Debate world champion explains how to argue | Bo Seo

Bo Seo, Harvard’s former debate coach, explains a good argument.

If our ancestors could see modern society, odds are they would be impressed with our technology and horrified with how we use it — particularly when it comes to debate.

Debate is crucial to a healthy society. After all, having productive debates is how people have learned, resolved conflicts, and generated new solutions for thousands of years. In Ancient Greece, it was even considered a kind of civic duty to be able to persuasively argue your point about the various issues of the day.

There are plenty of skilled rhetoricians around today. But as two-time world debate champion Bo Seo told Big Think, it has become rare to see thoughtful, productive, and smart debates broadcast on a large scale to the general public. We more often encounter short video clips or tweets featuring people whose main goal is to “win” the argument instead of trying to understand and refute the opposing side’s ideas in good faith.

A major part of the problem is that we have outsourced our debates to avatars we see in media: politicians, pundits, and celebrities.

So, can we develop better models of disagreement to help us become better debaters? Seo thinks the answer is yes, and that the process starts with polishing our skills offline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Bo Seo:
Bo Seo is a two-time world champion debater and a former coach of the Australian national debating team and the Harvard College Debating Union. One of the most recognized figures in the global debate community, he has won both the World Schools Debating Championship and the World Universities Debating Championship. Bo has written for The New York Times, The Atlantic, CNN, and many other publications. He has worked as a national reporter for the Australian Financial Review and has been a regular panelist on the prime time Australian debate program, The Drum. Bo graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University and received a master’s degree in public policy from Tsinghua University. He is currently a student at Harvard Law School.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more of our stories on the art of arguments:
Five ways to tell if someone is an expert, or just confident
Which philosopher had the strongest arguments?
Why changing your mind is a feature of evolution, not a bug

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century.
► Big Think+

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want more Big Think?

[sticktothefundamental]

Key Takeaway:
1. The other side of debate, is not your enemy. The disagreement is not to the person, just to the points that we have different views.
2. Debate is more than just disagreeing the opposite point of view, but to digest the complexity of an issue, or a question, from different perspectives.
3. Of course to win a debate, you need training to communicate ideas better and breakdown different view points.

In political debates, one thing I disgusted is how one diminished the other side with personal attack (idiot, stupid, racist, religious remarks), instead of talking about the real thing. Most of the time ones that started personal attack, are the ones that have no knowledge or least prepare in the topic that they are debating. But, many times, most audiences would label the ones who launched personal attack as charismatic.

[joeyjkim]

I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Information Diet." What a great way to describe how we take In information.

[soffwhere]

We should start by remembering that challenging you ideas is not the same as challenging your identity. Nowadays, people tend to cling to their ideas as though giving them up presents a mortal threat

[rachelgreensmith-annino]

I believe the whole idea of debate is to explore all sides of the issue, not to be right or wrong. Hard issues are complex and they are never black and white. To see all sides of the matter is to understand the matter, therefore you are able to make better decisions. I regularly debate. For me, it is a way to understand how the person thinks, what they value, and what might make them see it that way. My major rules are to assume they have good intentions, ask follow up questions instead of assuming what they mean, and come from a place of curiosity and respect, not trying to prove your point right.

[SendoPLUS]

So unrelated but this dude has an unspeakable amount of swagger

[campbelldoug]

For academic debate, three other things are required. 1. An agreed-upon resolution. This is a positive statement. One person affirms or agrees with it. One disagrees or negates it. Also, the words or terms of the resolution should be defined. Sometimes, the main arguments lie in the definitions alone. 2. Arguments to affirm or negate the resolution should be clearly stated with supportive evidence. 3. The most important element is clash and rebuttal. Each side must listen and even take notes on what the other side is saying. Each argument should be attacked by the opposition and then defended by the source.

[steinway]

This is an amazing video and I'm glad that we're talking about this. If I could offer two things that I think would help they would be these:

1. Bring back rhetoric and debate in school curricula . Yes, there are schools that have mock trial clubs (which are a lot of fun), but I mean incorporate rhetoric and debate into English classes and/or History classes it would both help and give students a reason to see how these classes can be practically useful.

2. There's a saying: "don't argue politics or religion at the dinner table" and honestly, I don't agree with that. I think that it ties in very well with what the video is saying and that discussing big topics in a sane, informed, and reasonable way begins with a small setting with someone you know and trust. Granted, not all parents are trustworthy and it doesn't work with everyone, but it helps.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[jiiig]

Great view.
I remember when I was young debates were structured in a way that whatever side of the proposition you would take the opposite view and argue it.
I learned that way to see different views and be able to formulate them in my mind.
It's so hard to have a conversation with people these days.

[squiffy]

I attended Bo's classes for a while in Australia, and I must say he is just as well-spoken and intelligent here than ever.

[astal]

"People generally quarrel because they don't know how to argue." -G. K. Chesterton

[senamit]

You are right, Mr Seo. The current level of debates between politicians, or as we see in the cable news, should not become the new benchmark for debating. Polite, informed, respectful and convincing debates are a work of art. A bit rare these days.

[awildcyclistappears]

In current day and age, we are mostly unable to accept that fact that someone has a different opinion.

[mindfulnesswithmatt]

We have all become so insecure with ourselves that we rush to shut down others' opinions without even taking time to think about "opposing" points. And politics and media have become such spectacles that audiences now live for the drama/ entertainment, rather than consider the view points deeply. Great points made.

[carlogaytan]

I find that being able to determine if your opponent cares about the accuracy of information is important. From this you can decide whether you will actually have a good debate/ conversation, or if your job is simply to promote the accurate information and make the inaccurate information look as pathetic as possible.

Perhaps the most important thing to learn is when NOT to argue with someone and NOT have a debate, some people are just ill and persuasive argument will not affect them.

[dulynoted]

A good talker, is a good listener. As far as presidents, I think they need to speak less and listen more to the people and not the corporations that fund them.

[Neutronstarrrr]

It should also be made sure that the debate does not turn into a personal attack on both parties. The debate should stay on the topic and not come down to just berating the other.

[nervous]

If we have to form a better argument, we need to think. If we need to think, we need time. If we need time, we can't have social media in the form like instagram and tiktok.

[NelsonGuedes]

It really just needs to be a cooperative process done in good faith for the purpose of arriving at the truth and the most beneficial decisions for all, regardless of previously held views and disagreements.

[xavierhofoong]

You can tell how well articulated he is, by the way he chooses his words carefully. I want to learn how to speak like that.😄

[ebob]

After leaving university, I forgot the truly intense pleasure of debating. Glad I watched this. I And cannot wait to become the Clayton Frazier (the provoker in Peyton Place) of my workplace. 🔥🔥🔥