I have a long history of debating.

You know the crowd is not with you.

I got that impression, yeah. And... You think there's no systemic racism? I believe that it depends on how you define systemic racism. When I debate, it's really not about tactics or tricks or anything like that. It really is more about trying to understand what the other person thinks and then critiquing what they think. The same reason that Socrates had debates. The purpose is to elucidate ideas and bring ideas to the forefront.

This video is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

All righty, folks.

So we are here today to go through five rules for debate.

I get asked about this a lot.

What are some of the best tactics for debate? It's really not about tactics or tricks or anything like that. It really is more about trying to understand what the other person thinks and then critiquing what they think in a good faith way. That's the best way to do a discussion and a debate, actually. They're sort of the same thing. Number one, you have to ask questions for clarification. It is very important to understand exactly what your opponent is offering. People speak shorthand with one another, and very often this means that they are really inexact in their definition. So, for example, you're talking to somebody and they say, you're a climate denier, you're denying climate change. And you say to them, I need to understand exactly what you're claiming. Is a climate denier a person who says that there is no climate change happening,

or is a climate denier a person who acknowledges that there is some climate change, but isn't sure how much of that is anthropogenic, how much of that is human cause, and also doesn't believe

that the prescriptions that are being put out by the left are actively going to solve that

problem. I need to know exactly what it is that you're making a claim about.

This happens all the time when it comes to health care.

Every other Western developed country does some version of single payer. It obviously can be done

and it is done at lower rates and better coverage. So what is your ideal level of health care

that is provided to everyone? And what

sort of tax rate are you proposing to subsidize that? I'll say, well, I'm in favor of nationalized health care. It's okay, what kind of nationalized health care are we talking about? Like, are we going to be arguing about the British NHS system or are we going to be arguing about Singapore, which is largely privatized? If they're talking about income inequality, you say, well, what is it that you're chiefly concerned about? Are you chiefly concerned about some people being very rich and others being slightly less rich and there could be a big gap? Are you really worried about just poverty? Because that's sort of a different thing. When you ask questions for clarification, it allows you to find areas of agreement because very often when you clarify, you agree. Or, alternatively,

you actually see the real grounds of the disagreement, and that allows you to critique your opponent's argument better. Second, don't accept your opponent's characterization of you. So when people don't have a good argument, very often what they go to is calling you names. They'll say that you're a bigot. You're a homophobic. You're a hater. Caitlin Jenner, I'll call him Caitlin Jenner. No, it's her. You're not being polite to the pronoun.

Disrespectful. Okay. You're a hater. Caitlin Jenner, I'll call him Caitlin Jenner. No, it's her. You're not being polite to the pronoun.

Disrespectful.

Okay. The proper response to that is not what people typically do. When somebody calls you a bigot or a hater or a racist or anything like that, very often your normal, natural human response say, I'm not those things. I'm not a bigot. I'm not a racist. Why would you do that? Why would you say that?

That is not the proper response.

Because you denying that you're a bigot means that they're a

...