WEBVTT - Why Good Arguments Are Essential to Good Democracies

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:04.160
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg

0:00:04.200 --> 0:00:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well, our next guest, Um,

0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:11.800
<v Speaker 1>this next guest is you know, I feel like the

0:00:11.840 --> 0:00:16.720
<v Speaker 1>world needs to just stop and take his advice exactly.

0:00:16.840 --> 0:00:19.400
<v Speaker 1>He is a two time world champion debater, former coach

0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:22.599
<v Speaker 1>of the Australian national debating team and the Harvard College

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:26.439
<v Speaker 1>Debating Union. He's got a new book out bo so

0:00:26.600 --> 0:00:28.520
<v Speaker 1>as a journalist and an author. The book is called

0:00:28.520 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Good Arguments. How Debate teaches us to listen and be heard.

0:00:32.280 --> 0:00:34.880
<v Speaker 1>Bo joins us now via zoom from Washington, d C.

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:36.600
<v Speaker 1>But I want to get to the book in just

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:39.520
<v Speaker 1>a second. But how to take us through your journey?

0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:42.640
<v Speaker 1>Because it's really interesting. How did you become U two

0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:46.680
<v Speaker 1>time world champion for debating? Well, thanks so much for

0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>having me on the program. I started debating because I

0:00:51.479 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 1>moved as a kid from South Korea to Australia without

0:00:56.240 --> 0:00:59.680
<v Speaker 1>speaking a word of English, and I quickly found that

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:02.800
<v Speaker 1>the artest part of doing that was adjusting to real

0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:07.279
<v Speaker 1>life conversation where people can kind of mid sentence change

0:01:07.319 --> 0:01:11.200
<v Speaker 1>directions and spin you out. And the way I kind

0:01:11.200 --> 0:01:14.679
<v Speaker 1>of got over the shyness and the conflict of version.

0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>I felt was by joining the debate team of the

0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:20.959
<v Speaker 1>strength of a single promise from my elementary teacher, which

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:24.560
<v Speaker 1>was that when in debate, when one person speaks, no

0:01:24.600 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>one else does. Um. And to someone who had been

0:01:27.760 --> 0:01:31.560
<v Speaker 1>used to being spoken over and interrupted and taken out

0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:34.520
<v Speaker 1>of conversation, that seemed to me a kind of a

0:01:34.600 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>life raft. Um. And I've really been writing it ever since. Man,

0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:41.480
<v Speaker 1>it's just so relevant. It's a you know, we're producers

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:43.400
<v Speaker 1>are getting right here, like cross doc cross dog, like

0:01:43.520 --> 0:01:46.399
<v Speaker 1>let the person be heard. Um. But there is a

0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:49.000
<v Speaker 1>bigger message here, right in terms of an environment that

0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:53.000
<v Speaker 1>we sit in today, where you can't have different opinions,

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:55.000
<v Speaker 1>nobody wants to hear it, and everybody just kind of

0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:58.240
<v Speaker 1>shouts and yells at at each other. Um. You know,

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>how do you think about the world today and what

0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:06.360
<v Speaker 1>ails us? Well, we're living at a time of really

0:02:06.800 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 1>extraordinary polarization, and it's easy in times like that to

0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:15.040
<v Speaker 1>see disagreement as the source of our troubles. And what

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:18.919
<v Speaker 1>I'm trying to suggest with this book is disagreements can

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:22.560
<v Speaker 1>be a force for good, not only because they're useful

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.720
<v Speaker 1>in terms of finding out truths and ensuring people are

0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:28.480
<v Speaker 1>heard and and and we can be honest and frank

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:33.000
<v Speaker 1>and forthright with each other. But more importantly, because good

0:02:33.160 --> 0:02:38.320
<v Speaker 1>arguments what good democracies are, They're good work They're what

0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 1>good workplaces are, what good families are, that we, despite

0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 1>our differences, resolved to live together and instead of ignoring

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 1>our differences, to put them in conversation with one another

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:52.040
<v Speaker 1>with the hope that we might be able to get

0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:56.080
<v Speaker 1>somewhere deeper, somewhere better, somewhere richer than we might be

0:02:56.120 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>able to on our own. So my hope with this

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:03.440
<v Speaker 1>book is to restore people's confidence in what disagreements can do,

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:06.079
<v Speaker 1>and hopefully to give them a few skills that are

0:03:06.360 --> 0:03:08.240
<v Speaker 1>going to allow them to handle them a little bit

