How dirty debaters win against better opponents | Bo Seo

How to defeat debaters who deal in distractions, according to two-time world debate champion Bo Seo.

Bo Seo, a two-time world debate champion, watched the 2016 presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and was disappointed by the unedifying spectacle that the debates had become.

Seo saw the potential for the format of debate to be exploited and degraded, and he believes that the capacity to disagree well or poorly is within all of us.

Seo identified four common types of bad arguers: the dodger, who changes the topic; the twister, who misrepresents the point being made; the wrangler, who is never satisfied and never offers an alternative; and the liar, who makes false or misleading statements. To Seo, these negative impulses must be managed in order to guide arguments towards being more productive and positive.

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

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?

[dontstealmydiamondsv]

Another thing to keep in mind that's often misunderstood is that debates are meant to convince a third party, not the person you're debating. Debates are _not_ a great way for two people to come to an understanding. When you put pressure on someone's views they're way more likely to double down than to reconsider. A better alternative is to ask nonprovocative questions from a place of genuine curiosity. And just listen. Their logic will be tested as they explain, and they'll probably be the first to realize if something doesn't add up.

[zyrrhos]

One of the more common diversionary tactics I see by dirty debaters, is they hit you with a barrage of questions or points instead of sticking to the original argument, so now you feel like you're fighting on multiple fronts and getting further away from the main topic.

[LordMondegrene]

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

[CharlieRogers]

"It's not the argument you're making, it's the one they're thrusting on you."

This is commonly a form of straw man argument, where they act as though the person is arguing for something more extreme than the actual point being made. It works incredibly well, and most people have no idea it's happening. It's South Park, but in real life.

[prschuster]

Most people are not persuaded by logic, but by appeal to emotion, changing the subject, using anecdotes instead of facts or misrepresenting the opponents position. You are not going to defeat your opponent in political debates by logic alone. In other words, critical thinking is a rare commodity.

[erikaanterie]

I learned a lot today. The lesson I'm keeping closer is the one that specially challenged my belief of not getting involved: "the power of bullies increases without challenge".

[RantKid]

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

[albertbatfinder]

Our esteemed presenter, Bo Seo, was a regular guest on an ABC TV current affairs program. His characteristic traits were to never be rushed and to never accept the premise or underlying assumptions of any question.

As a rhetorician he’s like the low talker. He pauses before saying anything, and he presents an abstract idea before answering the question. He rarely needs to answer a question because he presents a parallel idea, and lets you answer the question for yourself.

Super effective, because you’re compelled to listen.

[kirkwagner]

I hear what you are saying. My frustration, as an American who watches our national debates, is that the debate moderators fail to apply the set rules. I think, in future debates, moderators NEED the power to cut mics, both when someone has gone over their time limit, and also when they interrupt their opponent incessantly. I feel those changes would make room for factuality and logic, and disarm shear volume and arrogance.

[bobcornwell]

Excellent speech.

This is one of the few YouTube offerings that took notes on.

I spend a lot of my thinking time examining lies and why they are so effective.

I have found that the most effective lies are the ones the audience wants to hear. It amazes me on how effective such a lie can be, even if is so crudely fashioned that it is an obvious lie.

[cr]

I greatly appreciate content such as this. Dozens of argumentative errors and logical fallacies are practiced by these “bad debaters” on social media, television, and even in educational settings. It truly saddens me that the lust for power leads so many to sacrifice the pursuit of truth and genuine understanding. Just as sad is the fact that such crude tactics seem to work on so many people. Human beings experience life subjectively. Each person has unique values and there will always be differences that lead to disagreements and their resulting conversations. Still, as a society, there are some very common goals that we may often fail to realize are shared between one group and it’s “opposition”. Debate itself is indeed a tool. When misused, it causes frustrations, further misunderstandings and even conflicts. These are not only harmful on their own, they also can lead us further astray from the truth as well as stigmatize differing and potentially insightful perceptions. When debate is used properly, it can help people learn about each other and about themselves. It can allow us to determine what works best to reach our common goals. At its best, debate helps us understand everyone more deeply, more intricately. It helps us love.

[jorgefalconjr]

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

[letteracura]

SUMMARY

1. Dodger: change topic, BEING THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE POINT

2. Twister: misrapresents your point, CORRECT THEM

3. Wrangler: critics everything without alternatives, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? REVERSE QUESTION

4. Liar: lies, REPLACE LIE WITH A TRUTH.

MAIN POINT: If not challenged, the bullies gain confidence and go forth.

Thanks for sharing!

[Anonymous-nnsk]

There are those who anger you by pointing at something completely unrelated in your personal life. Once you are distracted and angry, you are not at full capacity to think.

[SC-zqcu]

I think that the best way to deal with bad debaters is to catch them on their tricks as soon as they make it, expose the fact that they are doing it and keep bringing it up throughout the rest of the debate at every chance you get to say anything, i.e. as soon as the opponent turns into a dirty debater it should be your job to make sure that if the audience remembers one thing from the debate it would be the dishonesty of your opponent. Dirty debaters thrive by playing on reputations instead of logic. They do it because they usually don't have much logic to give. If you make sure to pound their reputation as hard as possible they basically lose the only weapon they have and will never recover afterwards.

[dfn]

Great explanation, very thoughtful and well presented. Sadly, honest debate is now the realm of clubs within academia, even interdisciplinary and disciplinary debates have become corrupted. Politicians and activists of all stripes have little interest in honest debate, so all inevitably resort to the tactics you have described. One type of debater I think you omitted is the shouter/screamer. This debate tactic is almost always employed by someone with ideological tendencies when faced with facts that refute or outright debunk their talking points. Excellent video.

[myhappygecko]

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

[Lumosnight]

The video missed out on one of the most common bad debaters, and that it the Interrupter (who doesn’t let you finish your argument) and the Screamer (the one who has a louder voice than you so everyone else has to listen to that person). Those are difficult to deal with as you do not want to stoop to their level and they can use the dramatic effect to influence others.

[BathersonMote]

Even if the people taking part in a debate are honest, sincere, and do not resort to any of the tactics the video mentioned, debates are one of the worst things that anyone can use for information on which to base a decision, be it who to vote for, or who would win in a fight between two comic book characters. The public, in general, usually base who they believe won a debate using fairly shallow criteria. Who gave the better, more polished performance? Did the person start viewing the debate with a bias toward one of the participants, issues, or common ideology? Who was better looking, or more honest looking? Someone who is a poor public speaker is at a huge disadvantage, even if their ideas are far superior. If one participant is significantly better looking than their opponent, that gives them an advantage. Supposedly, one of the reasons JFK was viewed as the winner in his first debate with Nixon was that he looked better on TV. They say Kennedy won the debate with the TV audience and Nixon won with those listening on radio. Also, most people tend to support one side or the other before the debate even starts. Debates are not all that different from the "Trial by Combat" days. The victor in both is not necessarily determined by who is right, but by who puts on the stronger performance. We live in a time where people want quick answers with minimal effort on their part. For better or worse, that's what debates provide.

[ekenedilichukwumoses]

We all have a touch of all forms of these persons, but the awareness of these like this insightful video has exposed puts us in a place of consciousness when debating. And with others we can now know how to effectively have a meaningful debate.

Thank you for sharing this valuable video. Debating is really important topic and valuable on its own.