[0:00]So, here's a question I get a lot. As someone who often finds myself in political debate, what are some tips I have to help effectively get your points across when you find yourself in such a situation? So, here are eight tips for how to approach a debate. Number one, you gotta decide whether the debate is worth it in the first place. So this is something very few people do. When you're on Facebook, when you're on Twitter, when you're with your friends, very often somebody launches into some sort of disquisition on a subject and they have no idea what they're talking about and you jump right in because it's time to fight. Well, the problem is that you may be wasting your time. And on your deathbed, you're going to think back, did I really need to waste 45 minutes discussing whether a man can be a woman with this crazy person? You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance. The answer is probably not. When it comes to debate, there are really only a few reasons why you want to be in a debate in the first place. The first is an actual discussion, not a debate and it's designed in order so that you can actually convince someone or they can convince you. It's sort of an open discussion that has taken place between two open-minded people. Another reason is because you're attempting to convince people who are in the audience. So it really is more about knocking the opponent's arguments out and making sure that the audience understands that. The the worst type of debate is a debate where there is no audience and the person has no chance of being convinced and you already know what you think, then you're just wasting your time. So just like all other things in life, begin with the goal first and then move from there. Number two, you got to know your opponent. So, I have a long history of debating and when I debate typically, I do an awful lot of research on the person I'm debating. That doesn't mean I try and dig up like all sorts of dirt on them. It means that I look up the way that they argue, what are the arguments that they are frequently using, what are the studies they tend to cite. Exactly how do they argue? What sort of tactics do they tend to use? There are situations where I've really researched somebody down to the nitty-gritty. I almost always do that. And then there are situations where despite your best efforts, you get caught aback. That happened famously when I was on BBC. I had no idea who the guy was who was interviewing me. And I completely misinterpreted exactly what he was doing and who he was and it didn't end up well for me. You really have to research who it is that you're talking to if you hope to have a chance of fairly debating them. Number three, you have to disarm your opponent's most unfair tactics. So, very often in debate, people who debate like to use one or two key tactics. The biggest tactic they like to use generally is going after character. The idea being, if you disagree with them then you're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a bigot, you're a homophobe. And this is one that's really off-putting and difficult to deal with because you think to yourself if you're a good person, well, am I? Like, what did I do wrong? But that is not actually what's going on. The person doesn't actually have questions about your character. If they did, they wouldn't be on stage with you. The real reason that the person is having a debate with you and is using that tactic is in order to avoid discussing the facts. And so the first thing that you have to do if somebody's going to use an unfair tactic, like attacking your character, is saying right from the outset, listen, I know that it's easy enough to attack character. And we can do that all day. I'm happy to attack your character. I'm sure you're happy to attack mine. What would be amazing is if we could stop that right at the outset and instead just discuss the fact. Instead of questioning my motivations, I don't question yours, you don't question mine and we can move on. I most famously did this with Piers Morgan. Piers had been using this tactic repeatedly in gun control debates where he would say that if you disagreed with him about gun control, it's simply because you didn't care enough about children. And right from the outset of the debate, I said, listen, Piers, I basically think that's a smear tactic and I think you're wrong to do it. I think it's kind of gross that you do that. And it took the the tactic completely out of the debate. What you do, and I've seen it repeatedly on your show, I watch your show, and I've seen it repeatedly. What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, saying they don't seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids, they would agree with you on policy. I think we can have a rational political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies. But I don't think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling. The minute that Piers did that, I would say, I told you, Piers, that it's an unfair tactic, and you really shouldn't be doing it and it's pretty ugly and it makes you a worse person to use those kinds of tactics. Fourth, you got to frame the terms of the debate. So very often when you're debating somebody or even discussing an issue with somebody, the terms of the debate have already been framed in a way where you are just not going to win the debate. Most commonly this happens in the media. You'll hear media members ask questions famously that are sort of like, Senator, when did you stop beating your wife? Okay, the way that question is framed means there's no good answer, right? Senator, when did you stop beating your wife? assumes, of course, that you started beating your wife in the first place. Well, when it comes to virtually any issue, folks who are debating are going to attempt to frame the debate in the worst possible terms for you. So they'll say things like, well, don't you think that Black Lives Matter? If you're talking about, for example, whether systemic racism exists in policing. And the answer is, of course, I I believe that Black Lives Matter. Everyone agrees that Black Lives Matter. I think that all Black Lives Matter, which is why I think it's imperative that the police be in these areas. So, again, you assume good motivations. Like, let's assume good motivations. You always have to ask for, you know, a certain level of specificity when you frame the terms of the debate. And you have to make sure that the right questions are being asked. And and very typically that is not what happens in debate. Usually people are attempting to ask a question that is wildly off-topic in an attempt to sort of corner you into a point that you don't want to make. Fifth, you got to know what you know and you got to know what you don't. So this is actually a lesson that I learned in non-debate scenario. I was doing a job interview with somebody and they mentioned a publication that I really had no idea what it was. And they said, have you heard of it? I