Debate Like a World Champion: A Conversation with Bo Seo, Harvard Debate Coach & Global Debate Champion

Clea Conner

Welcome to Intelligence Squared this evening. Uh, this is a very special program for us. I’m Clea Conner. I’m the CEO of Intelligence Squared. I’m so excited to welcome you here. For, for more than 15 years, you know, our core mission has been to really elevate discourse with the understanding that hearing two sides, hearing opposing points of view, is good for society. Well, that’s up for debate on its own.

Tonight we’re bringing you insights from one of the world’s most celebrated debaters, Bo Seo, two-time world debate champion, former coach of the Australian National Debating Team and the Harvard College Debating Union. Um, he is the author of a new book called, Good Arguments. Disagreements everywhere and how do we do it without becoming disagreeable. Bo is here to teach us how to do that. He’s gonna talk about the role of active listening in debate and, uh, teach us how to disagree well.

Last point, I know we wanna get started, one thing we can agree on, America needs more debate now than ever, um, so we’re excited to bring you this program. So, without further ado, I’m pleased to introduce and bring to the virtual stage our host, John Donvan, who is, as I like to say, America’s most experienced debate moderator in history, coming to the table with a debate champion. So we’re very excited. Hi, John. Let’s get started.

John Donvan

Hi, Clea. Um, so I’m gonna talk about the experience I’ve just had a view over the last five days when, uh, I picked up a copy of your book. I, I, I, I wanna say it was a really, really fascinating read because it’s not only a contemplation on the role of debate in the present time, but it’s also, uh, an autobiography and your autobiography is r- really, really, in itself, riveting. I, I, it was interesting when I saw in the closing section of the book, you sort of sum things up with what sounded to me like a little bit of a note of melancholy. You wrote, To change the world, debate has to first change the lives of debaters and in this book I have told the story of how it changed my life. Debate gave me a voice when I had none. It taught me how to argue for my interests, to respond to opponents, to use words, to lose with grace, to pick my battles. As far as transformations of the world go, this is minuscule but, for me, it was everything.

Now (laughs), that sounds like an awful lot of rehabilitation (laughs) needed to be one on your life through debate. Eh, I, I, I’d like you to sort of unpack that and tell us where you come from, where you’ve been and how debate intersected with everything that you’ve become now.

Bo Seo

Well, thank you so much, John and Clea, and for the organization for having me. I’m a huge admirer of this program and, uh, it’s wonderful to be with fellow travelers in a sense.

Um, you know, you might need a psychologist’s chair to see where the choice of (laughs) melancholy came from. Um, but it’s probably rooted in my biography. I mean, I moved to Australia from South Korea when I was eight years old without speaking the English language. And I quickly learned that the hardest part of crossing language lines like that is adjusting to real life conversation, to the jagged rhythms, to the way in which people pivot mid-sentence kinda throwing you out of whack. And all of those difficulties tend to compound when it’s a disagreement because passions tend to run high, you get the sense there’s something really at stakes, um, and people’s facial expressions kinda stop matching what’s coming out of their mouths. And, um, Australians have a difficult time with pronunciation at the best of times (laughs) and, um, uh, when they’re arguing, it gets worse.

And so, you know, in and amongst all that difficulty, I kind of resolved at a time that arguments were no longer worth it, that I would keep to myself. Um-

John Donvan

When you were how, when you were h- a young child?

Bo Seo

… I was eight. Yeah. And even then I sort of understood that it’s easier to just wear a kind of a distant smile, um, and just nod along, you know? And, and, you know, I wouldn’t have had the vocabulary then, but I think part of it is the experience of being an immigrant for me that you get the sense that you’re being welcomed in a place can sometimes feel a bit conditional, right? That, that you’re a- you’re welcome to an extent, um, that you don’t speak up too much or you don’t rock the boat too much. And so I decided this was, you know, this was likely how I was gonna live my life.

And that changed for me in the fifth grade when my primary school teacher encouraged me to join the debate team and I made that decision on the strength of one promise which was, that in debate, when one person speaks, no one else does, right? And to someone who had been spoken over, interrupted, thrown out of the conversation, um, that promise sounded like a kind of mercy. And, um, I ended up, uh, chasing it, you know, all around the world and, and I’ve given most of my relatively short life, um, to this activity.

And, you know, when you’re writing a book, I think you, you wanna say, you know, this is it (laughs), and you wanna, you wanna shake everyone on the street and say, “I’ve found the answer.”

John Donvan

Yeah.

Bo Seo

And, uh, and I’m sure I haven’t, you know? Um, and, and, and in, in the really daunting list of challenges that Clea laid out, there’s so much work that has to be done and so many different things that we need to do to come together as a society again, to come together as nations again, but I know from my experience that the power of this activity to empower individuals to speak up, to be able to engage others with respect, to be able to come together in conversation and leave with unexpected answers that you didn’t think you might arrive at, um, that’s a way of slowly changing the world. And so, the melancholy comes from the fact for me, John, i- in that, the change that we effect is always going to be very small. It’s going to between-

John Donvan

You mean, you mean we, we debaters is what you’re saying?

