[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:03.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My name is Dan Cohen, and I am academic, as he said.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:03.00,0:00:07.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And what that means is that I argue.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:07.00,0:00:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's an important part of my life, and I like to argue.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:10.00,0:00:13.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:13.00,0:00:16.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:16.00,0:00:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I also like to think a lot about arguing.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:20.00,0:00:23.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:23.00,0:00:25.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and one of the puzzles is that
Dialogue: 0,0:00:25.00,0:00:27.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as I've been thinking about arguing over the years,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:27.00,0:00:31.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it's been decades now, I've gotten better at arguing,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.00,0:00:34.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the more that I argue and the better I get at arguing,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.00,0:00:38.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the more that I lose. And that's a puzzle.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.00,0:00:41.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:41.00,0:00:43.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Why is it that I'm okay with losing
Dialogue: 0,0:00:43.00,0:00:44.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and why is it that I think that good arguers
Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.00,0:00:46.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are actually better at losing?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:46.00,0:00:48.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, there's some other puzzles.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:48.00,0:00:52.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One is, why do we argue? Who benefits from arguments?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:52.00,0:00:54.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And when I think about arguments now, I'm talking about,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.00,0:00:57.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:57.00,0:00:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where something cognitive is at stake.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:59.00,0:01:02.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.00,0:01:06.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:06.00,0:01:08.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so on. I'm not interested really in arguments about
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.00,0:01:12.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whose turn it is to to do the dishes or who has to take out the garbage.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.00,0:01:14.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Yeah, we have those arguments too.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:14.00,0:01:16.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:16.00,0:01:18.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But those aren't the important arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.00,0:01:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm interested in academic arguments today,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:20.00,0:01:22.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and here are the things that puzzle me.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:22.00,0:01:27.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.00,0:01:30.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What do I win if I convince you that
Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.00,0:01:33.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,utilitarianism isn't really the right framework for thinking about ethical theories?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:33.00,0:01:35.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So what do we win when we win an argument?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.00,0:01:38.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even before that, what does it matter to me
Dialogue: 0,0:01:38.00,0:01:42.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works
Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.00,0:01:44.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or Mill's the right ethicist to follow?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:44.00,0:01:47.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's no skin off my back whether you think
Dialogue: 0,0:01:47.00,0:01:50.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,functionalism is a viable theory of mind.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.00,0:01:52.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So why do we even try to argue?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:52.00,0:01:54.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Why do we convince other people
Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.00,0:01:56.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to believe things that they don't want to believe?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.00,0:01:58.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way
Dialogue: 0,0:01:58.00,0:02:00.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to treat another human being, try and make them
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.00,0:02:03.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think something they don't want to think?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:03.00,0:02:06.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, my answer is going to make reference to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:06.00,0:02:08.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,three models for arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:08.00,0:02:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.00,0:02:12.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that's like.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:12.00,0:02:14.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's a lot of screaming and shouting
Dialogue: 0,0:02:14.00,0:02:15.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and winning and losing,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.00,0:02:18.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that's not really a very helpful model for arguing
Dialogue: 0,0:02:18.00,0:02:21.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:21.00,0:02:24.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.00,0:02:26.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Think of a mathematician's argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.00,0:02:29.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:29.00,0:02:33.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:33.00,0:02:36.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:36.00,0:02:39.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No opposition, no adversariality,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.00,0:02:44.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.00,0:02:46.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there's a third model to keep in mind
Dialogue: 0,0:02:46.00,0:02:48.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I think is going to be very helpful,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.00,0:02:51.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that is arguments as performances,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:51.00,0:02:53.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments as being in front of an audience.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.00,0:02:56.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We can think of a politician trying to present a position,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:56.00,0:02:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trying to a convince the audience of something.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.00,0:03:02.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.00,0:03:06.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,namely that when we argue before an audience,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.00,0:03:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:10.00,0:03:15.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.00,0:03:17.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who make a judgment and decide the case.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:17.00,0:03:19.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let's call this the rhetorical model,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.00,0:03:23.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.00,0:03:26.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:26.00,0:03:29.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tight argument in English before a francophone audience
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.00,0:03:31.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just isn't going to work.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.00,0:03:34.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So we have these models -- argument as war,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:34.00,0:03:37.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argument as proof, and argument as performance.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:37.00,0:03:42.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:42.00,0:03:45.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It dominates how we talk about arguments,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:45.00,0:03:47.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it dominates how we think about arguments,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:47.00,0:03:50.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and because of that, it shapes how we argue,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:50.00,0:03:51.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our actual conduct in arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:51.00,0:03:53.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, when we talk about arguments,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.00,0:03:55.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:55.00,0:03:58.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:58.00,0:04:00.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments that are right on target.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:00.00,0:04:03.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:03.00,0:04:06.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We want killer arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.00,0:04:09.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's the kind of argument we want.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.00,0:04:11.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:11.00,0:04:13.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.00,0:04:16.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what you thought of, the adversarial model.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:16.00,0:04:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But the war metaphor, the war paradigm
Dialogue: 0,0:04:20.00,0:04:21.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or model for thinking about arguments,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.00,0:04:24.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.00,0:04:28.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,First it elevates tactics over substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.00,0:04:30.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can take a class in logic, argumentation.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.00,0:04:33.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You learn all about the subterfuges that people use
Dialogue: 0,0:04:33.00,0:04:35.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to try and win arguments, the false steps.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:35.00,0:04:39.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.00,0:04:42.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:42.00,0:04:45.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the only foreseeable outcomes
Dialogue: 0,0:04:45.00,0:04:51.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.00,0:04:54.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:54.00,0:04:56.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it seems to prevent things like negotiation
Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.00,0:04:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or deliberation or compromise
Dialogue: 0,0:04:59.00,0:05:02.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or collaboration.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:02.00,0:05:04.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Think about that one. Have you ever entered an argument
Dialogue: 0,0:05:04.00,0:05:07.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thinking, "Let's see if we can hash something out
Dialogue: 0,0:05:07.00,0:05:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rather than fight it out. What can we work out together?"