0:03:08.280 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 1>better too. I think that one thing that keeps people

0:03:10.840 --> 0:03:16.000
<v Speaker 1>back from the expressing disagreement in the workplace is perhaps

0:03:16.040 --> 0:03:19.400
<v Speaker 1>the way that we interpret how other people are going

0:03:19.440 --> 0:03:24.160
<v Speaker 1>to take that disagreement, the idea of people taking conflict personally. So,

0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:26.840
<v Speaker 1>but what's a good way to, you know, how should

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:31.000
<v Speaker 1>people express themselves in a way where they get to

0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:34.480
<v Speaker 1>that better place by disagreeing with one another? I think

0:03:34.480 --> 0:03:37.840
<v Speaker 1>that's a really important question. And debate is such a

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:40.440
<v Speaker 1>big part of the workplace now, isn't it, Because the

0:03:40.520 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 1>nature of modern wide collar work is just we sit

0:03:43.520 --> 0:03:46.560
<v Speaker 1>around in meetings and disagree all day um. And I

0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:49.640
<v Speaker 1>think the book gives a few different pieces of advice

0:03:49.920 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 1>for someone in that situation. I think the first is

0:03:53.000 --> 0:03:55.560
<v Speaker 1>you want to be really clear what the disagreement is about,

0:03:56.240 --> 0:04:00.440
<v Speaker 1>right and uh, to say, we're just having a conversation

0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:04.520
<v Speaker 1>about this higher or about this this business plan, as

0:04:04.520 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 1>opposed to all the other disagreements that we might have

0:04:08.040 --> 0:04:12.640
<v Speaker 1>flying around. As soon as there's that kind of imprecision

0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:16.840
<v Speaker 1>about what the conversation is about, it tends to become unruly,

0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:19.599
<v Speaker 1>and it tends to bring in personality, It tends to

0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>bring in all the things that has happened in the past.

0:04:22.400 --> 0:04:25.520
<v Speaker 1>So the first thing I would say is every disagreement

0:04:25.880 --> 0:04:29.080
<v Speaker 1>starts with an act of agreement, and that's often about

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:31.880
<v Speaker 1>what the discussion is about. The next thing that I

0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:34.040
<v Speaker 1>would add is you want to have the kind of

0:04:34.160 --> 0:04:38.760
<v Speaker 1>rules that we started our conversation with, so in competitive debate,

0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:42.680
<v Speaker 1>you know that everybody gets equal time in which to speak.

0:04:42.960 --> 0:04:46.640
<v Speaker 1>They're not interrupted while they're speaking and they're given turns

0:04:46.680 --> 0:04:49.159
<v Speaker 1>so that when I speak and I give you a

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:51.839
<v Speaker 1>chance to speak, there's no need for me to interrupt

0:04:51.960 --> 0:04:53.960
<v Speaker 1>because I know I'm going to get a turn back.

0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:57.040
<v Speaker 1>And restoring some of those basic rules I think can

0:04:57.080 --> 0:05:00.360
<v Speaker 1>make many of those conversations go more product to think,

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>it's a big part of this too, is that there

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have to be a winner or loser in the

0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:09.560
<v Speaker 1>conversation or in the debate. Absolutely um. And you know,

0:05:09.839 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 1>one of the things that you learn as a competitive

0:05:12.000 --> 0:05:16.040
<v Speaker 1>debater is wins and losses are temporary, you know, just

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:19.280
<v Speaker 1>the way it is in the workplace. You might take

0:05:19.320 --> 0:05:22.520
<v Speaker 1>a w in this particular conversation or a loss in

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:26.719
<v Speaker 1>this particular conversation, but your coworkers aren't going anywhere right,

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:28.880
<v Speaker 1>and so they're going to be back the next day

0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:32.440
<v Speaker 1>or the next week, the next month with a different

0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 1>issue where you're on going to be on different sides,

0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:38.680
<v Speaker 1>sometimes allied, sometimes on opposing sides. So I think the

0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 1>real lesson, in addition to taking seriously the needs sometimes

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:46.320
<v Speaker 1>to prevail in arguments and to stick up for yourself

0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:49.640
<v Speaker 1>and to carry your message, is to recognize what we

0:05:49.720 --> 0:05:52.200
<v Speaker 1>all need is a set of rules, a set of

0:05:52.200 --> 0:05:55.839
<v Speaker 1>practices that allows us to keep the conversation going in

0:05:55.880 --> 0:05:59.120
<v Speaker 1>the long term and for the betterment of our organizations

0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:02.039
<v Speaker 1>and for the betterment of ourselves. I have to you know,

0:06:02.080 --> 0:06:05.760
<v Speaker 1>I think about presidential debates or political debates like do

0:06:05.800 --> 0:06:07.359
<v Speaker 1>you do You watch them and you say, well, this

0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:10.000
<v Speaker 1>isn't a debate, this is just a show. No, seriously, right,

0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:12.440
<v Speaker 1>Like people don't have a chance to kind of say things.