Bo Seo

We debaters, yeah. It’s going to be about small changes in ourselves, small changes in the person across from us. But it c- if you can imagine everybody in the world engaging in these discussions, doing slightly better at the family dining room table or at work or out there in the public square, I have to think and, and at this point it is just optimism, but I had to, I had to think that that’s going to nudge the world in a more positive direction.

John Donvan

So from, what I heard you say was, at the very beginning, because structurally debate as you put it means one person talks and nobody else talks during that time, for you it was, the satisfaction was in being heard, having your opinion heard. But there’s another aspect that’s key to debate and to the kind of debate that you went into, which was com- competitive debate. Number one, it’s a contest. Number two, you’re not just trying to be heard, but you’re actively, as you just put it, trying to change the world a little bit. You’re trying to change someone’s mind. So talk about how it is more than just being heard and, and what, what about that appealed to you? I’m, I’m guessing it was that the competition forced you to just get better at it, but maybe there’s, maybe you liked competing, too?

Bo Seo

I did. I did. And, you know, sometimes with these kinds of discussions on, on civil dialog and so on, I think sometimes it requires us to be kind of angelic, you know? To be kind of infinitely patient to, um, uh, to just take in the information and so on. But, you know, there is a part of it which is, um, curiosity about how your ideas will be received and kind of like a pinball machine, when it bounces up against the other person, it’s gonna come back to you in a different direction, right?

And so, that process of evolution and trying to stay ahead, and, and, you know, in, in a debate, often, um, John, I don’t know whether you feel this as a moderator, but the experience of competing usually isn’t like, gosh, I really wanna crush the other side. You’re usually trying to just keep up with the, with the, with the pace of which the ideas develop and you’re kind of just trying to see whether you can respond to this next idea, whether you can involve your thinking in a way that s- is going to be responsive to the other person’s concern.

And so, um, that experience of competition for me was important partly, I’m sure, because there is a, a part of me that’s competitive, that wants to do well. But another part of me that just saw the joy of the transformation unfolding before me. And that, that, that kind of progression and that propulsive force, um, felt to me like a kind of progress.

John Donvan

The reason the question comes up for me in light of the conversation that, that Clea has laid out is that, if we w- if we want to talk about debate as an avenue, good debate, good debate, as an avenue toward, uh, ratcheting down the polarization, you also need to be willing to change your mind. You need to be debated at and persuaded.

And we frame in Intelligence Squared, our debates are framed as, uh, or, or have been traditionally, as win-lose, that you’re, you, you are trying to win and your competitive career was about trying to win. You, you were not on stage there t- you were listening closely to your opponents looking for weaknesses and for strategic, uh, opportunities, tactical opportunities. But what we’re really talking about though is a kind of way to argue in society that’s not competitive, I would think. That it’s, it’s not competitive. It’s a way to have a conversation from opposing points of view that can be respectful and taking the competitive element out of it which means being able to change your mind without feeling like a loser because you cha- you shifted ground somewhat.

Bo Seo

Yes, yes. That’s, that’s a really, really rich thought. And actually, um, one common refrain you hear from debaters and, um, John, the debate you moderated between I, IBM’s project debater and the human, I spoke to the chief scientist behind that for the book. And he said, he spent all these years of his life wanting to get the W, right? Wanting to get the win over humans. And what he said was, he realized after the debate that that was so not the point. And you, this is something that you hear from debaters all the time, that we spend so many years of our lives obsessed with taking on the victory that I think what you learn as a debater is that victories are very fleeting, right?

John Donvan

Mm.

Bo Seo

So at the world championships, there were 500 teams competing, it becomes knockout, so 499 teams lose. One wins, right? And I was in the 499 every time, except twice (laughs).

John Donvan

(laughs)

Bo Seo

And, and, uh, and the one time I managed to pull through, the next day you get home and you have an argument with your roommate (laughs) who has never debated a day in his life and he wins because he’s right. (laughs)

John Donvan

I’m John Donvan. This is Intelligence Squared U.S. More when we return.

Welcome back to Intelligence Squared U.S. I’m your host, John Donvan. Let’s get back to our conversation.

Bo Seo

The experience of being debater is the experience of becoming very accustomed to loss. So then I said, winning is not the point so then what is? I think what the point is, is that in debate you know that even the people that you beat are gonna be back the next day or the next week or the next month on a different topic, on a different side, with different arguments, probably improved through the last course of your last encounter and you’re going to have to start again. So you’re going to have to learn to disagree in such a way that keeps the conversation going, right? And that keeps both sides willing to come back. And for me, that’s the kind of goal. Um, and that’s the, the most basic goal that I have of the book is inspiring people and, and, and hopefully teaching, to the extent that I can, people to disagree in such a way that they think it was worth it and that they would do it again.

