoyed the process. He's been gone 22 years now, he died way too young, and I'm near tears just typing this. You are so lucky to have such a brother. Siblings don't always express appreciation of each other. Another family member was dying of cancer when he died suddenly, as a result of that other impending death, on our last phone call we did share those appreciative sentiments, with no clue what was coming. Don't take that relationship for granted over the years, you are extremely fortunate!
responding to the strongest part of the other argument is probably the most important piece of advice he gave us. this makes them feel heard and really helps you put yourself in the other's shoes. responding to the weakest part of their argument will end in everyone being pissed off.
can you give an example on that? i have trouble understanding completely
@@bohoo1226 "I think you never listen to people and you're always ignoring everyone else's thoughts like you did last week when we asked you to clean up." Take this as an example.
The parts of the argument:
1. You never listen to people
2. You ignore everyone else's thoughts
3. You didn't clean up last week
If you just responded to Part 3 (the weakest) then it would completely avoid the argument at hand. It's a weak point to argue back and makes you seem very self-centred. They've given you their thoughts on your lack of listening skills and you respond to why you didn't clean up. That's never going to solve the problem, because you aren't addressing why you never listen and why you ignore everyone else's thoughts.
However, if you started with Part 1 - asked them to expand on the main problem here, which is that you never listen to people. You would be solving both Parts 2 and 3 in the process because they branch off from this point in their argument.
I hope this helps a little xx
@@meenal1139 omg 😭 it helped a lot since i need examples to understand better lol thank you!!
@@meenal1139 wow that was a perfect and really easy to understand explanation
I felt like one thing that always gave me the upper hand in an argument was to remain calm. Very old and basic term but very useful. When you burst in outrage or in any emotion it shows where you're vulnerable. It's like you insulting someone and the person targeted has little to no emotions, then you feel the need to insult them again so they show a "weak spot". Being calm and collected is almost like a power move, it asserts dominance without over doing it.
Agreed!! Being calm but remain sharp not slow nor hold back
Basically me too, my sister is the one who gets exponentially louder and has a different meaner and annoyed tone
@@bluemz_ Lmao
in the media though the person who gets angrier and nastier usually wins
@@micha-fc8lg I can say that is false but only from my experience. I always stay calm and collected and mean no harm, so when the person I am speaking to gets mad they're is seen as the one losing, is irrational, and doesn't know what they're talking about. I understand it may be different for other people but that is just my experience
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🗣️ Public conversations are in crisis due to a lack of good argument skills, leading to unproductive shouting matches.
01:42 🤝 The 'RISA Framework' helps in choosing disagreements wisely by checking if they are real, important, specific, and align with objectives.
04:24 🤝 Applying the RISA Framework can improve family discussions during holidays by setting parameters and aligning objectives.
07:21 🎧 Active listening involves understanding the opposition's argument as they do and responding to the strongest version of their case.
10:25 🤔 The 'side-switch exercises' promote humility, empathy, and open-mindedness, particularly in political and ideological disputes.
ai ?
good comment tho...
This sucks................
shut the hell up with your ai generated bullshit
"First step is to name the disagreement in front of you. The second thing is to check, well, why do you want to engage in this disagreement, and can we come to an agreement about what it is that we're hoping to get out of this conversation?"
"Are you really in this, hoping to persuade me to change my mind?"
"This is what we're disagreeing about, and these are the reasons why we're engaging in that dispute."
These are easily the most practical parts of the video by far. Thanks!
My problem with arguing or debating someone comes from my lack of awareness in a conversation. Specifically when I’m being lead onto a bunch of different points until we eventually have a completely different conversation from the one we are having. I definitely need to do better at keeping myself and the other person on track. As well as engaging in the conversation in such a way where the person feels like I actually am trying to understand their point. Those are probably my biggest flaws.
Edit: and when to just let the argument go. Sometimes you can’t reason with someone. And at that point the conversation becomes pointless. Letting my pride go even if it might seem to the other person that “I lost” is another thing I need to work on.
i have no problem with the first 2 skills but the when to let the argument go is definitely one of my biggest debating flaws
I had to learn the hard way - you cannot rationalize with an irrational person.
He really is a debate championship, he is one of the most convincing and fluential speaker on this channel for me so far. Thanks for introducing Bo Seo.
These are all great tips and things to think about.
I'd like to see more videos about how to converse or debate with people who do not follow the rules, interrupt, deflect, lie, etc. This is the problem we see too often today in politics, social media, and even among our families and neighbors.
Solution: Question them.
I learned this “technique” from a podcast about how to de-escalate an argument and it’s to repeat back what the other person is saying. Not verbatim of course, but it allows you to digest what they are saying, and allows the other person to feel heard. It also allows them to correct you if they feel they were not heard right. I believe feeling heard is the majority of any conversation.
My partner and I been trying to practice this, and at first I thought it’d be too obvious but it’s actually effective! It’s disarming and you could continue the conversation from there.
Update: lol I didn’t finish the video while writing this. He sort of covered this in the later section about listening well.
Jesus was East Asian, and his brother, who was Hong Xiuquan, went on to start the Taiping rebellion.
"Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全), born "Hong Huoxiu", was the third and youngest son of a Hakka family.[5][6] Some sources claim his family was "well to do".[7] He was born in Fuyuan Springs, Hua county (now part of Huadu District) in Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong to Hong Jingyang, a farmer and elected headman, and Madam Wang.[8][9][10] He and his family moved to Guanlubu Village shortly after his birth.[2] Upon marrying his wife Lai Xiying, Hong received the courtesy name "Renkun." His sister, Hong Xuanjiao, became the commander of the female battalion during the Taiping Rebellion.[2]
Hong showed an interest in scholarship at an early age, so his family made financial sacrifices to provide a formal education for him, in the hope that he could one day complete all of the civil service examinations.[5] Hong began studying at a primary school in his village at the age of five.[6] He was able to recite the Four Books after five or six years. He then took the local xiucai preliminary civil service examinations and placed first.[11] A few years later, he traveled to the nearby city of Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations.[11] He was unsuccessful and, his parents being unable to afford to continue his education, he was forced to return to agricultural work.[11] The next year, he accompanied a wealthy schoolmate elsewhere for a year of study and became a village schoolteacher upon his return.[11]
In 1836, at the age of 22, Hong returned to Guangzhou to retake the imperial examinations.[11] While in Guangzhou, Hong heard Edwin Stevens, a foreign missionary, and his interpreter preaching about Christianity.[12] From them, Hong received a set of pamphlets entitled "Good Words for Exhorting the Age", which were written by Liang Fa, Stevens's assistant, and contained excerpts from the Bible along with homilies and other material prepared by Liang.[13] Supposedly, Hong only briefly looked over these pamphlets and did not pay much attention to them at the time.[5] Unsurprisingly, he again failed the imperial examinations, which had a pass rate of less than one percent.[14]" - Your mother.
"Lie", huh... that's one easy part in debate; ask for the evidence. "Falsified evidence" is another story though. I end my debate competition career since "providing falsified data is okay as long the opposition don't know the truth".
Nah, maybe I was just being idealist.
If it's a public debate, the moderator or audience must be smart enough to see through it when it's called out. Otherwise there's no defense against a Gish Gallop (when someone rattles off more lies than the opponent can debunk, leaving most of them unchallenged), logical fallacies, and other dishonest debate tactics.
Useful points!
I only add another one: You can never argue and convince a narcissist with any amount of rationality!
But by entering a disagreement with an assumption that the other person is a narcissist, you likely will not be approaching the conversation constructively and may become unwilling to acknowledge or accept new ideas yourself. If both people assume the other is a narcissist, then there is little hope that either will convince the other of anything,
you missed an entire point of the video lol
He did say to pick your battles.
Does argument have to be based in reality? Seems dismissive of emotion 😜
A good idea is to think of the reason they became a narcissist, being or becoming narcissist is sometimes a coping method for certain events that may have happened in someone's life or if one of their parents were a narcissist and if they took that trait from them.
Finding the 'Mareska Manipulation' ebook should be your top priority, even if it's the last thing you do in life
Why
NSDA debater in high school here. I did policy debate as my main focus, and his idea of framework is spot on in terms of applying what a debate round looks to to a real world conversation. In debate you’d talk about other things in theory but in framework you’d talk about things such as impacts, but in round and out of, and can even address rhetoric. Honestly debating in high school is something I’d recommend for anyone, after going to nats 3 times (once in worlds debate like him, once in policy, and once in congressional debate) I have been looking forward to coaching in the future in low socioeconomic communities once I get my teaching degree.
Wanting to enrich the world. How refreshing!
it's actually my first time hearing of debating contests and i don't have that in my high school or in my state because i live in a third world country but it's a really intersting topic and the idea of having arguments for a positive reason and in a respectful manner changes my view towards arguments and debating in general, and you seem like a pretty intersting guy tbh
I am a student teacher and debate club is definitely something I would love to start if possible!! Our world is becoming more diverse so it’s becoming more important to listen to others and also have your own thoughts organized. I love the idea of steal-manning an opponent, I think the character building here is invaluable.
The world isn’t “becoming more diverse”….the world has ALWAYS been diverse but colonialism and white supremacy made it so only people who belonged to the prevailing race/group were heard. Saying it’s “becoming” more diverse communicates you literally didn’t see people of color until now.
Is there something standing in your way of starting a debate club? If so, what? Genuinely asking + trying to challenge you and motivate you.
@@BicycleStuff Great question!! For my first year (two practicums) I was in the same kindergarten class which had a different schedule than the rest of the school. Clubs are generally held at lunch (kids usually bus home after school) so because I didn’t have the same lunch hour I couldn’t host any club. I have one more year to try it out 😊 I really appreciate you genuinely asking and starting a little fire under me, stay awesome!
The information below is if you have not participated in High School debate before. If you have, then you already know the good, the bad, and the ugly.
If you live in the USA and wish to set up a debate team for Middle/High Schoolers, there should be a pretty well established scene through regional leagues and national tournaments. However, the type of debate that the person in the video(Bo Seo) does is Parliamentary debate. Unless you live in like California, New York, or maybe Florida, there is no Parliamentary debate or World Schools debate for that matter which is the closest event in rhetoric and structure. Most of the debate you will see is Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. But still, in both of these debate forms, weighing requires the the steel-manning, speaking requires organization, and flowing requires listening, so you might achieve your goals one way or another. Debate in the USA is much more research based so that would be the greatest benefit, but the speaking is not as pleasant as one would like. Watch the 2019 NSDA Nationals LD Finals round to understand the structure of debate, but most debate will probably be worse than this, because it is peak.
This is exactly how I have learned to "argue" or even critique other people's work in design school. Name something you like about the art first, your critique + why and loop around in a way! Informative!
That is just emotional manipulation, not an honest no-filter criticism. Disgusting
The aspect of making sure both parties agree what they are disagreeing about is so important. So many disagreements spur from different understandings of larger topics or even just the misunderstanding of a single word! Been in multiple arguments where it turns out we just had different definitions of the same word, and it seemed we were in disagreement about the larger topic but really it was just the word. Words are important
Excellent teaching. I would add that when you or your debate partner is emotionally spun up it’s much harder to stay inside the lines. An agreed pause is a vital tool.
Thanks!