0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:16.800
<v Speaker 1>There's constantly somebody jumping in and that's not a debate,

0:06:16.920 --> 0:06:18.840
<v Speaker 1>or is it? I think I think that's exactly right.

0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:23.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't think they are debates and something isn't a

0:06:23.440 --> 0:06:26.360
<v Speaker 1>debate just because it's called a debate, or because two

0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:29.479
<v Speaker 1>people are standing at an awkward distance from each other

0:06:29.560 --> 0:06:32.680
<v Speaker 1>at different podiums, right, Um. And I think often what

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:36.240
<v Speaker 1>happens in those debates is UM, one or more of

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 1>the participants turns what would otherwise be a debate into

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>a kind of a brawl, right where it's a kind

0:06:42.839 --> 0:06:45.960
<v Speaker 1>of a shouting match or a name calling game. And

0:06:46.120 --> 0:06:50.839
<v Speaker 1>it becomes really important, UM, in those moments to pause,

0:06:50.960 --> 0:06:53.840
<v Speaker 1>as you said at the at the top of the program,

0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:58.040
<v Speaker 1>to say, to identify what is happening, to name the

0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 1>kinds of tactics that are being you, whether it be

0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>name calling and something like that, and to say is

0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:05.800
<v Speaker 1>it a debate that we're having or is it something else?

0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:11.240
<v Speaker 1>Because without that kind of a check um, what begins

0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:13.920
<v Speaker 1>as a debate can devolve into something worse. And we

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:16.720
<v Speaker 1>see that not only on the presidential stage, but we

0:07:16.760 --> 0:07:20.000
<v Speaker 1>see that around the kitchen table and with our families

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:23.040
<v Speaker 1>and our loved ones, and we see it at workplaces

0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:25.560
<v Speaker 1>all the time. We're going to continue the conversation both

0:07:25.560 --> 0:07:26.920
<v Speaker 1>sits for a second. We've just got to do a

0:07:26.920 --> 0:07:28.480
<v Speaker 1>little bit of news. I have to say, I love

0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 1>and just reading some of the prep materials that you know.

0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>It was because as a shy kid like this was giving.

0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 1>As he talked about, you know, debate gave him a

0:07:38.200 --> 0:07:40.400
<v Speaker 1>safe space where he could be heard. And I have

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:43.080
<v Speaker 1>to say, I'm one of seven people who listen to

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:45.600
<v Speaker 1>our show or watch it know that. And I was

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:48.920
<v Speaker 1>a really extremely shy kid. Probably hard to believe at

0:07:48.920 --> 0:07:52.320
<v Speaker 1>this point, but I was, and in college got into

0:07:52.440 --> 0:07:54.760
<v Speaker 1>radio because it was an opportunity for my voice to

0:07:54.760 --> 0:07:57.800
<v Speaker 1>be heard. Nobody could to me until you met me,

0:07:58.040 --> 0:07:59.560
<v Speaker 1>and then I can just interrupt you all the time

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 1>a very kind, You're actually very gracious. I want to

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 1>get right back to Boast. So he's a journalist, he's

0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:08.040
<v Speaker 1>an author. He's got a brand new book out. It

0:08:08.080 --> 0:08:10.480
<v Speaker 1>came out this week. It's called Good Arguments. How Debate

0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 1>teaches us to listen and be heard. He's got some

0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:15.680
<v Speaker 1>great tips in here on how to not just be heard,

0:08:15.680 --> 0:08:17.640
<v Speaker 1>but how to listen, because that's a really important part

0:08:17.960 --> 0:08:20.520
<v Speaker 1>of any debate. Bo Carol and I were talking about

0:08:20.560 --> 0:08:22.600
<v Speaker 1>where we wanted to take this, and we both you know,

0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:25.440
<v Speaker 1>said at the same time, social media is what we

0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:28.320
<v Speaker 1>want to talk about, because you know, there's the idea

0:08:28.360 --> 0:08:31.200
<v Speaker 1>of getting stuck in a canoe with somebody on Twitter

0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and you just can't get out of it, this idea

0:08:34.240 --> 0:08:37.720
<v Speaker 1>of you getting an argument, you have anonymous people replying

0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:40.320
<v Speaker 1>to you. How do you deal with this on social media?