John Donvan

Eh, there was something you said in the book that I found really interesting which was that one of your favorite views in terms of the way people talk to each other is ABC News’s, The View. Um, so the, the show that has been on, uh, for 20 years, started by Barbara Walters. It’s usually, it’s a group of four women who disagree on topics, kinda kicking around a subject. And you are a big fan of The View (laughs) and I wanna see what’s going on, on those couches that you really like.

Bo Seo

(laughs) I have to say, I was quite young when I got into it. Um, I was in middle school and I felt that those co-hosts and they’re, I think they’re all women, um, they were doing something really quite amazing which is, here was a show where they knew, and the point of their gathering was to disagree, right? And to disagree about everything actually. Um, and, and-

John Donvan

And, and mean it, by the way. They were not posturing.

Bo Seo

… and sometimes they’d leave, you know? (laughs) Mid-show. (laughs) And, uh, and there’s not many of them so if they leave, it’s quite noticeable. And, uh, but they always come back the next day and there’s no, um, and there’s a kind of a high and low thing, right? They’ll argue about the politics of the day and then argue about what Britney Spears is up to. And it was the repetition of it that I thought was amazing, that they would be able to argue at, at really quick high octa- at a, quite a high octane pitch. But there was something about that, um, about their relationship, about the way in which they dealt with e- each other, that they had fi- found a kind of a common groove and a common rhythm that allowed them to come back day and day in again and, and, and importantly and amazingly, keep people watching.

And, um, you guys lived this out in a very different way obviously in this series but, to have people want to come and watch people disagree, um, is for me, a source of enormous hope because even at a time when disagreements are seen as a kind of a source of division and ugly and something to shy away from, um, people still do see the value in it.

John Donvan

A- a- and there’s also something to be said just about the idea that, even by engaging in an argument with another person, you’re demonstrating a gesture of respect for that person, that you will spend the time engaging. And now, now that’s not true of all arguments. There can be some very nasty arguments, uh, at the moment of a fender bender or something like that. And, um, um, and in, uh, some p- political settings that we’ve seen in the last couple of years. But that, by and large, would you say that the willingness to, to, to, to disagree with somebody, particularly if the two of you come at it in good faith, is actually a show of respect for one another?

Bo Seo

Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, I used to think that the willingness to engage in debate was a kind of a note of confidence in yourself, right? In your ability to handle it and, and to express yourself well. But nowadays, I think it’s more of a vote of confidence in the other person to receive you with some grace, to be able to respond and, and, and, and make something productive out of the exchange. And for me, um, it matters that we try and debate a lot because, you know, the wins and losses feel extremely consequential if we debate like once a year, right? But once we, but if there is a kind of repetition and there are many rounds and we disagree about lots of different things and, and, and we have different performances, the individual wins and losses become less threatening and it becomes more about the quality of the conversation that we have overall.

John Donvan

I wanna quote from your book again. One common criticism of debate is that it is too adversarial. The linguist, Deborah Tannen, famously decried what she described as, “an argument culture which pries debate over dialog and thus blanketed society in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention.” Atmosphere of unrelenting contention is her phrase.

So in the context that we’re talking about now where we’re gonna move into this conversation with the idea that disagreement if, first of all, natural. It’s inherent, it’s unavoidable. But doing it well can be beneficial. I think you believe that and you are arguing for that. But what about Deborah Tannen’s point that argument has a bad rap? Uh, and debate has a bad rap for the very reason, again, that Clea went to in the beginning, that it, it, it threatens to feel like, um, a match thrown onto the fi- uh, thrown onto a bale of hay, uh, where the bale of hay is already ready to go up. I totally messed up that metaphor, but I think-

Bo Seo

(laughs)

John Donvan

… you’re gonna help me get out of it. (laughs)

Bo Seo

(laughs) Um, i- it’s a really serious critique, right, from Deborah Tannen. And, and, and I wanted to take it seriously in the book and to engage with it carefully. And the idea is, this kind of adversarial ethic, um, turns people off of conversation that it can be counterproductive. The answer I come to is, and what she’s describing is a culture of bad disagreement. That the opposite of bad disagreement need not be agreement, but it can be good disagreement. And I’m not sure we’ve seen outside of small pockets of civil societies, the school networks where debate proliferates, what a culture built around good disagreements look like, looks like, right? And I’m really excited by the possibility of that culture. It’s a different kind of argument culture, isn’t it?

And, um, and at this time, I think we’re seeing kind of two cultural forces at work. One is the culture of bad disagreement, right? Which is people shouting across at each other. And the resistance to that is a culture that favors sorting essentially of like gathering with like, of organizing, of finding your people, um, of, of, of gathering with, with, with like-minded individuals. And I wanna sort of say against both of those, there should be a third culture that’s based around good disagreements. Um, and as I say, I’m excited to see what that might look like.

