Good Arguments (Autumn Reading Group, session #1)

From September through November I am running a reading group for my local meetup group (Philosophers, Kingston) on Bo Soe's recent book Good Arguments in Lake Ontario Park. Seo is a two-time world debating champion.  Here is a video of him describing the themes of the book.  I will post my review notes for my meetup group here on my blog.

Here is my summary of some of the main points from the intro and first 3 chapters of the book, along with a few questions/exercises for us to discuss. We are turning our attention to the art of competitive debate to learn how to *disagree better* (vs convince people we are correct).

Here are a few examples of poor forms of disagreement:

 (1) avoidance of disagreement- just not engaging with people you disagree with, closing yourself to other’s views and instead functioning within an echo chamber in which you only converse with like-minded people

(2) talking past one another. In other words, not actually debating the same issue(s)

(3) attacking the other person (ad hominem) versus attending to their actual argument or position

(4) “squirrelling” the debate which means one side interprets the motion in a disingenuous way to make it easier to argue for their position.  

Seo contends that we should aspire to disagree in such a way that the outcome is better than not having the disagreement. This means the goal of debate is not to eliminate disagreement (i.e. consensus) but rather to reveal gradations of agreement and disagreement. This is the product of GOOD DISAGREEMENT. Here is a 5 mins video on that point:

The book will cover 5 elements of debate, what he calls the “physics of everyday argument”:

1. topic    2. argument   3. rebuttal    4. rhetoric    5. quiet

In the second half of the book Seo applies the lessons from debate to four areas of life:

(1) bad disagreements   (2) relationships  (3) education  (4) technology

On the issue of topics for debate, Seo mentions insights from one of his debating coaches on what makes for a good debate topic: 

    (1) balanced topic (doesn’t favour either side)

(2) deep (there are many sides to the issue)

(3) accessible (doesn’t require specialized knowledge)

(4) interesting

Which topics do you like debating? Or which topics do you not like debating? Can you think of examples of topics that are particularly deep and interesting, or ones that perhaps are not balanced or accessible? People often say one shouldn’t bring up either politics or religion if one wants to have a pleasant social interaction with someone, what is it about these topics that often create tension in our discussions and debates?

Seo offers the following taxonomy of disagreement:

(A) facts  (B) judgements   (C) prescriptions

These entail different stances on facts and norms. Can you think of any major policy or social issues where 1-2 of these issues loom large?

On the issue of rebuttal, Seo mentions his debating nemesis named Deborah. What made her such a formidable opponent was the fact that, before debating, she would think about the other side’s best argument in great detail. The greatest strength of rebuttal is thus the art of LISTENING. To refine and develop this skill, think of an issue you have strong opinions on. Now try constructing the strongest argument you can for the opposing position. This is not easy to do. Think imaginatively. After doing this, you might have a better sense of where your disagreement actually lays (e.g. facts, judgements or prescriptions).  

Can you think of particular people in your life, either in your family, or friends, work or political leaders who display good (or poor) listening skills? That is, before they make the case for their position they genuinely try to understand the other side, and make their argument with those insights in mind.

Cheers, 

Colin