0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Do you just get off and you just ignore it

0:08:42.520 --> 0:08:44.439
<v Speaker 1>and just close it up and say I'm not even

0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:49.199
<v Speaker 1>going to participate because that's what I feel like doing sometimes. Yeah,

0:08:49.360 --> 0:08:51.800
<v Speaker 1>I think the you know, one thing about being a

0:08:51.840 --> 0:08:54.240
<v Speaker 1>debate or is it makes you very sensitive to the

0:08:54.360 --> 0:08:58.720
<v Speaker 1>acoustics of the room that you're talking about, and uh

0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:03.040
<v Speaker 1>that you're talking in and social media presents a lot

0:09:03.040 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 1>of challenges in that regard, where whereas in a kind

0:09:06.280 --> 0:09:10.199
<v Speaker 1>of a face to face conversation you're being heard equally,

0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:14.719
<v Speaker 1>on social media, the most divisive content tends to be prioritized,

0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:18.520
<v Speaker 1>even though I'm debating you or talking with you, it's

0:09:18.520 --> 0:09:21.600
<v Speaker 1>sometimes for the benefit of an audience, right, and it's

0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:24.760
<v Speaker 1>actually kind of talking past you in that way. So

0:09:24.960 --> 0:09:28.320
<v Speaker 1>I actually tend to think that, um, social media the

0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:32.280
<v Speaker 1>way it's currently designed is pretty inappropriate for the kind

0:09:32.320 --> 0:09:36.520
<v Speaker 1>of debate that I'm advocating, and that UM in that regard,

0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:39.079
<v Speaker 1>you know, it may well be that social media has

0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:42.560
<v Speaker 1>other contributions to make, whether it be finding out information

0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:45.840
<v Speaker 1>or it may actually be quite good at gathering like

0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:50.000
<v Speaker 1>minded communities, which it seems to do with extraordinary effectiveness.

0:09:50.040 --> 0:09:52.880
<v Speaker 1>But I'm suggesting that there may be other better channels,

0:09:52.920 --> 0:09:56.680
<v Speaker 1>such as face to face conversation and public discussions, to

0:09:56.760 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 1>be able to have the kinds of disagreements, UM, that

0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:02.720
<v Speaker 1>I'm advocating for. You know, about what kind of takes

0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:04.920
<v Speaker 1>me off sometimes is when someone I'm having a discussion,

0:10:04.960 --> 0:10:06.640
<v Speaker 1>we don't agree, and then the person who says, well,

0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:08.200
<v Speaker 1>we're just gonna have to agree to disagree and then

0:10:08.240 --> 0:10:10.640
<v Speaker 1>it's done. And like wait a minute, like you just

0:10:10.679 --> 0:10:15.280
<v Speaker 1>stop the conversation. Like that to me is not productive either,

0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:18.040
<v Speaker 1>so help me, Like you have a chapter how to

0:10:18.080 --> 0:10:21.600
<v Speaker 1>know when to disagree, So help me here. I agree

0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:24.480
<v Speaker 1>with that completely and um, And it does feel like

0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:26.880
<v Speaker 1>a kind of resignation, doesn't it, And a vote of

0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:30.440
<v Speaker 1>no confidence, um, not only in oneself but in the

0:10:30.480 --> 0:10:32.680
<v Speaker 1>other person, because it is kind of saying to you,

0:10:33.160 --> 0:10:35.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't trust you to be able to handle this

0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>conversation very well. And I think the need for that

0:10:39.720 --> 0:10:43.400
<v Speaker 1>declines the more of us and the more of our

0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:48.080
<v Speaker 1>population develops the skills of good argument. Um. But that's

0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:50.760
<v Speaker 1>not to say that you should be arguing about everything

0:10:50.840 --> 0:10:53.680
<v Speaker 1>under the sun either. And in the book, I provide

0:10:53.679 --> 0:10:56.360
<v Speaker 1>a kind of a checklist, uh. I call it the