John Donvan

So, I, I wanna move on in a moment to making all of this personal, the, the Thanksgiving table conversation challenge that we’re talking about. But one more moment on a part of this conversation that’s political and you talk about, you do talk about the top, the idea that certain topics should not be on the table for debate. And in some cases that’s because of the offense that they might bring to individuals who are challenged by the very premise of the debate itself.

Um, you’re, to, to go back to your book, um, you were talking about the disruption, that kind of disruption, the weight of that disruption would, could land more heavily on those for whom the debate was raw and personal. As debaters, we had to be attentive to these people, not because they were, quote, snowflakes, a term of derision meaning an overly sensitive person, but because they were human, prone to hurt and exhaustion. We had to think less about the freedom to disagree than about the responsibility to disagree well. This goes directly to the conversation that’s taking place about what’s happening on college campuses and whether certain th- certain, uh, i- it’s often phrased as whether this certain speaker should be brought on campus. But I wanna put it on, in a different framework or whether this certain topic should be entertained as debatable or not. And I wanna know what your thinking is on that.

We did a debate, for example, uh, we held it at the Harvard Law School five years ago, six years ago, where the resolution was affirmative action has outlived its usefulness. And the debate went fine. But, um, I could imagine that in today’s, uh, in, in the, in the present moment, that a resolution might be challenged as very, very, um, as you said, disruptive for, for people who, uh, believe in it and have benefited from affirmative action and its policies.

So where, where are you on when you can’t debate a topic or when you can’t expect an individual to participate in a debate? It’s a very tough topic.

Bo Seo

It’s a really, it’s a really, really difficult issue. Um, and the only real bright line that I draw in the book is, a debate cannot question the equal moral worth of the participants. Because the whole point of debate is, you’re given equal opportunity and equal time to speak because you have equal worth as individuals. So I don’t think it would be acceptable to have a debate saying certain races are inferior to others, pro or con, for example. And, and, and for me, that would be a bright line. The passage that you’re, you’re describing about sensitivity to the burdens is more of a consideration that I think, um, is something we need to think about. We also have to think about when we, as institutions, um, stage debates, the kind of legitimacy that lend in suggesting there are two sides to this issue, right? So that’s another issue that we might have to think about in the way that media companies, uh-

John Donvan

But that, but that judgment is ultimately political. It is ultimately a judgment call. Yeah.

Bo Seo

Of course it is. Yeah, of course it is. And, and, and, and I think one thing I, I would add here, John, is the fact that these ki- some things may not be appropriate subjects for debate does not mean we should stop speech on it necessarily, right? So there are lots of different ways in which we can talk about something. And there are instances where simply sharing our views might be appropriate where, um, uh, uh, or having kind of, you know, dueling perspectives presented, but not in a kind of an adversarial debate format might be more appropriate. There are other times when you just have to negotiate, for example. And that’s far beyond the same thing as debating.

So, this is a book about debate. The higher level question that it answers is, how can we disagree better? The higher level question above that is, how do we deal with the fact that we’re all different but we have to co-exist? And at each turn, disagreement is not the only answer to coexistence, debate is not the only way in which we can disagree. And so there are some instances where debate is appropriate. And, and I think, you know, there’s lots of different ideas, um, all of them worth canvassing about where we might draw the line. But I’ve given you a sense of where I might. But that’s not to say we, we shouldn’t talk about those issues. It’s that we shouldn’t debate about ’em.

John Donvan

All right. Well let’s, let’s bring this then to some news you can use (laughs) for-

Bo Seo

Okay.

John Donvan

… for the, uh-

Bo Seo

(laughs)

John Donvan

… for, for, for, for, for us who are not gonna get on a debate stage and we’re gonna stick to our views, we think, at the beginning of a conversation or a disagreement, um, what, what’s, what’s the guidance you offer to us regular folks about getting through awkward moments where we, you know, I, I, I wanna almost say we’re gonna negotiate, but when you, we are not talking about a negotiation. We’re talking about an expression of views with the idea to p- persuade. So take us through your prescriptions for the rest of us.

Bo Seo

I’ll give a couple of examples. So the first half of the book is structured as what I call the basic elements of debate. And that starts with topic, identifying what the disagreement is about. It goes through building an argument, responding to the argument, using rhetoric which we’ve discussed a little bit before, and finally, um, picking your battles even within disagreements of, of when to disagree or not. And, uh, I’ll give you an example from the first chapter to do with topics and, um, you know, it’s so often the case that in the disagreements that we have at home, what begins as just a kind of a disagreement about the dirty dishes, then becomes, you know, this thing that happened last week or, you know, something your mother-in-law or father-in-law did, um, or the sense that you’re not listening to me, or it, it tends to compound, doesn’t it? And one of the starting points in debate, um, and, and I see it in the Intelligence Squared debates as well is, naming what the dis- the, what the debate is about and that’s the topic. So that you’re able to say, um, all of those other things that you’re talking about, my personality (laughs) included, might be fitting subject for debate at some other time, but it’s just not the debate that we’re having right now.