Dialogue: 0,0:05:10.00,0:05:12.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I think the argument-as-war metaphor
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.00,0:05:17.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:17.00,0:05:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And finally, this is really the worst thing,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:20.00,0:05:21.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments don't seem to get us anywhere.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:21.00,0:05:24.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're dead ends. They are roundabouts
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.00,0:05:28.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:28.00,0:05:30.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We don't get anywhere.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:30.00,0:05:32.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Oh, and one more thing, and as an educator,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.00,0:05:34.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is the one that really bothers me:
Dialogue: 0,0:05:34.00,0:05:38.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If argument is war, then there's an implicit equation
Dialogue: 0,0:05:38.00,0:05:41.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of learning with losing.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:41.00,0:05:43.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And let me explain what I mean.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:43.00,0:05:46.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Suppose you and I have an argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:46.00,0:05:50.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.00,0:05:52.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I say, "Well why do you believe P?"
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.00,0:05:53.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you give me your reasons.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.00,0:05:56.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I object and say, "Well, what about ...?"
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.00,0:05:57.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you answer my objection.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:57.00,0:06:00.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.00,0:06:03.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How does it apply over here?" And you answer my question.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.00,0:06:05.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, suppose at the end of the day,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.00,0:06:07.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've objected, I've questioned,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:07.00,0:06:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've raised all sorts of counter-considerations,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:10.00,0:06:13.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:13.00,0:06:16.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so at the end of the day, I say,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.00,0:06:20.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"You know what? I guess you're right. P."
Dialogue: 0,0:06:20.00,0:06:23.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I have a new belief. And it's not just any belief,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:23.00,0:06:28.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it's a well-articulated, examined,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:28.00,0:06:31.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's a battle-tested belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:31.00,0:06:35.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Great cognitive game. Okay. Who won that argument?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.00,0:06:38.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying
Dialogue: 0,0:06:38.00,0:06:41.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you won, even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:41.00,0:06:45.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What did you gain cognitively from convincing me?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.00,0:06:48.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.00,0:06:51.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,maybe you get some professional status in the field.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:51.00,0:06:53.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This guy's a good arguer.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:53.00,0:06:57.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But cognitively, now -- just from a cognitive point of view -- who was the winner?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:57.00,0:06:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The war metaphor forces us into thinking
Dialogue: 0,0:06:59.00,0:07:02.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you're the winner and I lost,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.00,0:07:04.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even though I gained.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:04.00,0:07:06.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And there's something wrong with that picture.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:06.00,0:07:09.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And that's the picture I really want to change if we can.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:09.00,0:07:14.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So how can we find ways to make arguments
Dialogue: 0,0:07:14.00,0:07:17.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yield something positive?
Dialogue: 0,0:07:17.00,0:07:21.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.00,0:07:24.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments
Dialogue: 0,0:07:24.00,0:07:27.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,until we have new entry approaches to arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.00,0:07:30.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We need to think of new kinds of arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:30.00,0:07:33.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In order to do that, well,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:33.00,0:07:36.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't know how to do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.00,0:07:37.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's the bad news.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:37.00,0:07:40.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The argument-as-war metaphor is just, it's a monster.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.00,0:07:42.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's just taken up habitation in our mind,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:42.00,0:07:44.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:44.00,0:07:47.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:47.00,0:07:49.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't have an answer.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:49.00,0:07:50.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I have some suggestions,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.00,0:07:53.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and here's my suggestion.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.00,0:07:55.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.00,0:07:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:59.00,0:08:02.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So try this.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.00,0:08:07.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:07.00,0:08:10.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's the proponent and the opponent
Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.00,0:08:12.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in an adversarial, dialectical argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.00,0:08:14.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.00,0:08:18.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.00,0:08:22.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.00,0:08:25.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in which you are the arguer, but you're also in the audience
Dialogue: 0,0:08:25.00,0:08:27.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,watching yourself argue?
Dialogue: 0,0:08:27.00,0:08:30.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:30.00,0:08:34.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:34.00,0:08:38.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say, "Wow, that was a good argument."
Dialogue: 0,0:08:38.00,0:08:41.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Can you do that? I think you can.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:41.00,0:08:43.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I think, if you can imagine that kind of argument
Dialogue: 0,0:08:43.00,0:08:45.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where the loser says to the winner
Dialogue: 0,0:08:45.00,0:08:47.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the audience and the jury can say,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.00,0:08:49.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Yeah, that was a good argument,"
Dialogue: 0,0:08:49.00,0:08:51.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then you have imagined a good argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:51.00,0:08:53.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And more than that, I think you've imagined
Dialogue: 0,0:08:53.00,0:08:56.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a good arguer, an arguer that's worthy
Dialogue: 0,0:08:56.00,0:08:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the kind of arguer you should try to be.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.00,0:09:02.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, I lose a lot of arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.00,0:09:04.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It takes practice to become a good arguer
Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.00,0:09:06.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the sense of being able to benefit from losing,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:06.00,0:09:09.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but fortunately, I've had many, many colleagues
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.00,0:09:12.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:12.00,0:09:13.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thank you.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.00,0:09:17.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(Applause)