0:10:56.440 --> 0:11:00.080
<v Speaker 1>Ristar checklist, where I encourage people to ask where that

0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:03.480
<v Speaker 1>the disagreement in front of them is real, whether it's

0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:07.199
<v Speaker 1>important enough, whether it's specific so you're not talking about

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:10.520
<v Speaker 1>everything in one go, and whether the two sides are

0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:14.320
<v Speaker 1>aligned in their objectives for the having the discussion. And

0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:17.240
<v Speaker 1>that's a kind of a way to um, stop us

0:11:17.320 --> 0:11:20.800
<v Speaker 1>from jumping into a dispute out of defensiveness or pride,

0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:23.760
<v Speaker 1>but rather to be a little bit more deliberate. Um.

0:11:23.840 --> 0:11:27.160
<v Speaker 1>But I share the concern exactly that that when when

0:11:27.200 --> 0:11:30.440
<v Speaker 1>they say, you know, let's just agree to disagree or

0:11:30.640 --> 0:11:35.200
<v Speaker 1>or even or even just sort of not politely and um,

0:11:35.000 --> 0:11:39.120
<v Speaker 1>And where a smile, that's not really a smile. Um.

0:11:39.160 --> 0:11:41.520
<v Speaker 1>It's a kind of you know, a decision not to

0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:46.120
<v Speaker 1>be involved with the other person and to take a

0:11:46.200 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 1>relationship further exactly exactly. And it's and it's and it's

0:11:50.040 --> 0:11:53.600
<v Speaker 1>the kind of standing at a distance. You know that

0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:57.400
<v Speaker 1>that I fear perhaps even worse than just outright conflict,

0:11:57.480 --> 0:12:00.560
<v Speaker 1>because then you can see the differences between people. Is

0:12:00.559 --> 0:12:03.400
<v Speaker 1>when we have contempt for one another, when we stand

0:12:03.440 --> 0:12:06.040
<v Speaker 1>at a distance from one another. But what about when

0:12:06.040 --> 0:12:09.600
<v Speaker 1>it comes to bad faith arguments? If if somebody is

0:12:10.120 --> 0:12:11.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, is making a bad faith argument. And I'm

0:12:12.040 --> 0:12:16.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, thinking of Washington, d C. Yeah, I'm really

0:12:16.240 --> 0:12:19.960
<v Speaker 1>thinking of politics and what we see. Yeah, I know,

0:12:20.080 --> 0:12:23.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm not even going to hide it. But book, what

0:12:23.480 --> 0:12:25.800
<v Speaker 1>do you recommend to people who actually want to get

0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:29.600
<v Speaker 1>something done in Washington? How should they be approaching these discussions,

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:34.120
<v Speaker 1>these arguments? I think The first um and most practical

0:12:34.200 --> 0:12:38.160
<v Speaker 1>step that I recommend in the book is to understand

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:40.719
<v Speaker 1>the tactics of bad faith debaters. And one of them,

0:12:40.720 --> 0:12:44.360
<v Speaker 1>as you say, is lying. And one thing about lies

0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:47.199
<v Speaker 1>is they don't just lie once. They lie many times,

0:12:47.360 --> 0:12:50.679
<v Speaker 1>right in a deluge that kind of overwhelms you. And

0:12:50.720 --> 0:12:52.880
<v Speaker 1>one of the things that debaters know to do is

0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:55.920
<v Speaker 1>to pick a representative lie, to fit it in with

0:12:55.960 --> 0:12:58.679
<v Speaker 1>other things that we know to be true, to show

0:12:58.720 --> 0:13:02.120
<v Speaker 1>why it's inaccurate, and then to explain why that's kind

0:13:02.160 --> 0:13:06.000
<v Speaker 1>of symptomatic of how that person is approaching the discussion,

0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:08.600
<v Speaker 1>and again to return to a point we made earlier.

0:13:08.640 --> 0:13:12.560
<v Speaker 1>It's a way to pause and to say this kind

0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:15.640
<v Speaker 1>of tactic is unacceptable in the discussions that we're having.