John Donvan

I disagree with that. What if (laughs), what if (laughs), I, I, I mean, I, I’m bringing that up because you might en- one might encounter resistance to that formulation at the outset.

Bo Seo

Yes. For sure. And, and for sure, and that is an, an instance where you probably do have to negotiate prior to the start of the disagreement, right? So, um, every d- disagreement in my view should start with some amount of agreement. And that’s thin agreement about what you’re actually talking about which is to say, what you’re not talking about, and how you’re going to go about having that disagreement. And so, um, being deliberate in that way of choosing what we’re talking about given the time that we have, given the, the, the, the situation in which we’re facing off against each other, I think that really increases the chance of it, of the disagreement going right.

John Donvan

What, what about learning how to interrupt? That’s been one of my tools, uh, that I’m comfortable using as a debate moderator because I’m the moderator and I get to interrupt. And when I’m watching the so-called presidential debates, I’m always dying for the moderator to break in and interrupt either, any of the candidates there. But in personal interaction, interruption can really, really be seen as, uh, as aggressive and offensive.

Bo Seo

Yeah. I think in general, it’s not a very good idea in personal disagreements. And the reason why I think that, John, is, um, I’m sure you do it very judiciously (laughs). But where, uh, there is no third party moderator and you’re playing umpire and moderator yourself, I think people usually tend to have kind of, um, self-serving or slightly distorted ideas of when an interruption might be justified, right? So the, the, the way in which I would kind of fix that is, the turn-taking that’s a feature of debate, right? Where I get to say something, you respond, but I don’t have to interrupt at this moment because I know I’m gonna get a chance to respond.

John Donvan

Oh, I see.

Bo Seo

As long as you can kind of, it doesn’t have to be I talk for seven minutes uninterrupted, and you talk for seven minutes uninterrupted. But you can say, “Can I have a little bit of time here?” Right? And then you’re gonna get a go, but we have to agree that I’m gonna get a go in response. I think that’s a better way to do it because it cools the temperature, um, and it increases the chance that both sides will be heard and each side will be heard by the other.

John Donvan

Yeah. It strikes me that that actually could be a takeaway tool for, for any of us. If we’re gonna have a conversation with somebody at work, at home, and family, and it’s going poorly, to just say, “Let’s just do this. Let’s, let’s just take turns and, and hear each other out and be fair about that,” I think would be very, very constructive.

I’m wondering also, you referred to side-switching as a technique that you would use, um, in competitive debate to sort of prepare yourself and to see into your opponent’s, uh, soul.

Bo Seo

(laughs)

John Donvan

Um, but w- but what, what about in terms of a real personal debate w- with somebody at work? Does it, is it useful, first of all, internally and psychologically to really, truly try to see your opponent’s side of the argument? And is it useful… I don’t wanna say opponent. Y- the other person’s side of the argument. And is it useful also to say, “I’m gonna take a minute and tell you what I think you’re saying to me and, and tell me if I’m right, tell me if I’ve got it?”

Bo Seo

I think it could be. I think it could be. And in order for the side-switch techniques to be useful, it doesn’t require you to fully understand what the other person is thinking. And, in fact, that might not be a, a, you know, always a- achievable, right? But, what I like about the exercises is, it does give you a few moments of uncertainty, right? To countervail against what might otherwise be strongly held conviction, uh, which is a good thing. But to be able to say, I might’ve missed something here, I think that makes you a more agile debater, I think it makes you more flexible, I think it makes you more receptive, um, to the ideas that the other side is putting forward. And so it’s not so much that the side-switch exercises allow you to achieve empathy, but maybe that it creates the room, uh, in which empathy can emerge and seep through.

John Donvan

I’m John Donvan. This is Intelligence Squared U.S. More of our conversation when we return.

Welcome back to Intelligence Squared U.S. I’m your host, John Donvan. Let’s return to our discussion.

You know, we’re, we’re very lucky to have in attendance today one of our s- multi-time debaters. I think he gets the gold coat that we give out to all debaters who come multiple times. So, Andrew, I’d love to hear your, your thoughts on, um, on what Bo’s been talking about ’cause you, you do a ton of programming, and ton of, uh, uh, pub- public forum work, uh, uh, of your own. Uh, you’re, you’re in, you’re devoted yourself to advancing the public discourse, uh, and you’ve debated with us a bunch of times. I think you might’ve been a side-switcher in the past. You may have been one of those, which side do you want me to be on, guys.

Andrew Keen

Yeah. Well I am in life.

