[Script Info] Title: [Events] Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text Dialogue: 0,0:00:01.27,0:00:03.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My name is Dan Cohen\Nand I am an academic, as he said. Dialogue: 0,0:00:04.50,0:00:07.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And what that means is that I argue. Dialogue: 0,0:00:07.60,0:00:09.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's an important part of my life. Dialogue: 0,0:00:09.27,0:00:10.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I like to argue. Dialogue: 0,0:00:10.73,0:00:14.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I'm not just an academic,\NI'm a philosopher, Dialogue: 0,0:00:14.13,0:00:17.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so I like to think that I'm actually\Npretty good at arguing. Dialogue: 0,0:00:17.10,0:00:19.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I also like to think\Na lot about arguing. Dialogue: 0,0:00:20.37,0:00:23.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And in thinking about arguing,\NI've come across some puzzles. Dialogue: 0,0:00:23.87,0:00:25.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And one of the puzzles is that, Dialogue: 0,0:00:25.80,0:00:28.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as I've been thinking\Nabout arguing over the years -- Dialogue: 0,0:00:28.37,0:00:29.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it's been decades now -- Dialogue: 0,0:00:29.80,0:00:31.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've gotten better at arguing. Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.50,0:00:35.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But the more that I argue\Nand the better I get at arguing, Dialogue: 0,0:00:35.03,0:00:36.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the more that I lose. Dialogue: 0,0:00:36.97,0:00:38.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And that's a puzzle. Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.23,0:00:41.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the other puzzle\Nis that I'm actually okay with that. Dialogue: 0,0:00:41.50,0:00:43.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Why is it that I'm okay with losing Dialogue: 0,0:00:43.37,0:00:46.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and why is it that I think good arguers\Nare actually better at losing? Dialogue: 0,0:00:46.83,0:00:48.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, there are some other puzzles. Dialogue: 0,0:00:48.87,0:00:50.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One is: why do we argue? Dialogue: 0,0:00:50.77,0:00:52.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Who benefits from arguments? Dialogue: 0,0:00:52.43,0:00:54.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When I think about arguments,\NI'm talking about -- Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.80,0:00:57.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,let's call them academic arguments\Nor cognitive arguments -- Dialogue: 0,0:00:57.67,0:00:59.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where something cognitive is at stake: Dialogue: 0,0:00:59.53,0:01:02.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is this proposition true?\NIs this theory a good theory? Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.30,0:01:06.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is this a viable interpretation\Nof the data or the text? And so on. Dialogue: 0,0:01:06.80,0:01:10.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not interested really in arguments\Nabout whose turn it is to do the dishes Dialogue: 0,0:01:10.80,0:01:12.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or who has to take out the garbage. Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.50,0:01:14.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Yeah, we have those arguments, too. Dialogue: 0,0:01:14.83,0:01:17.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I tend to win those arguments,\Nbecause I know the tricks. Dialogue: 0,0:01:17.60,0:01:19.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But those aren't the important arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:01:19.60,0:01:21.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm interested in academic arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:01:21.40,0:01:23.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and here are the things that puzzle me. Dialogue: 0,0:01:24.67,0:01:27.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,First, what do good arguers win\Nwhen they win an argument? Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.77,0:01:30.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What do I win if I convince you Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.27,0:01:32.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that utilitarianism isn't really\Nthe right framework Dialogue: 0,0:01:32.72,0:01:34.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for thinking about ethical theories? Dialogue: 0,0:01:34.50,0:01:36.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What do we win when we win an argument? Dialogue: 0,0:01:36.40,0:01:37.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even before that, Dialogue: 0,0:01:37.77,0:01:39.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what does it matter to me Dialogue: 0,0:01:39.03,0:01:41.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether you have this idea\Nthat Kant's theory works Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.00,0:01:45.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or Mill is the right ethicist to follow? Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.20,0:01:46.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's no skin off my back Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.60,0:01:49.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether you think functionalism\Nis a viable theory of mind. Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.30,0:01:52.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So why do we even try to argue? Dialogue: 0,0:01:52.37,0:01:54.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Why do we try to convince other people Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.23,0:01:56.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to believe things\Nthey don't want to believe, Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.43,0:01:58.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and is that even a nice thing to do? Dialogue: 0,0:01:58.23,0:02:00.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is that a nice way to treat\Nanother human being, Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.50,0:02:03.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,try and make them think something\Nthey don't want to think? Dialogue: 0,0:02:03.50,0:02:08.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, my answer is going to make reference\Nto three models for arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:02:08.20,0:02:10.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The first model -- let's call it\Nthe dialectical model -- Dialogue: 0,0:02:10.97,0:02:13.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is we think of arguments as war;\Nyou know what that's like -- Dialogue: 0,0:02:13.90,0:02:16.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a lot of screaming and shouting\Nand winning and losing. Dialogue: 0,0:02:16.63,0:02:18.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's not a very helpful\Nmodel for arguing, Dialogue: 0,0:02:18.80,0:02:21.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it's a pretty common\Nand entrenched model for arguing. Dialogue: 0,0:02:21.57,0:02:24.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there's a second model for arguing:\Narguments as proofs. Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.83,0:02:26.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Think of a mathematician's argument. Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.93,0:02:29.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Here's my argument.\NDoes it work? Is it any good? Dialogue: 0,0:02:29.73,0:02:34.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Are the premises warranted?\NAre the inferences valid? Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.23,0:02:36.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Does the conclusion follow\Nfrom the premises? Dialogue: 0,0:02:36.80,0:02:39.