This video is sponsored by Audible. For quite a while now, there's been
a debate within certain political circles about, well, debate. A couple years ago, many of my
YouTube colleagues pondered the merits of debating the ideas of the
Alt-Right. Some people argued that it was
necessary to take harmful ideas to task in a public arena, while
others feared that giving any kind of platform to these people would
cause more harm than good. And these kinds of conversations
seems to pop up over and over with no real resolution. Whether we're talking about the
worst ideas of the Alt-Right, or other kinds of political anxiety,
there's still a tension between those who think that some political
topics are simply beyond debate, and those that think that no such
concept even exists. Now obviously, talking about
politics and social issues and things of that nature is something
that is necessary. But if it's not
done in an effective way, it becomes unproductive, if not counter-productive. So then we must decide, when is
debate useful, if it is at all? And should progressives and
leftists be doing more of it? Hi, I'm T1J! [WEIRD VOICEOVER:] Follow me! [T1J:] So, there's been kind of a campaign
over the last few years to try and convince people, especially
people on the political left, to embrace civil debate with people they
disagree with. NPR recently published an article
expressing advice about how to have conversations with political
opponents without ending up killing each other. The article was mostly fine, but Many people on twitter who almost
certainly didn't actually read it took offense to its title. For some people, politics seems to
be a game of good versus evil. So
the concept of common ground with political opponents seems
unthinkable. And some people are astonished by the
mere suggestion that they should have to ever defend their
positions. If you can't tell by my tone, I
think this is a pretty faulty mindset. If you ever reach a point
where you feel you are beyond scrutiny, and your ideas and the
things that you believe are self-evidently true and can never
be challenged, you're probably f*ckin up. Whether or not you choose to
participate in debates, you should always be open to the idea that
your perspective could be more evolved. Because it probably could. That's kind of the nature of being
an imperfect human. But also I find it interesting that
when some people hear the phrase "political disagreement" they
automatically think of Neo Nazis and transphobes, and the worst examples of
extreme politics. Because a political disagreement can mean
a debate about the merits of
Universal Basic Income, or about whether a city should build a new
library. The fact that so many people think
about politics as this extreme black and white heroes versus
villains situation does a disservice to nuanced discourse. This is not Avengers. You ain't
Chris Hemsworth. But one thing that is missing from
the NPR article is an argument for why civil debate is even necessary
in the first place. Like, why should we debate, and why
should we be civil when we do it? If you have come to believe
something, especially if that belief is based on earnest
truth-seeking or even your own lived experience, it's very unlikely that someone
will change your mind about that in a debate. And is civility so great anyway? Revolutions aren't civil. The Civil
War wasn't civil, ironically, but it seemed inevitable and
necessary. A lot of people are prononents of
debate because of this concept known as
"The Marketplace of Ideas" It's an extension of the general
support for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The idea is that we allow everyone
to express whatever thoughts and ideas they believe, and then we
debate those ideas, often in front of the public eyes, and the best
and most true ideas will naturally gain the most favor and be adopted
and accepted by society, in a similar way that the best products
generate the most demand in a capitalist market. The problem with this is that it is
demonstrably not true. In either
case. Artificial demand for inferior
products can be created in many ways, such as advertising or other
more underhanded methods. Likewise, the ideas that become
adopted by a society that values free expression, are not
necessarily the best or most true. The Pew Research Center found that
Americans are the most tolerant of free speech out of the 38 countries
they polled. Although to be fair this was in
2015, before Donald "The Media is the Enemy of the People" Trump
became President. However, Americans have more
widespread doubt than many of those other countries about things like
the efficacy of vaccines and evolution, even though they are
proven facts. So obviously, more free speech does
not necessarily lead to more truth, which seems to imply that more
debate doesn't either. In fact, it
may have the opposite effect. I should say, that I am a huge free
speech guy. While I don't think the
best ideas naturally rise to the top, I do think that a robust free
speech policy allows the best ideas to be heard in the first place. And I think it's important for
speech and expression to be protected because sometimes the
best ideas are unpopular, and it takes a society a generation or
two, or ten, to realize that they were the right ideas. It just becomes our job to make a
convincing case. And that's kind of the problem with
debate anyway. If all you needed to win a
debate was to be right, or even just to
have the most sound argument, then debates would be easy, and the
world would probably make a lot more sense. But in reality, the only thing you