John Donvan

(laughs)

Bo Seo

(laughs)

Andrew Keen

Um, that was a rude joke. Um,

John Donvan

(laughs)

Andrew Keen

… yeah, and actually, Bo and I have, um, eh, Bo came on my, uh, Keen On podcast show last week.

Bo Seo

Fabulous conversation. Fabulous conversation.

Andrew Keen

So we had a lot of fun. Uh, yeah, um, m- uh, I liked a little bit of impoliteness. I think, um, one of the things that we have to be careful of perhaps with this whole debate about debating is that, uh, to be too concerned with other people’s sensibilities. Because sensibility i- is very much I think of a liberal conception in America at least. I don’t know elsewhere. So, um, I think it’s one of the things that really annoys conservatives, understandably, that liberals tend to be over-sensitive, maybe because they listen to too much NPR. Maybe they come to too many Intelligence Squared debates.

John Donvan

(laughs)

Andrew Keen

Whatever it is, uh, thee- these are important conversations. They’re very destructive conversations in the sense that they, like the, if we’re talking about, I don’t know, economics. I mean, it impacts some people’s lives, how they live their lives. Um, so I, I don’t think we should be shy of passion. Um, I mean, obviously, incivility is inappropriate, I think. For example, the way that Trump behaved in his so-called debate with Biden or with Hillary Clinton was, uh, was, uh, in appropriate. But, uh, I, I, I’m a little, um, wary of, uh, this sort of fetish of sensitivity. The other thing I think-

John Donvan

W- but I, you, I, I don’t, I don’t think that I hear Bo… You’re, you’re, you’re not suggesting that’s Bo’s argument at all, I don’t think ’cause I didn’t hear that from him.

Andrew Keen

Well I think it’s more yours actually.

John Donvan

Oh, no, no.

Bo Seo

(laughs)

John Donvan

I only ask questions.

Andrew Keen

I’m teasing you, John. But-

John Donvan

Oh, okay. Well, you, yeah, you got me, you got me.

Andrew Keen

… but I, I, I, I’m just saying that, um, we need to recognize that these, that the, we should be passionate. Doesn’t mean you should punch each other in a debate.

John Donvan

Mm-hmm.

Andrew Keen

But a, a degree of aggression and passion and even dislike is not a bad thing. Uh, because these can often be life and death issues, especially around politics and economics.

John Donvan

Yeah.

Andrew Keen

The other thing that I was thinking about w- when you were speaking is this idea that there is a truth about a debate. And that, um, that that’s beyond or, um, that’s, that’s not what the, the, the theater of debate is. So my senses from what you guys are saying is that there’s, on the one hand, there’s the theater of debate, the rhetoric, the drama, the clever discourse. And on the other hand, there’s some sort of truthful, um, perhaps quantitative, eh, summary to, to these issues. And, and I would argue that the idea of, you know, data leading us to a conclusion is itself ideology, itself debate or it’s often science pretending it isn’t debate, but it’s sciences way of debating. Um, so, uh, for me, the theater, the, the drama which Bo is obviously very good at, um, that is the thing in itself and I think that’s something that we shouldn’t be shy of and it’s something that we should enjoy and encourage. And I think, John-

John Donvan

Yeah.

Andrew Keen

… you do a very good job within the confines of civility on Intelligence Squared doing that. So, so let’s, let’s embrace and celebrate the theater of debate because that’s what it is. The science of debate, to me, is slightly illusional.

John Donvan

Uh, and, and Bo, eh, when I was talking about your performance in Thessaloniki, what I saw was a performance of (laughs) passion and, um, uh-

Andrew Keen

On an appropriate stage. Oh, I mean, where else to, to be passionate than in, uh-

Bo Seo

Yeah, of course.

Andrew Keen

… Thessaloniki? I mean, if you’re not gonna do it there, you can’t do it anywhere, Bo, right?

John Donvan

Yeah.

Bo Seo

Good, good place to win, as well.

John Donvan

So we, we have, um, some, some journalist friends who are joining us, um, and would like to jump into the conversation, I’m sure. Who would like to go first? Peter, do you want to, uh, jump on in?

Peter Coy

Hi, I’m Peter Coy. I’m an opinion writer, uh, at The New York Times. And, Bo, uh, my point is similar to Deborah Tannen’s. I am fully persuaded by you. That debate promotes mutual understanding in a world where people want to learn form others and pride themselves on open mindedness.

Bo Seo

Yeah.

Peter Coy

That’s the Intelligence Squared audience. But not the public at large. In most of the world, I would argue, teaching people to debate expertly simply provides them with fresh weapons in the service of motivated reasoning. In this real world, debate is to understanding as boxing is to intimacy.

John Donvan

(laughs)

Peter Coy

Your thoughts?

Bo Seo

(laughs) Um, the last bit really threw me. Um, I’m sure there is an intimacy to boxing, um, and a bit of boxing in intimacy.

John Donvan

(laughs)

Bo Seo

But, um, I won’t talk about that. (laughs)

John Donvan

That was nice, that was nice.