Considering if the person you're arguing with really wants to change your mind or just give you a piece of their mind really helps when deciding if it's worth it or not
When being challenged on a particular point of view, Mr. Seo demonstrates the capacity to control his emotions in the face of such confrontations. Possessing the capacity to control oneself in such situations has always been one of my greatest aspirations. Far too often, I will start off well in a debate, but then quickly descend into a flight or fight mode.
That just makes you human. Much more preferable to be aware of this process, than to pretend that emotions have no influence on your arguments or outright deny it, as so many "debaters" tend to do. Too often, people mistake "controlling emotions" with "not showing emotions", or worse, "not having emotions".
@@m.f.1156 To further my point, and acknowledging my humanity, I would often become too emotional when engaging in discussions on substantive issues. In doing so, I missed opportunities to properly convey my opinions. Thankfully, age has afforded me the opportunity to develop better communication skills.
@@stoneymcneal2458 Age & experience! I am similar to you, and the older I get the less i care about trite things. congrats on your uncanny self-awareness and your touching vulnerability. Its very refreshing to see!
RISA Framework:
Before challenging, ask
1. Is the disagreement REAl or a misunderstanding?
2. Is it important enough to justify?
3. Is it specific enough to make progress?
4. Are u or the other person aligned in the objectives to participate in the convo.
Difficult to find alignment in interests to want to engage int he disagreement. Pride is alignment, but NOT the right kind that leads to productive convos.
Can be applied in close community settings, such as with political views wtc.
1. start with a bit of agreement
2. name what you disagree with
3. Y do u want to engage in the disagreement?
4. remind ourselves of agreement made, bring back to parameters
- Know what to challenge and what to let go.
> Is this disagreement necessary to resolve in order to make progress?
> If not, is us challenging it going to make progress on the dispute?
can be judicious on what to disagree with.
In order to be heard, you need to listen.
>in your best interest to understand their argument in their shoes. dont twist its meaning or take it at its worst/fraction of it. Makes them feel they arent listened to.
> respond to the STRONGEST version of the other side, build up so its better than its starting point
Side switch exersizes:
> put yourself in opponents shoes, write top 4 arguments of their side
> look at the case through someone elses viewpoint
> imagine world u lost and come up with reasonsy u did.
As someone who engages in this behavior often, it only works if you both want it to. No one wants to be wrong, it’s simple, arguments are looking for truth, and rarely both parties are looking for truth.
My preference is for the art of negotiation, as opposed to engaging in debates solely for the purpose of winning through competitive means. In the context of such discussions, lies are often accepted and even encouraged.
This is absolutely accurate and it annoys me.
i have come to conclusion that ALWAYS when someone is making a genius argument,
if the other person they are talking too is charming or starts making jokes, making you seem ridiculous (but still maintaining their charm) or straight up lying and getting specific parts of your argument and taking it out of context changing the entire topic, MANIPULATING all your argument and changing it entirely. they ALWAYS win. Not mattering if what they say is true or not or not even if they havent made a single reasonable argument, if it seems true, feels truthful, you "win"
the thing of "dont raise your voice, improve your arguments" is not accurate most of the times since the person who raises their voice will probably seem as the right one anyways.
Unless you are speaking to a decent person who actually wants to discuss respectfully with you, otherwise it is impossible, that is why the smartest guys at the room can be seem as dumb and the dumb ones seem as smart
@@ceodasala3297 well one of the reasons why I do not like modern debates is because the more charming one wins the person who wins the heart of the people even if they do not have a single reasonable argument but in the end
who cares about the crowd's opinions during a debate if the crowd had some kind of prejudice or bias against you then theyre more likely going to choose your opponent and thats what i call a biased sample. like if a person said anti semmetic shit on a pro-nazi rally most of the perople there woulbe a d agree but if you account for the whole world mostly everyone would disagree right? However, not carring for the crowd's opinions could be a double edge sword as you might become ignorant
You have to know your audience and appeal to them, after all, in a debate the audience is your goal, not your opponent that you're against.
How to argue:
1- We need to reconsider what's an argument and how to better argue it.
2- Be very agreeable. Limit the disagreement.
3- If intelligence is the ability to argue ,then wisdom is the ability to find out which argument to fight for.
4- RISA framework
Is it real?
Is it important?
Is it specific enough?
Are you aligned with the person?
Limitation: the main limitation of The RISA framework is to find out the right alignment of the person.
A- every disagreement should start with an agreement about the topic.
B- what we are hoping to get out of the argument?
C- This forms a contract, and it limits both sides to a specific topic rather than expanding or discussing the irrelevant ideas.
D- Find out which arguments to challenge and which arguments to let go. The best way to find out is to look for if helping in this or engaging in this disagreement would help to overall progress the disagreement.
F- Be active listener. And understand the opponent's argument in their own perspective. Don't twist it.
G- Respond to the strongest version of the argument. If the opponent does not present the strongest version then try to rephrase the strongest version of your opponent's argument and try to respond it
H- Switch the perspective. Side- Switch exercise. Pick a paper and jot down all the strongest and important arguments your opponent can raise, and try to answer. It helps to expand the understanding of the topic of argument.
Being open minded is sometimes annoying when you try to have a basic conversation with someone closed minded.
this is something I struggle with too, and I get really frustrated because I'm trying to simply have a conversation about why they think the way they do and why I agree or disagree, but some people don't want to listen to anything except complete support without question.
Which always happens to me over the internet
It’s tiring and why open minded people turn to the dark side.
If your goal is to find truth and not simply to be combative, below are the steps summarised.
