The Long History of Argument

Havn't got time to listen at the moment sorry, but do you think it is different if it is just two people taking part and listening to and replying to each other.
Or when it it either a group of people who are not together, and are making sort of uncoordinated replies?
Or something like the televised debates that are more a performance than a real debate?
I do think the circumstances make a difference.

I agree: a good programme! Worth a listen. (I suggest that it should be compulsory listening for all politicians.)

I have seen some spectacular non listening on social media between just 2 people but that may be different than a face to face debate.

In a proper argument/debate, people would listen to each other. They might agree with some of the argument, but disagree with another part. They'd explain the flaw in the argument, which the other side would then counter rationally. That rarely seems to happen in political debate. People just throw dirt and hope they have the loudest voice and most supporters. The winner then claims "democracy" is on his/her side. Maybe we should be looking at how to achieve compromises.

Ilovecheese I need to listen to the programme again; he does progress to how we might discuss effectively. The idea of people "talking past you" shouldn't come as a surprise - we see it on here If we can find ways to communicate rather than talk "at" people it's got to help

It will also be good to hear what everyone makes of what the programme says.

I need to listen to it again. I can listen to Rory Stewart all day but he’s so clever what he says tends to go over my head. I love his podcast with Alastair Campbell. I must get his books.

I think there is a lot to "hear" in each episode, MayBee.

When GN started we were very good at having discussions where we listened to each other, and not just to pull holes, even on political threads.

It didn't last long. Just took one election for it to become the same old same old, shouting insults and abusing memebers of the party the poster didn't support.

M0nica

When GN started we were very good at having discussions where we listened to each other, and not just to pull holes, even on political threads.

It didn't last long. Just took one election for it to become the same old same old, shouting insults and abusing memebers of the party the poster didn't support.

M0nica this made me lol ! Its so true.

However there are others who don't read the full thread, jump in with insane mis quotes that they cannot possibly explain but expect others to agree with, and generally render the discussion pointless.

Its like some people lose their minds once they log on.

Personally I would rather engage ( not necessarily agree) with the most robust arguer than have to wade my way through weak waffle.

Did you listen to it M0nica? I'd be interested to hear what you make of it. The bit at the beginning with the children learning to argue made me wonder if we don't do enough to teach people to negotiate. All discussion has a level of negotiation.

Another podcast that’s really interesting ( and I must listen to it again) is The Death of Nuance. Again I couldn’t take it all in.

I did a lot of debating at university and that (at least when i was there) had a very fixed procedure. Two people each put a sides of a proposition and those seconding them critiqued the oppositions speech

DaisyAnne

Did you listen to it M0nica? I'd be interested to hear what you make of it. The bit at the beginning with the children learning to argue made me wonder if we don't do enough to teach people to negotiate. All discussion has a level of negotiation.

I think I'd amend that to all discussion should have a level of negotiation.

Davida1968

I agree: a good programme! Worth a listen. (I suggest that it should be compulsory listening for all politicians.)

Couldn’t agree more. The series is excellent, few politicians seem to understand debate, as witnessed recently.
Unfortunately, the same can be said for others on discussion forums.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

Did you listen to it M0nica? I'd be interested to hear what you make of it. The bit at the beginning with the children learning to argue made me wonder if we don't do enough to teach people to negotiate. All discussion has a level of negotiation.

I think I'd amend that to all discussion should have a level of negotiation.

Sadly true.

When I was at school part of our curriculum was a literary and debating society. Teacher used to seek out our opinions on a hot topic and then strategically select individuals to speak for and against the subject. Excellent and mind broadening experience for this teenager. Never forgotten it.
I'm going to Edinburgh for part of the festival and one of my highlights will be an hour with Rory Stewart in interview. Apparently his show was in such demand that a larger venue was sought. Oh yessss......

Are there any other GNetters who were at Glasgow University in the early 60s?

That was a golden age for debating. Glasgow cosistently beat Oxford and Cambridge in the UK debating championships winning the Observor Mace.

Speakers like John Smith, Ming Campbell, Neil McCormack and Donald Dewar were fantastic debaters.

Kim19

When I was at school part of our curriculum was a literary and debating society. Teacher used to seek out our opinions on a hot topic and then strategically select individuals to speak for and against the subject. Excellent and mind broadening experience for this teenager. Never forgotten it.
I'm going to Edinburgh for part of the festival and one of my highlights will be an hour with Rory Stewart in interview. Apparently his show was in such demand that a larger venue was sought. Oh yessss......

The Fringe is going to be on the internet this year I believe. Not sure how much it will cost to access , though.

The late Donald Dewar, former president of the Glasgow University Union and the first First Minister of Scotland was an amazing debater

www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/biography/?id=WH0029&type=P

M0nica

I did a lot of debating at university and that (at least when i was there) had a very fixed procedure. Two people each put a sides of a proposition and those seconding them critiqued the oppositions speech

Me too, and at the end of the debate the audience (aka other students) voted on which pair won the argument, and critiqued our performance. It was challenging.
I think that the ‘loss of discipline’ on threads on Gransnet is because there are many more people involved than when it first started, you can see that from the number of threads and level of activity on threads. Maybe it’s also appealing to a broader demographic now?

Ive always thought that being insulting undermines an argument so I've never understood doing it

I think the believed "loss of discipline" on GN is a whole other thread. However, Rory Stewart points to the fact that political voices are no longer debating with each other they are simply talking past each other. I would say voices generally on social media do this.

Back to The Long History of Argument. I have gone back to the beginning to listen again. Stewart talks of how political arguments changed in about 2014. He comments that this was the time of Bolsonaro in Brazil, Modi in India, the Brexit referendum and Trump in America. Then we have the suggestion that political arguments changed in a "dramatically short period of time". Backed by a psychiatrist, he suggests this is because of a vicious cycle of one extreme creating the opposite extreme.

Maybe we must ask ourselves if the extreme view we oppose was created and carefully worded to make us do that very thing. From this small part of the broadcast, I agree that the "only my political view is valid" does close down many debates, not only political ones.

If someone disallows all other political views, doesn't that call into question all their views in other areas? Are their arguments about how the economy works, facts that should be proved accurate under all political conditions, going to be skewed by their own extreme bias? Are someone's views on a medical intervention built on the same inflexibility as their politics?

What do you think?

Casdon The audience never critiqued our performance, only voted on the motion. The Observer used to run a university debating competition 'The Observer Mace' and I was in our team a couple of times and also travelled to other universities to take part in debates.

I really enjoyed it and my original choice of career was to be a barrister, but, in the mid 1960s, that required an income to support you and, especially if you were a woman, a recommendation or contact to a set of chambers to take you on, and I had neither.