Bo Seo

Peter, (laughs) um, it’s a really, really rich question and I would say two things. I think the first is, debate does have normative values embedded in it that I think we need more of. Some of it is candor, some of it is play, some of it is experimentation, the kinds of things we’ve been talking about. But it alone won’t solve the problems of a culture that’s divided and polarized, right? So there are other virtues of generosity, for example, of regarding the other, that I don’t think debate is antithetical to, but that an investment in debate needs to come alongside the rejuvenations of some other virtues. I think that’s the first thing I’d say.

The second is, I do think it is a kind of a tough thing to sort of say, let’s debate, um, uh, you know, and stop shying away from the dis- from the debate and so on. When in fact what we’ve allowed is for our common skillset of disagreeing well to have atrophied as much as we have, right? So in a world where, and this is just sort of my judgment, where we don’t learn that much in schools or, or, or in other sources of education of what a good argument looks like and what it’s possibilities are. Um, that’s a world in which the few things that we do know, um, are much more prone to abuse. So, I, I think the, um, I hope the book isn’t, and, and the conversation isn’t just a, let’s just argue more kind of thing. But it’s a, um, a desire for that rooted in a rejuvenation of a skillset that I think allows us to, um, to turn arguments into a force for good rather than bad. But, I, I recognize that’s an incomplete answer to, um, a challenge that, um, that, that I think deserves a longer treatment.

John Donvan

Thanks, Peter. And Deborah Coulter, if you want to unmute, we’d love to hear your contribution.

Deborah Coulter

Thank you. Um, I am trying to correct misinformation about a leading occupational injury, repetitive strain injury. When people Google the topic, much of what comes up is dangerous advice that can make matters considerably worse. I’m trying to get medically sound information out there. So what’s the best way to persuade people to listen to solid medical advice instead of trying every risky trick they see on YouTube or in these forums? And how can we who are not naturally gifted debaters, and who don’t necessarily think quickly on our feet, improve our skills to get our message across without alienating the people we are trying to reach?

Bo Seo

Um, I appreciate the question and, and I obviously have, um, I don’t have the expertise that you do on the, on the particular subject of, of communicating on, on matters of health. Um, so I’ll talk a little bit more generally about how I thought about misinformation, um, which is, that in some ways, the mass proliferation of alternative facts is something enabled by the absence of debate in my view. Which is, in echo chambers where people more or less agree and are willing to categorize their views and slogans that, if you click on it, you can see all the other (laughs) people who agree with you, um, it becomes much easier for those facts to proliferate.

And, um, and again, I’m not sure this is always the case, but the great advantage that truth has over lies is, things tend to fit together a little bit better, right? And, and, and (laughs) in the way in which when we tell lies, we sort of trip up over ourselves (laughs), um, at some point, the lies intersect with the truth and are seen as something not quite fitting, right?

And one of the things I write about in the book is, the tactic of a liar is usually to tell many lies rather than few. Um, and, and in engaging with someone like that, you can often waste all of your time trying to respond to everything. And one of the things that, um, we learn to do is to pick a representative lie and sort of similar to what John said, to call out the kind of general practice that the other person has engaged in to, to using that representative lie, fitting it in with other things we know to be true about the world and showing the ways in which it falls apart, and explaining why that’s more sim- that that’s symptomatic of how that person is approaching the disagreement.

Um, so, you know, with these kinds of really daunting, almost existential questions, and I see the ways in which it has real human consequences in the case that you’ve described, I wanna try and contribute some of the tools that debating as a community has, has, had come up with in responding to that. Um, but I, I hope it is a kind of an invitation to a discussion from people who have the expertise that I don’t, um, in these particular, uh, uh, facets of life, um, so that we can develop a more robust set of toolkits, whether that be about persuasion or, or responding to mis-truths and, and falsehoods.

John Donvan

Bo, Bo, we’ve had some, um, a few submitted questions. This one comes from Daniel who asks, what’s a significant (laughs), this is a big question. What’s a significant moral, philosophical or political question on which your own mind has changed recently? And the answer could be, none, by the way. That’s permitted.

Bo Seo

The existence of God. But I won’t go too much (laughs) into that. I feel like I change my mind on that all the time.

John Donvan

All right. Well, that’s a big one. Um, second question comes from Phil K. Given that online debate is common and getting more so, how could online discussions be structured to improve the quality of dialog and increase the chances that participants learn from the exchange? You actually write a lot, a lot about, uh, online debate forum. Uh, and you sound ultimately in the book disappointed with how it plays out there. But, uh, I’ll let you finish that thought.