1. Agree on what you are disagreeing about,
2. Understand your own and your opponents goal,
3. Listen to your opponents argument and attempt to understand it as they do,
4. Seek to extract their strongest and most compelling points,
5. Decipher which are necessary to tackle in order to progress the debate,
6. Empathise with your opponent’s perspective and critically reevaluate your points from their perspective to anticipate where your arguments may fall,
7. Make your best case and hope your opponent will listen to you as you have them.
Good luck!
A productive discussion requires two things:
- Willingness to listen to each other
- Willingness to truly consider a counterpoint
Foundationally, these require respect for the other party. Not all discussions are worth having at all times, so you have to pick your spots. Furthermore, there is NO requirement to agree about everything, and it's actually a very good thing that we disagree on certain points.
Personally, I think the reason arguing and conversations in today's society have regressed is because parties do not respect one another or feel their points are more important than anyone else's.
Additionally, people are uncomfortable with disagreeing with one another and want to push and push and push until the other person agrees, and if they don't agree they must be evil or stupid or unworthy of respect. We have to be ok walking away from conversations agreeing to disagree, and we have to understand that we can still love one another in those situations.
One of the best videos I've watched on making a healthy argument.
The key to understanding debate is to understand "values". People come to a debate with values that shape their thinking.
Examples: "incarceration is evil", "fossil fuels are evil", "nuclear power is evil", "eating meat is evil".
Complicating the debate; both sides have their truths. Both sides hang on to their truths and will ignore the other sides truths.
It is the people's values that leads to adopting one sides truths verses the other sides truths.
This implies to me that a debate must question values before moving on to each sides truths.
both sides don't have "truths" they have positions, or as you said values. Unfortunately for a lot of people these positions become dogma
@@雷-t3j An example of both sides have truths: "is nuclear power evil?".
Nuclear power plants caused troubles: Three Mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
Nuclear power plants are the largest source of clean power. (NO CO2 emissions).
Both statements are "true".
"Is eating meat evil?"
Eating meat is how we evolved, good source of protein.
Eating meat is evil as we kill animals when we could just eat vegetables.
Both sides have their "truths". Our values such as "I like how hamburgers taste." or "slaughtering animals is unnecessary and evil".
We choose our values and those values are compared to both sides "truths". We choose which truth to ignore and which truth to pay attention to.
Great advice! As someone who argues primarily to shift opinions-either my own or others'-I've often found myself in frustrating conversations. I didn't realize that some people engage in arguments simply for the enjoyment of exploring different viewpoints. This difference in goals has led to significant miscommunication and misunderstanding. I often feel dismissed, as if my time is being wasted, while the other person experiences confusion and hurt, thinking I'm intentionally misrepresenting their views or taking things too seriously. This disconnect has caused numerous arguments and strained relationships until I recognized that some individuals genuinely enjoy debating. Understanding this has changed my perspective on discussions, especially regarding debate club!
Thanks for the great video. I think we also need a change of culture, I've seen too many times a clickbait like "THIS FEMINIST GOT DESTROYED IN THIS ARGUMENT" or "THE RESPONSE THAT WILL SHUT UP ANY CLIMATE DENIERS". It just feeds into this narrative that you always have to conclusively win an argument and somehow either convince or humiliate the other, when in fact that behaviour only serves to widen the fracture. But even with this, the issues we have don't just arise from misunderstanding each other anymore, but grow deeper from a chasm in people's perception, set of values and logic. And there is a dire need for people who understand what all sides of the society really mean.
Thats really well explained, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
so true
Jesus was East Asian, and his brother, who was Hong Xiuquan, went on to start the Taiping rebellion.
"Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全), born "Hong Huoxiu", was the third and youngest son of a Hakka family.[5][6] Some sources claim his family was "well to do".[7] He was born in Fuyuan Springs, Hua county (now part of Huadu District) in Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong to Hong Jingyang, a farmer and elected headman, and Madam Wang.[8][9][10] He and his family moved to Guanlubu Village shortly after his birth.[2] Upon marrying his wife Lai Xiying, Hong received the courtesy name "Renkun." His sister, Hong Xuanjiao, became the commander of the female battalion during the Taiping Rebellion.[2]
Hong showed an interest in scholarship at an early age, so his family made financial sacrifices to provide a formal education for him, in the hope that he could one day complete all of the civil service examinations.[5] Hong began studying at a primary school in his village at the age of five.[6] He was able to recite the Four Books after five or six years. He then took the local xiucai preliminary civil service examinations and placed first.[11] A few years later, he traveled to the nearby city of Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations.[11] He was unsuccessful and, his parents being unable to afford to continue his education, he was forced to return to agricultural work.[11] The next year, he accompanied a wealthy schoolmate elsewhere for a year of study and became a village schoolteacher upon his return.[11]
In 1836, at the age of 22, Hong returned to Guangzhou to retake the imperial examinations.[11] While in Guangzhou, Hong heard Edwin Stevens, a foreign missionary, and his interpreter preaching about Christianity.[12] From them, Hong received a set of pamphlets entitled "Good Words for Exhorting the Age", which were written by Liang Fa, Stevens's assistant, and contained excerpts from the Bible along with homilies and other material prepared by Liang.[13] Supposedly, Hong only briefly looked over these pamphlets and did not pay much attention to them at the time.[5] Unsurprisingly, he again failed the imperial examinations, which had a pass rate of less than one percent.[14]" - Your mother.
UA-cam videos ≠ real life arguments
I think the bigger question is why would someone be drawn to that kind of video or topic in the first place? It’s only clickbait if people give into it and you have to wonder why a person would be interested in watching someone “get destroyed.” Says a lot about the person clicking and their insecurity and weaknesses as a human being.
1. put on other shoes
2. debate/fight only if it leads to reach ur goal
3. beat opponent biggest point is better
4. for family, put agreement before disagreement
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🗣️ *Understanding the Crisis in Public Conversations*
- Public conversations are in crisis, marked by people firmly holding views and shouting from a distance.