0:13:15.679 --> 0:13:19.920
<v Speaker 1>Of course, those tactics on their own are not going

0:13:19.960 --> 0:13:21.960
<v Speaker 1>to be enough to deal with a lot of the

0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:24.880
<v Speaker 1>problems of bad faith that we have, but they are

0:13:25.160 --> 0:13:28.240
<v Speaker 1>individually empowering and they are a way to restore the

0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:30.760
<v Speaker 1>conditions of debate. I think one challenge here, and again

0:13:30.760 --> 0:13:33.040
<v Speaker 1>i'm thinking about Washington, is a lot of these bad

0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:36.560
<v Speaker 1>faith arguments happen when there's really no other side to

0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:40.160
<v Speaker 1>debate that person, because everybody lives in their own universe

0:13:40.200 --> 0:13:42.679
<v Speaker 1>these days, so you have you know, people go on

0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 1>prime time talk shows on certain networks, for example, and

0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:49.000
<v Speaker 1>they're not challenged necessarily to a debate. They're kind of

0:13:49.000 --> 0:13:52.080
<v Speaker 1>just allowed to say whatever they want and then that

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:55.200
<v Speaker 1>clip goes viral and they get their point across. And

0:13:55.240 --> 0:13:57.000
<v Speaker 1>that's the world that we're living in. So so how

0:13:57.000 --> 0:14:00.360
<v Speaker 1>does somebody on the other side, then, you know, respond

0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:03.679
<v Speaker 1>to something like that. I think that I think you're diagnosis.

0:14:03.720 --> 0:14:09.360
<v Speaker 1>I agree with completely that misinformation that extreme views flourish

0:14:09.440 --> 0:14:12.800
<v Speaker 1>in situations where there's no person to challenge them, right,

0:14:13.000 --> 0:14:16.360
<v Speaker 1>and and where it's like minded people egging each other on.

0:14:16.679 --> 0:14:20.040
<v Speaker 1>So part of the argument that I'm making is there

0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:24.120
<v Speaker 1>should be more debate day to day, right and so, um,

0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:27.440
<v Speaker 1>I think we're often losing confidence in our ability to

0:14:27.560 --> 0:14:31.120
<v Speaker 1>persuade other people, in our ability even at Thanksgiving dinner,

0:14:31.200 --> 0:14:35.360
<v Speaker 1>to challenge a relative, to have a conversation about their beliefs,

0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:37.480
<v Speaker 1>or to be able to do that in schools in

0:14:37.520 --> 0:14:40.120
<v Speaker 1>other settings. And I think that's don't hit me because

0:14:40.120 --> 0:14:43.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm interrupted you because but Tim and I like kind

0:14:43.760 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 1>of behind the scenes, it's like, you know, the conversation

0:14:46.520 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 1>made after right now for not banning guns because people

0:14:49.880 --> 0:14:53.000
<v Speaker 1>are saying, well, we didn't ban airplanes after nine eleven.

0:14:55.200 --> 0:14:58.680
<v Speaker 1>It's ridiculous. But so how do you have an intelligent

0:14:58.720 --> 0:15:01.200
<v Speaker 1>debate around that? And we've all get about three seconds left,

0:15:01.200 --> 0:15:03.720
<v Speaker 1>we'll have you back in. I think the best thing

0:15:03.800 --> 0:15:07.080
<v Speaker 1>you can do is to set a single topic, to say,

0:15:07.240 --> 0:15:10.680
<v Speaker 1>here is the narrow issue within the broader universe of

0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:14.320
<v Speaker 1>things we could be talking about, To take turns right,

0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:17.840
<v Speaker 1>to guarantee people an equal opportunity to speak, and to

0:15:18.120 --> 0:15:21.000
<v Speaker 1>hold them accountable on what they say, and to pursue

0:15:21.080 --> 0:15:25.200
<v Speaker 1>each idea fully rather than letting people slide across different positions.

0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:28.280
<v Speaker 1>So much fun, so engaging. Who would have thought that

0:15:28.320 --> 0:15:31.040
<v Speaker 1>a two time world debate champion would be such a

0:15:31.040 --> 0:15:34.080
<v Speaker 1>great guest on Bloomberg Business Week Radio. Our producer Paul Brenne,

0:15:34.200 --> 0:15:37.320
<v Speaker 1>of course, so great to have you here. Um both,

0:15:37.320 --> 0:15:39.920
<v Speaker 1>so thank you so much. Check out his book Good Arguments,

0:15:39.920 --> 0:15:42.560
<v Speaker 1>How Debate teaches us to listen and be heard, folks,

0:15:42.600 --> 0:15:45.040
<v Speaker 1>this is what we need. Have a good safe evening.

0:15:45.120 --> 0:15:47.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm Carol Master along with Tim Stanivic. This is Bloomberg