Bo Seo

I do a little bit. And, um, uh, another way of framing kind of our discussions about the rules that govern debate is, I think as a debater you become very sensitive to the fact that not every discussion has the same acoustics, right? And, and, um, in social media where it’s often the most divisive content that gets prioritized because it drives engagement. And another interesting one is, and this is a problem that we sometimes face in, in, in competitive debate, too, is, even though I’m disagreeing with the person across from me, it can sometimes be purely for the benefit of the audience, right? So I’m kind of instrumentalizing you in some way so that our disagreement is a kind of a performance so I can get the applause from the people who already agree with me, right? And, um, I think the channels for disagreement, um, there’s some interesting research that I cite in the book that, that, that try and make the most of the situation and think about the, you know, the, the kinds of tactics that tend to work. But I, I feel personally a little bit less optimistic about that and that, um, a closer diagnosis of what’s going wrong in those settings, um, should not just toward, um, creating better conditions for disagreement rather than trying to compete within, uh, within, within those frameworks.

John Donvan

We have one more question and, and, and Clea, I wanted to circle back to you on this because, um, it kind of goes to where we began the conversation. It comes from Bob B. The question is, after the debate, meaning an Intelligence Squared debate, after each debate, should Intelligence Squared comment on the quality of debate tactics used during the debate? I assume that means comment publicly because we certainly discuss it internally.

Clea Conner

It’s a great question. Um, I think we, we kind of do comment on that during the debate. John, you know, when somebody asks repetitive questions, when somebody defaults to talking points, when somebody avoids answering a direct question, John Donvan is the, you know, as the moderator, comes right in and says, you know, “Thanks. We’ve heard that before. Uh, we understood that the first time. But I’d love for you to answer the question that we just heard from your opponent.”

So, so, I think that we’re playing the role and John is the moderator and us as a debate company, we think deeply about these topics, we game out the two sides, we almost do a pre-debate flow for our, our debate nerds in the audience who know what that even means, where we line up, you know, arguments that we anticipate that are for and against throughout the course of the debate. Um, but you know, in terms of us commenting on the quality of, of that, maybe the mechanics used, we actually leave that to folks like Peter (laughs), who are here with us, you know, from The New York Times or from the media. Um, people that do comment on, uh, the debate and really kind of give us a sense of the quality of the arguments that were presented through the lens of varying degrees of expertise, advocacy and, you know, um, interests.

John Donvan

Yeah.

Clea Conner

So, so I don’t know if it’s our role. I mean, I’d be curious to hear what, what Bo thinks, you know? We’re not the judges of the debate.

John Donvan

That’s what I was gonna say also. And I think it could also p- give the perception of compromising our efforts to be neutral in this. If afterwards we gave grades, it would seem as though we were, those grades were pre-ordained, uh, because we’re on one side or the other. But I’d also like to hear what Bo has to say on that.

Bo Seo

Um, I think I agree generally. There is, there is, however, a kind of a, you know, so I think about the adjudicators for the debates that I had and, and, and John and Clea, you guys would have this kind of insight, too. There is a kind of an insight that you get from seeing lots of debates, right? That r- regardless of the substance of the particular question that’s being discussed, you get a sense of the, kinda the dynamic, um, and almost, I describe it as a physics, right? Of a, of, of sort of patterns and, and, and, and, yeah, the dynamics by which people engage regardless of the particular at, at, at stand.

So, I don’t know whether that’s a, a, a, a post-debate thing. Um, uh, and, and I share those concerns about it feeling like grading. But at some point, a kind of a debrief or maybe even a kind of a, a sharing of the lessons over, not an individual debate but perhaps a number of them, um, I think something like that could be useful.

John Donvan

Well the clock is telling me that it is time to wrap up. Andrew Keen, thanks so much for joining us and Deborah Coulter and Peter Coy, um, Clea, it was great to have you in part of the conversation, and Bo. So, um, w- w- we love that you’re a fan of Intelligence Squared because we’re a fan of yours. I want everybody to know that Good Arguments is a really fun read, a romp through the, the world of debate and the career of o- one man who has come a long, long way from being shy and not wanting to n- get into people’s faces and trying to stay out of arguments to one who has made arguments an art form and is an artist at it. So, thank you, everybody for joining us. We’ll see you next time.

I wanna thank you, our audience, for tuning in to this episode of Intelligence Squared. I hope you enjoyed it just as much as I did. Intelligence Squared is a non-profit that is generously funded by listeners like you, members of Intelligence Squared, academic institutions and other partners and by the Rosenkranz Foundation. Clea Conner is our CEO, David Ariosto is our Head of Editorial, Amy Kraft is our Chief of Staff and Head of Production, Cheryl Mara and Marlette Sandoval are our producers, Kim Stremple is our Production Coordinator, Damon Whittimore is our Audio Producer, and Robert Rosenkranz is our Chairman.

Our mission here at Intelligence Squared is to restore critical thinking and facts and reason and civility to American public discourse. We would love your support in that effort. Please visit www.intelligencesquaredus.org to join the debate and hear from both sides, at least both sides of every issue. I’m John Donvan. Thanks so much for listening.