- Skills of good argument are diminishing, leading to unproductive and degrading conversations.
- Bo Seo emphasizes the need to restore confidence in disagreements and highlights their potential for both good and ill.
01:02 🌍 *Bo Seo's Journey and the Importance of Debate*
- Bo Seo's love for debate is tied to a life of constant relocation and language barriers.
- Joining the debate team became a form of salvation from disruptive disagreements.
- Intelligence is responding to any argument, while wisdom lies in choosing which arguments to respond to.
02:50 🤔 *The RISA Framework for Wise Disagreements*
- Bo Seo introduces the RISA Framework for picking disagreements wisely.
- Four key questions include assessing the reality, importance, specificity, and alignment in objectives.
- The framework aims to give conversations the best possible chance of going well.
04:55 🤝 *Applying the RISA Framework in Family Disagreements*
- The RISA Framework helps navigate family disagreements during gatherings like Thanksgiving.
- Starting with agreement and clarifying objectives sets parameters for a more productive conversation.
- Making a contract about the disagreement's focus prevents sidetracking and ensures meaningful discussion.
06:25 🗣️ *Selective Engagement in Debates*
- Not all arguments within a debate need to be contested; strategic choices are crucial.
- Debaters evaluate whether challenging a disagreement is necessary for overall progress.
- Preventing arguments from becoming unruly requires careful consideration of engagement.
08:53 👂 *Active Listening in Debate*
- Debaters actively listen by understanding the opposition's argument as they would.
- Responding to the strongest version of the other side enhances the quality of the conversation.
- Actively challenging and strengthening the opposing case fosters a better exchange of ideas.
10:53 🌐 *Empathy and Humility in Debates*
- "Side-switch exercises" in debate foster empathy, humility, and openness to opposing views.
- Applying empathy and humility is crucial not only in personal disagreements but also in political and ideological disputes.
- Bo Seo emphasizes the need for a broader scope and improved discourse in contentious issues.
Made with HARPA AI
Great thanks to the speaker, it was pleasure. I never verbalized it for myself, but can confirm that an argument turns into something completely different the moment one side starts honestly working out the problem from another one's pov, while making sure that the progress is made.
A problem-solving session.
Love the Risa framework. If only it were easy to rationally use when an argument is one of the least rational exercises. At least it confirms that most arguments if they're not *aligned* in their goal should just always be avoided, and I think this is the sentiment emotionally from a majority of arguments in practice.
Listening is the key. ACTUALLY, listening and doing your best to understand the person changes everything. You can listen to their arguments and clearly remember what they said, but you shouldn't do it just so you can respond with the thoughts you had already prepared and were going to say, no matter what their answer is about.
Honestly i love having proper arguments, it is a shame that we as a people are losing that skill
Sometimes the best outcome is a compromise, not a winner.
Depends. For human rights I don’t think so since real lives are being impacted so a compromise won’t be a compromise it will still be morally wrong. But in other areas compromise is good.
Thesis and antithesis come together to form a synthesis
As a middle school debater, I must say, this video has really improved my arguments and being able to understand both sides of an argument and handle a argument so its been a lot of help.
Beautiful, so many takeaways like the Side switch method, starting an argument with agreement, active listening and choosing the arguments to respond to with wisdom.
Just remember, it's not about convincing the other side to change their mind, it's about persuading the audience to see the other person as a fool.
how to argument in a correct way:
1)agree on what your disagreeing on
2)check the motive of the person(if they want to persuade or just want you to get angry)
3) apply RISA (real[is their a problem to be addressed] ,importance[is it important enough to justify], specific [making sure that the argument does not subvert its original path and stays on topic],aligned[step2] )
4) try to understand their point within their perspective while listening and develop their point yourself so that you response will be more well rounded
5)if any points of disagreement occur,only address points that need to be resolved to progress in the argument/ points that matter to the overall argument.
6)engage in side switch exercises before a new debate where you think about: the main points the opposition may make, what a critic may point out about your points and reasons why you would lose the debate, these exercises create empathy allowing your beliefs to center closer to the truth
00:00 🗣 Public conversations suffer due to a lack of effective argument skills, leading to divisive and unproductive discussions.
02:17 🤔 The 'RISA Framework' helps navigate disagreements by assessing their reality, importance, specificity, and alignment of objectives, promoting more constructive conversations.
05:23 🤝 In family gatherings or discussions with differing opinions, starting with agreement and clearly defining the disagreement's purpose enhances the chances of a fruitful conversation.
07:21 👂 Listening actively involves understanding the opposition's argument as they intend it and responding to the strongest version, fostering a more constructive exchange of ideas.
10:53 🌐 Empathy and humility, cultivated through exercises like 'side-switch,' are crucial in addressing political and ideological disputes, promoting humane and productive dialogue.
I love to be able to have an argument with people that share the value of trying to understand the other and work in a constructive way towards an agreement that both parties feel comfortable with. Or try to share different ideas so we can learn from each other.
Sadly, I find in many situations that when the other person doesn’t agree with you, or feels like you are wrong, they close of to any constructive discussion.
So for a debate to work, both parties have to share the value of wanting to let the other person speak and to accept that disagreeing is not a bad thing but a way of looking at things from a different perspective.
There are ways around this if you are persistent enough & creative enough. Change your mindset from Debater to Interviewer and ask him/her about their opinions, how they arrived at them, what they use to support them (sources of info) etc. Our Lizard brain (not everyone subscribes to this model, but its still useful if not 100% accurate) is always in fight flight or freeze modes, so when people argue/debate, they tend to fall into that mode. Your mission, should you choose to accept it is to try your best so people do not fall into that mode. You will appreciate your level of influence of others when you can successfully keep people from falling into it, or once fallen, help bring them out of it with your calm reassuring demeanor and words. Try to win people over as a friend or confidant and the debates will often take care of themselves.