need to succeed in a debate is to be convincing. Which doesn't require being right,
or making good arguments. Here's the thing, humans are stupid. We like stories and narratives and appeals
to our biases more than we like facts and
logic, and if we're not thinking critically, we can very easily
convince ourselves that they're all the same thing. And this applies to people of all
political affiliations. This is why people like Ben
Shapiro, who in my opinion rarely makes compelling arguments, is
widely considered a great debater. Because ironically, Mr. Facts don't
care about your Feelings, is a master of tapping into people's
biases and emotions. And I suspect that he knows this,
which is why he is usually enthusiastic about participating in
debates. Even though I've never been shy about my own
progressive values, I generally try not to make my videos too partisan,
but in reality, it seems to me that the political right, at least in America,
is much more concerned with ideals and
traditions than they are with, data, or practical outcomes. Now, I do think there is a growing segment
of the modern left that seems to be more based on emotions and moral judgments;
but fortunately for them, most of their ideas are backed to some
extent by data. For example, you may fight against
systemic racism, because you are emotionally and morally invested in that idea,
but at the same time there is tons of data that demonstrates the
existence of systemic racism. So even if you have never done any
research on this topic, the data still supports you. I feel like it's not the same for
the right. Most concepts that are
associated with conservatives and the right wing, at least in America such as
supply side economics, anti-feminism, or
upholding religious values; generally aren't consistent with
facts and data. I think this is one reason why
commentators like Ben Shapiro are so enthusiastic about
debate; because you don't need to have facts on your side to be
effective. I was watching a stream a few
months ago where two online figures, Destiny and Hasan Piker,
who are both left-leaning to some degree, were reviewing a debate
that Piker had recently had with conservative pundit Charlie Kirk. And Destiny who has had a lot of
experience debating right-wingers was giving Hasan notes on how he
could improve his debate performance. Pretty much none of his tips were anything
like "make sure you have your facts straight!" or "make
sure your arguments are logically consistent!" It was all stuff like, "don't let
him pivot away from this statement!" or "end your statements with strong
words!" And I found this super
enlightening. See here is the thing about debate. Debating is a unique skill that
only a small percentage of people have any idea about how to do
effectively. So it really doesn't make sense to
encourage this universal embrace of debate for debate's sake. It's
impractical and doesn't really help anything. In fact, a poor debate performance,
especially one in front of an audience, can even harm your
cause. And watching that Hasan Piker clip,
I remember thinking to myself, "this is so exhausting!" Sure, being right, and having the
facts SHOULD be enough. But again -- stupid
monkey brain. Isn't that right Sir Applesauce? (horse neighs) Now when it comes to civility, I
can sympathize with that. I'm a big
fan of civility. In general, if you're not being
civil, there's a good chance you're being an asshole, and it's not okay
to be an asshole, even if you're right. Civility is also very useful in
debates. Because being civil makes
you appear more reasonable and more credible, and thus more convincing. The problem with calls for civility
is that they are not usually applied, nor enforced practically
or consistently. Most people have personal stakes in
political topics, and for some people it's literally life or
death. So if you tell someone "let's
debate about whether or not you and/or people you care about
deserve to live or to have rights. And you better be civil!" That's
somewhere between unreasonable and just plain cruel. I've also noticed that calls for
civility are disproportionately levied at the left, while
commentators on the right seem to be allowed to be as shitty as they
please. So say, if a person intentionally
misgenders a trans woman to her face, and then she threatens to
whoop his ass, and you're only upset with her, you're being
inconsistent with your call for civility. And I see this kind of thing all
the time. In fact I think many of
these right wing provocateurs specifically take advantage of this
immunity the press and public seems to have given them to being civil. Some ideas are inherently uncivil. If you're arguing that a person's
identity is invalid, it doesn't matter if you say it calmly with a
nice haircut, that's incredibly disparaging. [BILL:] Do you always have to fight with everybody? Can't you just get along --
[MILO:] I don't! We were having such a nice time, but you always
invite such awful people on your show! They're so stupid! [BILL:] They're not--
[MILO:] No, come on, you need to start inviting higher IQ guests. [BILL:] These are very high IQ --
[LARRY:] Wait, hold on Bill. [to milo] You can go f*ck yourself, alright? (crowd applause)
But the thing about it, it's often not even said calmly, yet people
still rush to condemn the left for being uncivil, or make fun of them
for being "triggered." Even more frustrating is when their
incivility is acknowledged, but speakers on the left are urged to
basically tolerate it, lest they become even more uncivil. I mean, fascists are already
killing people, not sure how much more uncivil you can actually
get. But if you say something
