Good Arguments: How Debate Teaches Us to Listen and Be Heard

Good Arguments: How Debate Teaches Us to Listen and Be Heard by Bo Seo, a champion debater from South Korea and Australia, is pretty good. I found the discussions about his debating experience a bit tiresome after a while. Great. You won another debate in some worldwide locale. Fine. 

But, he provided various rules on good argument that I found helpful. For instance, the RISA rules:

1. Real (actual dispute) 
2. Important (worth disagreeing about) 
3. Specific (clear what we are fighting about)
4. Aligned (each side arguing for same reasons 

Relatedly, when people make arguments, there are various ways to rebut them.  The person, for instance, might not have proven their case. Or, and this is something I find often useful, the argument is somewhat besides the point.  In other words, even if you grant the premise [which some rather not do], you can show that the person still did not make their case.

I found the last chapter about technology more boring.  He has a chapter about how debating is a matter of taking a specific side, which some other time might be the job of the other side.  He does not really going into the concern (though flags a few people who don't like this technique, wanting only to promote "the truth") of supporting "the wrong side."  

There is some effort to not make the resolution something really bad, but there are things various people have very strong feelings about.  Did he not ever have to debate a side he personally found abhorrent akin to a vegan needing to support hunting or a pacifist supporting militarism?  

The book overall assumes that debating helps overall, including promoting the truth.  Debate is useful in part since it allows a person to see more than one side.  The author is currently studying law, so he will see the value of this, such as if he ever has to be a law clerk and have to work on an opinion he personally opposes.  Liberal and conservative clerks for conservative and liberal judges are a known quality, and such judges see some good there in having someone who might pushback against some assumptions and will be able to see things from a different vantage point.  

The book does bring up the Trump/Clinton debates, but does not dwell too much on how much of a divided country we are at the moment. That is, the idea both sides find it particularly hard to talk to each other, to reasonably debate.  I think the fact (and I see it) one side being in power is so horrible (in part since they cannot admit to a few basic things that should not be up to debate) is a deep problem.  There is room for debate.

The book in the conclusion also briefly notes the value of encouraging debate in public life.  This would include teaching debating skills, having means for citizens to debate the issues, and so forth.  I took some further notes and again found the book helpful in various respects.