I think the biggest thing is to not get mad. No matter what they do or say(within reason, because if they attack you that’s different). As long as you maintain a good argument trying to seek to learn I think discussions will be much better
Right, I’m still learning this
This is the most valuable skill set anyone can learn, and Bo explains the basics brilliantly. I was very lucky to randomly find my way to a debate club when I was 15, over 20 years ago, and the advantage it gave me in life was immense. Unfortunately, most people in the world never get such opportunity.
Not sure why - it's literally the cheapest thing to teach (you don't even need textbooks), and I've never heard anyone argue against the value of teaching rhetoric, who's a teacher or school administrator. It's just not in the DNA of modern education systems. Even the term for being educated - literacy - omits speech. Don't get me wrong, books and maths are great, but speech is on par with those two by any reasonable definition or theory.
To YOU!!.... it's the MOST VALUABLE SKILL SET ANYONE CAN LEARN,....you must be a very insecure little person to believe what you think is true.....hopefully in time you'll become wise and realize how flawed your thinking is.
Debate was an incredible experience. I recommend everyone who has a team in their school to give it a try. Especially for English learners, it's fun and addictive and empowering. You learn and mature a lot, while making friends:)
I come from an abusive and verbally violent home. If someone paid me to be in debate I'd refuse the money and put a restraining order on them.😂 I don't want any form of argument in my life.
@@patricklukcy13 debate teaches you to understand fallacies, omissions, and verbal manipulations. No one says you have to argue at all. People like this are hard to gaslight, demean or degrade, because they understand you're wrong and WHY you're wrong. No need to say anything- the mind is solid and defends itself. That's the basis of confidence for many debaters.
@@kirani111 what an intersting, positive and mature way of thinking and replying.
Can we just quickly appreciate how much style and how much of a clean look this man has?
NOTES I TOOK
starting:
1. agree with the other
2. name the main disagreement
3. why+outcome
deciding to answer:
>is it necessary to resolve to move on
>is us challenging lead to progress
in your best interest:
- see it through their eyes
- respond to the strongest version and build up
- research well
- step in the shoes of sb completely against you
- note the 4 best arguments
- imagine being taken down and note your weak spots
The risa framework works for people you are respectful and stable. There are some people not capible of having fruitful debates because of either some sort of disorder or just because they had a bad day. I think if a debate is about to start it is important to analyze the person you are debating so there isnt much chance in that. Id also like to add that emotions are difficult in debates because people feel them and it isnt really a choice when they do for most people, a debate shouldnt permanent be haulted because of emotions and it takes a lot of emotional maturity to put it on pause until you feel better to debate.
Me watching this as a public highschool student getting ready for next week’s debate: 🧍♀️😮
You got this bro
Clicked on this video thinking: "Oh sweet, this will help me to shitpost, provoke, argue online and make random people pissed off more efficiently!"
I was severely disappointed.
The way he speaks,truly relaxing to hear
I don't think most people could follow your guidelines instead of reacting emotionally. Their emotions block out logic and calm thought.
in brief:
The video features Bo Seo, a two-time world debate champion, former coach of the Australian national debating team, and the Harvard College Debating Union.
1. **State of Public Conversations**: Bo Seo begins by discussing the current state of public conversations, describing them as being in a crisis. He believes that the skills of good argument have been deteriorating, leading to unproductive disagreements.
2. **Introduction to Bo Seo**: Bo shares his personal journey, explaining how moving from South Korea to Australia without knowing English influenced his passion for debate. He was drawn to debate because it provided a platform where he wouldn't be interrupted.
3. **Intelligence vs. Wisdom**: Bo differentiates between intelligence (the ability to respond to any argument) and wisdom (knowing which arguments to respond to). He emphasizes the importance of focusing on specific disagreements to avoid arguments from becoming chaotic.
4. **The RISA Framework**: Bo introduces the RISA framework, which stands for "Real, Important, Specific, and Aligned." This framework helps individuals approach disagreements more effectively:
- **Real**: Ensure the disagreement is genuine and not a misunderstanding.
- **Important**: Determine if the disagreement is significant enough to address.
- **Specific**: Focus on a specific topic to make progress.
- **Aligned**: Ensure both parties have aligned objectives for the conversation.
5. **Applying the RISA Framework**: Bo provides an example of using the RISA framework during family gatherings, like Thanksgiving, where disagreements might arise. He emphasizes starting with an agreement and understanding the purpose of the disagreement.
6. **Picking Arguments Wisely**: Bo discusses the importance of choosing which arguments to challenge and which to let go. He suggests focusing on disagreements that are necessary to resolve or those that help make progress in the overall argument.
7. **Listening Actively**: Bo highlights the importance of active listening in debates. He stresses understanding the opposition's argument as they see it and responding to the strongest version of their argument.
8. **Side-Switch Exercises**: Bo introduces the concept of "side switch exercises," where debaters put themselves in their opponent's shoes and consider the strongest arguments from the opposing side. This exercise promotes empathy and humility.
9. **Conclusion**: Bo concludes by emphasizing the importance of empathy in both personal disagreements and broader political and ideological disputes. He believes that exercises like the side switch can improve conversations about contentious issues in compassionate and productive ways.
The video ends with a call to action to explore more content from Big Think.
Damn thanksss
I despise AI
Yes! This is brilliant.
Pick 1 subject and stick to it.
I love this! ❤ I am 1 third way through and I am so excited to hear the rest! ❤
I argue with myself everyday in my inner monologue so I’m prepped to start one outside of my head any day or time. 👍🏻
"In order to be heard, you have to first listen." This is one of the most valuable pieces of advice in life.