infuriating, it should be no surprise to you if someone gets
angry. Calls for civility are just
generally disingenuous concern trolling. And I know I said that being civil
can help you make convincing arguments, but honestly so can being angry. Here's my thing: all that shit I
just said notwithstanding. Debate
is effective. Undeniably. It's usually not very effective at
changing the mind of the person you're actually talking to but it can be
extremely effective at reaching out people who are listening. And I think that's why the right
loves to debate so much. Progressives often have this smug
incredulity where it's like "you should already know better, I
shouldn't have to explain it to you" and I've even been guilty of
that, and maybe it's even true sometimes. But it's damn sure not convincing. Neither are insults or social media
callouts. But you know what is? Arguments. If you're good at making
them. Even more convincing than making
arguments is demonstrating why opposing arguments are wrong,
especially in real time, in front of a person who is actually making those arguments. People like myself who talk about
politics publicly a lot often get challenged to debates, and I've always thought this was
pretty obnoxious, because it's very clearly designed
to be a spectacle. Like, 'Political showdown tonight
at 9!' It never feels like an honest
search for truth, it's just content, really. But over time I've come to believe
that there's no reason why the left shouldn't use debate as one of its
tools, considering so many of our political discussions happen online
in front of an audience. This may sound weird, but I think
political debates very rarely in and of themselves get us anywhere
closer to the truth. Honest, private 1 on 1
conversations are very good if everyone involved comes in good
faith, but public debate rarely looks like that. Public debate is all about
convincing the audience, particularly those who are on the
fence. And I don't think it matters if
there are 3 people listening or 300,000 people listening. And like I said, you don't have to
have the facts on your side to be convincing. But wouldn't it be good for the
world if the most convincing debators were the people who did
have the facts on their side? While we do have stupid brains that
resist anything that confronts our biases, there are still people who, at least
eventually, will change their minds when confronted with enough
evidence. But that evidence should probably be
part of a story. It has to
presented strategically, and not just condescendingly shouted on
Twitter. It would be great if we could find
a way to reprogram millennia of human conditioning, and don't get me wrong,
I 100% think we should be encouraging critical thinking
and developing those skills. But in the meantime, there's human
lives at stake. And I also understand that there are some
people on the left who have no real interest in trying to
make the world better, or may have lost their optimism about the whole
thing. Some people are just fed up and
want to yell at people on the internet. And I mean,
that's frustrating, I don't think that's a good way to be, but I guess
those people are not the target audience of this video. So carry on, I guess. But for those who actually want to
try and make things better, and expose people to your ideas and convince
people that they are the right ideas, it would be unwise to disregard tactics that
are actually effective at doing those things. I'm starting to think that debate is probably
one of them. But DAS JUS ME DOE. What do you
think? Thank you for watching, and thanks
to Audible for sponsoring this video. Audible is a leading provider of
digital audiobooks and other audio products. The available content includes an
unmatched selection of audiobooks, original audio shows, news, comedy,
and much more. With a membership, you get 30% off
every regularly priced audio book as well as 1 free audiobook every
month. But, my viewers can get a 30 day
trial, if you go to audible.com/t1j or if you text the code 't1j' to
500-500. and when you do this, you'll get your first audiobook as
well as 2 audible originals completely free. And this isn't like other services
where you rent or stream your content, with Audible, you own your
books. After you sign up, I recommend
checking out "Yes We (Still) Can" by Dan Pfeiffer, the former advisor to
President Barack Obama and current cohost of Pod Save America, for an
insider perspective about how politics has changed since the
Obama presidency, as well as advice for progressives in the Trump era. Once again, go to audible.com/t1j
or text the code "t1j" to 500500 if you'd like to check out a free 30
day trial and get your first audio book for free. And remember, by supporting
sponsors like Audible, you not only get access to a great service, but
you also support me and help me take my content to the next level.
The only real debate I've ever come across is Socrates' style. It's simple, one makes a statement or asks a question, then a logical argument follows, then the other person responds in like, so long as the previous statement is accepted into the argument either as agreed upon or to be further analyzed. No one I've heard or read does this, not ONE! It's always a monologue followed by another that claims to respond to every point, but that's nearly impossible for anyone to do, and more importantly, no one has a common basis of agreement. That is what axioms, definitions, and first principles of any argument are, common points of agreement to begin from and continue with. Today's debates are a farce that all participants lose their mind over.
No.