said, sure. And then they asked me a specific question. I of course, had no idea what they were talking about. And I looked kind of foolish. Well, you got to know what you know and know what you don't. Very often in debates, people are going to throw facts and figures at you. You may not know them. And the facts and the figures may in fact, be correct. And the answer to that is, I didn't know that. I'm happy to look it up and I'll get back to you. Here are some of my facts and figures. And, you know, I think that after I look it up, I'd be happy to discuss that, but you can't ask me to discuss something that I really don't know about. That is not an unfair response. That is a perfectly fair response. And to simply say that is okay. You're allowed to do that. It also allows you to know where you're on safer ground, what you've really studied and what you have not. Sixth, you got to defend ideas, not individuals. So these days, this is a really big one because obviously the only political figure who matters in American life is President Trump. And every debate turns into orange man bad. If you're a conservative, aren't you really team Trump? When he does something that I like, I cheer and when he does something that I hate, which happens, then I boo and I'm booing as loudly as you are when he does something that's really bad. But listen, you're very upset about the Supreme Court nominee. I am very pleased about the Supreme Court nominee as a conservative. Right? He's doing a lot of things that I like in terms of policy now. That doesn't mean that I'm cheering his character because I think that it is very difficult to cheer Donald Trump's character. Nor do I think it's appropriate. Now, the truth is, that was not unique to Trump. That goes all the way back to George W Bush. I remember back in the Bush days, when I would do debates, virtually every debate would turn into, so you think that that terrible George W Bush, that terrible George W Bush is X, Y or Z. And the answer was, I don't understand what this has to do with Bush. Well, Trump is used as the same sort of misdirect tactic. Right? You can defend all the ideas you want to defend. You don't have to defend President Trump's behavior. You don't have to defend things that he unless you actually agree with him. If you agree with him, then defend him. But what people very often seek to do is avoid discussing the ideas and instead try to staple you to the pant leg of some politician or other who you may not agree with 100% of the time. Only defend the things that you want to defend. Don't defend individuals if you don't agree with the individual. Seventh, you got to demand clarification of terms. So as I mentioned earlier, one of the tactics that folks on the political left like to use is they use they they really like using semantic overload. So to use the example of Black Lives Matter again, the term Black Lives Matter means three separate things. It means one, that black lives matter, which is absolutely unarguable. Of course, black lives matter because every life matters. And it would be insane to argue otherwise. So that is term number one, and we all agree. Two, Black Lives Matter could mean the actual organization Black Lives Matter, which is a neo-Marxist awful movement. And number three, Black Lives Matter could mean America is systemically racist, the police are systemically racist, and therefore, we need to scale back the police in order to fight that systemic racism. Now, what people on the left love to do is they love to say, Black Lives Matter, agree or disagree? And what you have to do is then go through the taxonomy that I just articulated. You have to say it depends, what do you mean by that? And I know that you may think you know what you mean by that, but I actually want to just clarify so that we can, you know, make sure that we're talking about exactly the same thing.
[8:29]Otherwise, you get dragged into all these sort of Motte and Bailey arguments, where you'll say, well, you know, black lives matter, all lives matter. And then the person says, are you saying that black lives don't matter? It's like, well, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if your argument is against the police. He said, well, that's not what I was arguing in the first place. This sort of stuff happens all the time. The left will use terms that have very little specific meaning, like systemic racism. Okay, what do you mean? Do you mean like an actual institution? That has an actual legal rule that is racist, because that we all agree is bad. Or do you mean that all inequality can be chalked up to inequity, which is not correct. You have to be very clear about terminology. It's just a lawyer thing, but it's also a debate thing. And it's true across the board. When people say, don't you believe in immigration reform, you have to ask, okay, what do you mean by immigration reform so we can be more exact and meticulous in our argument? Okay, finally, you have to argue from fundamental principles. So the arguments that make the most difference are not the arguments over facts and statistics. It's about fundamental principles. And really true, interesting political debate is over those fundamental principles and how we value those fundamental principles. The biggest debate in the country, for example, right now, is about the future of the country and how America should be defined. I have a book called how to destroy America in three easy steps, where I think that there are two basic visions of the country, one rooted in the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence, the idea that natural rights preexist governments. The idea of equal treatment before the law, the basic idea that government is instituted to protect rights and not invade them. Right, those are fundamental principles. And we should determine whether we are arguing on the surface over the ramifications of the same principle, or whether we are arguing about the fundamental principles themselves. So, for example, I've argued that the right to free speech is good. There are many people who argue the right to free speech is not necessarily good because there are a lot of people who misuse speech in order to abuse other people. Well, that is a fundamental principle argument and one worth having. But very often people ignore the fundamental principles to argue about things that are happening kind of on the surface, like particular uses of free speech. I can agree with you fully that somebody has misused free speech and been a jerk. That does not mean that the fundamental principle of freedom of speech should be at issue. So arguing fundamental principles is really key and it's the stuff that really matters most in the end. Well, thank you so much for watching this video. I hope it will help you in your future rhetorical endeavors. If you liked what you heard, go check out the rest of our videos on YouTube, as well as my podcast. Make sure you keep yourself fully armed with facts and logic for your next discussion or debate.