Knowing and understanding logical fallacies is extremely helpful. I am unsure about other countries, but the U.S. is completely missing out on this area of education.
I use to debate everyone, particularly Christians because as a Christian myself, I found the incredible ignorance and bias and hate incredible. It would go for several posts, it was exhausting and at some point, I realised that a large proportion of society doesn't want to think critically, they want to win, they want to hold onto their hates, fears, loves, and I gave up on humanity. I don't engage very much anymore. I've had to learn that people don't want to think, they just want to get through the day. I've grown quieter but lonelier too. It's the only way to get through life, by not engaging in debate.
K..
Sorry to hear fam. That’s rough. Do know I’m up for a debate tho if you’re willing to have one.
Denounce your idol worship and worship God alone. Submit your life to him, do the contact prayers and give from the day of harvest to charity, to the ones in need.
@@stanleystove what are you referring too? What idol worshipping?
@@radiokitty9007 thanks. I'm ok...I probably made it sound like I was depressed, or something. I think most people experience similar at some point.
Champion Debater Bo Seo is brillant here, really appreciate his suggestion
you understand your opposition so WELL, you can improve your -Oppositions- argument !!
I have a debate today and this is honestly the best video to learn if you debating or on a debate team
Brazil mentioned 3:00
I've already been arguing like this but my emotions get the better of me and I cry without wanting to. Noone ever listened to me my whole life so I just break down sometimes.
I feel you 😢 i even feel safer to just write cause i can think of it beforehand but when speaking it's like i have to be ready and i'll always get emotional till the point i am out of words
One time I felt I "won" an argument against my wife was I kept reminding her "I will only respond to the thing we are talking about, and will ignore everything else you say that is irrelevant". She seemed caught off guard and stopped.
But ever since it seems she has found a way around it and back to her "winning streak". I am still figuring how.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🗣️ Public conversations are in crisis due to a lack of good argument skills.
01:02 🌍 Moving between countries led the speaker to appreciate debate as a way to be heard without interruption.
02:17 🧠 The RISA Framework helps in choosing when and how to engage in a disagreement.
03:52 💡 Finding alignment in objectives is crucial for productive conversations.
06:25 🤝 Naming the disagreement and setting clear objectives can improve conversations.
07:55 📣 Actively listening and responding to the strongest version of the opposition enhances the debate.
10:25 🤔 Side-switch exercises foster humility and empathy, vital for political and ideological discussions.
Made with HARPA AI
The biggest issue with arguments is that the INTENTION between the two arguing people/parties is usually different. My experience has been that people fall into one of two camps:
1) Either the person wants to come to an understanding and reach common ground
OR
2) they just want to be right (Or prove the other person wrong).
Unless you're both on the same page of wanting to reach common ground, arguing is pointless. It will accomplish nothing and both people are wasting their time in a futile exercise that will result in some inevitable negative result at the conclusion of the argument.
This is why "picking your battles" is really important; it will save you wasted time and will allow you to channel your energy on things that will bring your life more positivity.
Rule number one: an argument isn't *you* against *them* , it's working together, sharing opinions, points of view, agreements and disagreements for the purpose of reaching commonground, or a mutual conclusion. That is what so many people get wrong, they take it personally and they make it a VS, when it should be a teamwork.
I love the part about: building up the other side's argument, because it shows that we aren't fighting, we are trying to reach peace, to understand each other to the fullest and ultimately so that BOTH SIDES feel satisfied with the conclusion.
At least for everyday arguments, debating is it's whole other thing.
We had a team debate for our final English exam, and one of the grading requirements was that you had to give expert opinions and statistics. And with my teammate, we thought, wouldn't it be funny if we made those up to support random arguments. Obviously the opposing team fell for them because they had no way to check the sources during the debate. I don't know if our assessors also fell for it (i.e. if they took the time to check the sources) but we did get away with good grades, so there's that 😂
(Tbf, it's entirely possible that the opposing team made up their sources as well. At the end of the day, it's not necessarily the source that makes an argument good most of the time, it's how well you defend it)
You need to get in touch with the DNC & CNN! You guys would be perfect for their propaganda! but I admit, it is very funny!. I am sure your professors had a clue, even if they couldnt offer specifics. if they have dont that awhile, they learn the tricks or maybe even tried some themselves! LOL
Make the conversation impersonal. It's not about you. Its not about me. It's about the process. It's about the idea. Let's contribute to it collectively. Let's build something new together. Let's channelize our energies in a synergistic manner. It's as simple as that. I have used this technique with an extremely high success rate.
Here's a breakdown of the key points:
Make the conversation impersonal: This means avoiding personal biases, emotions, or self-centered attitudes during the discussion. Instead, the focus should be on the topic itself.
It's not about you. It's not about me: The conversation should not revolve around any one individual's opinions or experiences. Everyone involved should approach the discussion with an open mind and a willingness to consider different perspectives.
It's about the process. It's about the idea: The primary focus is on the process of exchanging ideas and the ideas themselves. The participants should explore and evaluate the concepts being discussed objectively.
Let's contribute to it collectively: Encourages collaboration and a group effort in generating insights and solutions. No one person dominates the conversation; instead, all individuals actively participate in contributing their thoughts.
Let's build something new together: Implies the desire to create innovative and fresh ideas through collective effort, rather than merely rehashing old concepts.
Let's channelize our energies in a synergistic manner: Suggests aligning efforts and working together harmoniously to achieve a greater outcome. Synergy refers to the combined effect of individuals working together being greater than the sum of their individual effects.
It's as simple as that: Indicates that this approach is straightforward and easy to follow.
I have used this technique with an extremely high success rate: The speaker claims to have applied this approach in conversations previously and has found it to be very effective.
Overall, I advocate for a collaborative and open-minded approach to discussions, where the collective focus is on ideas and the mutual goal of building something valuable together. By eliminating personal biases and ego-driven behavior, participants can create a more productive and successful conversation.
I need this type of lesson because I am socially awkward.
If only people were as reasonable and precise as this man, the world would be a significantly better place.
I'd refine your sentiment ever so slightly as follows;
_"If only people were _*_willing to be_*_ as reasonable and precise..."_
I think we all have the ability to be, but that not all of us have the **will** to grow into our abilities. Cheers!
“Our public conversation, are in a state of crisis.. it’s people fully convinced of their views, shouting at each other from a distance.” My man’s started the video with straight facts; many people of only willing to prove why they’re right instead of unpacking multiple perspective.
By now as an adult you should know instinctively that telling someone or a group that they are wrong is the worst way to resolve any kind of disagreement. Everyone believes they are right and the other person is wrong, that's why there is a disagreement in the first place, but saying right off the bat that whomever you are having the disagreement with is wrong, makes them shut down immediately and they won't hear anything you say after that. Here's the thing about these kinds of videos, they don't make it clear that you have to unlearn bad habits and learn new ones. You have to walk down a sidewalk with sharp stones everyday but you do so without shoes. How many times are you going to walk down that sidewalk until you tell yourself that you better put some shoes on the next time you walk down that sidewalk. It seems like the techniques he's applying to real life won't work in the same way they work in a structured environment, but like anything unfamiliar, you have to learn how to adjust and apply to RL. One reason disagreements devolve into chaos is that we have come to perceive them as someone is right and someone is wrong. Those thoughts are never going to produce resolution. Actually, calming down first and saying ok we agree how this is going to go in the first place, starts you on the road to, if not resolution, at least to a place of respect. An unbiased third party works too because we can jump off track pretty easily when we become heated. The third party acts as a pressure release valve that says ok let's just take a moment and remember what this conversation is about in the first place. I've seen comments that say, well that's works good in that particular environment but it won't work here. Of course it won't if you don't try applying it to RL. If the way things are going isn't working for you, isn't it worth trying another way?
I Luv this. I actually get a rush listening to s*t like this. Thank you profoundly.
“The only way to win an argument is to avoid it completely” Dale Carnegie. “Arguments are a loose - loose” “with both contestants walking away convinced more than ever that he or she is absolutely right”
There's a difference between arguing and quarrelling 🙂
Jesus was East Asian, and his brother, who was Hong Xiuquan, went on to start the Taiping rebellion.
"Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全), born "Hong Huoxiu", was the third and youngest son of a Hakka family.[5][6] Some sources claim his family was "well to do".[7] He was born in Fuyuan Springs, Hua county (now part of Huadu District) in Canton (Guangzhou), Guangdong to Hong Jingyang, a farmer and elected headman, and Madam Wang.[8][9][10] He and his family moved to Guanlubu Village shortly after his birth.[2] Upon marrying his wife Lai Xiying, Hong received the courtesy name "Renkun." His sister, Hong Xuanjiao, became the commander of the female battalion during the Taiping Rebellion.[2]
Hong showed an interest in scholarship at an early age, so his family made financial sacrifices to provide a formal education for him, in the hope that he could one day complete all of the civil service examinations.[5] Hong began studying at a primary school in his village at the age of five.[6] He was able to recite the Four Books after five or six years. He then took the local xiucai preliminary civil service examinations and placed first.[11] A few years later, he traveled to the nearby city of Guangzhou to take the imperial examinations.[11] He was unsuccessful and, his parents being unable to afford to continue his education, he was forced to return to agricultural work.[11] The next year, he accompanied a wealthy schoolmate elsewhere for a year of study and became a village schoolteacher upon his return.[11]
In 1836, at the age of 22, Hong returned to Guangzhou to retake the imperial examinations.[11] While in Guangzhou, Hong heard Edwin Stevens, a foreign missionary, and his interpreter preaching about Christianity.[12] From them, Hong received a set of pamphlets entitled "Good Words for Exhorting the Age", which were written by Liang Fa, Stevens's assistant, and contained excerpts from the Bible along with homilies and other material prepared by Liang.[13] Supposedly, Hong only briefly looked over these pamphlets and did not pay much attention to them at the time.[5] Unsurprisingly, he again failed the imperial examinations, which had a pass rate of less than one percent.[14]" - Your mother.
This should be taught in schools. Extremely useful to learn these conversational skills. :)
Reminds me of how my debate coach insists that debate should become a mandatory subject
@@munazly but competitive debate doesn’t develop any skills
Make the conversation impersonal. It's not about you. Its not about me. It's about the process. It's about the idea. Let's contribute to it collectively. Let's build something new together. Let's channelize our energies in a synergistic manner. It's as simple as that. I have used this technique with an extremely high success rate.
Needed that. Thank you. I'm going to practice those concepts and apply them into every facet of my social-isms. Especially with those whom I love. Could put my stress impact in reverse.
Thanksgiving gonna be 🔥
I can't stand when people say "things used to be good, but now they're terrible" about social dynamics that have been around forever. People in general have never been good at arguing. This is not something that has "been atrophying for some time." The idea that we collectively used to "view argument as something to be worked at" before right now is laughable.
people have been saying "things used to be good, but now they're terrible" since forever LMAO
Debate is an amazing learning tool for how to be a Rational community. The basis is AGREEMENT ON THE RULES. The decency and respect that once guided our discourse, and even the rule of law, are increasingly preempted by ego. If we could just agree on the ground rules (values) and as Bo Seo says, on the actual, specific arguments, we could have conversations that produce understanding and just maybe, progress.