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No opposition, no adversariality -- Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.23,0:02:44.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not necessarily any arguing\Nin the adversarial sense. Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.93,0:02:46.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there's a third model to keep in mind Dialogue: 0,0:02:46.93,0:02:48.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I think is going to be very helpful, Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.93,0:02:53.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and that is arguments as performances,\Narguments in front of an audience. Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.97,0:02:56.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We can think of a politician\Ntrying to present a position, Dialogue: 0,0:02:56.93,0:02:59.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trying to convince\Nthe audience of something. Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.10,0:03:02.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there's another twist on this model\Nthat I really think is important; Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.60,0:03:06.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,namely, that when we argue\Nbefore an audience, Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.63,0:03:10.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sometimes the audience has\Na more participatory role in the argument; Dialogue: 0,0:03:10.73,0:03:15.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that is, arguments are also\N[performances] in front of juries, Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.27,0:03:18.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who make a judgment and decide the case. Dialogue: 0,0:03:18.07,0:03:19.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let's call this the rhetorical model, Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.90,0:03:23.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where you have to tailor your argument\Nto the audience at hand. Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.63,0:03:26.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You know, presenting a sound, well-argued, Dialogue: 0,0:03:26.30,0:03:29.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tight argument in English\Nbefore a francophone audience Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.70,0:03:31.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just isn't going to work. Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.80,0:03:35.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So we have these models --\Nargument as war, argument as proof Dialogue: 0,0:03:35.47,0:03:37.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and argument as performance. Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.17,0:03:41.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Of those three, the argument as war\Nis the dominant one. Dialogue: 0,0:03:42.47,0:03:45.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It dominates how we talk about arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:03:45.10,0:03:47.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it dominates how we think about arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:03:47.17,0:03:50.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and because of that,\Nit shapes how we argue, Dialogue: 0,0:03:50.17,0:03:51.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our actual conduct in arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:03:51.97,0:03:53.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, when we talk about arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.67,0:03:55.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we talk in a very militaristic language. Dialogue: 0,0:03:55.67,0:03:58.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We want strong arguments,\Narguments that have a lot of punch, Dialogue: 0,0:03:58.93,0:04:00.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments that are right on target. Dialogue: 0,0:04:00.63,0:04:03.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We want to have our defenses up\Nand our strategies all in order. Dialogue: 0,0:04:03.83,0:04:06.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We want killer arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.43,0:04:08.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's the kind of argument we want. Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.20,0:04:11.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is the dominant way\Nof thinking about arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:04:11.63,0:04:13.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When I'm talking about arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.27,0:04:16.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's probably what you thought of,\Nthe adversarial model. Dialogue: 0,0:04:16.44,0:04:18.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But the war metaphor, Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.97,0:04:21.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the war paradigm or model\Nfor thinking about arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.73,0:04:24.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has, I think, deforming effects\Non how we argue. Dialogue: 0,0:04:25.10,0:04:28.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,First, it elevates tactics over substance. Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.97,0:04:31.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can take a class\Nin logic, argumentation. Dialogue: 0,0:04:31.13,0:04:32.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You learn all about the subterfuges Dialogue: 0,0:04:32.87,0:04:35.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that people use to try and win\Narguments -- the false steps. Dialogue: 0,0:04:35.77,0:04:38.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It magnifies the us-versus\Nthem aspect of it. Dialogue: 0,0:04:38.97,0:04:42.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing. Dialogue: 0,0:04:42.40,0:04:48.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And the only foreseeable outcomes\Nare triumph -- glorious triumph -- Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.23,0:04:51.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or abject, ignominious defeat. Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.33,0:04:53.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think those are deforming effects, Dialogue: 0,0:04:53.10,0:04:56.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and worst of all, it seems\Nto prevent things like negotiation Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.97,0:05:01.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or deliberation or compromise\Nor collaboration. Dialogue: 0,0:05:02.23,0:05:05.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Think about that one -- have you\Never entered an argument thinking, Dialogue: 0,0:05:05.42,0:05:08.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Let's see if we can hash something out,\Nrather than fight it out. Dialogue: 0,0:05:08.83,0:05:10.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What can we work out together?" Dialogue: 0,0:05:10.77,0:05:13.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think the argument-as-war metaphor Dialogue: 0,0:05:13.16,0:05:17.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,inhibits those other kinds\Nof resolutions to argumentation. Dialogue: 0,0:05:17.60,0:05:20.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And finally -- this is really\Nthe worst thing -- Dialogue: 0,0:05:20.07,0:05:22.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments don't seem to get us\Nanywhere; they're dead ends. Dialogue: 0,0:05:22.90,0:05:28.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They are like roundabouts or traffic jams\Nor gridlock in conversation. Dialogue: 0,0:05:28.60,0:05:29.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We don't get anywhere. Dialogue: 0,0:05:30.43,0:05:31.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And one more thing. Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.73,0:05:34.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And as an educator, this is the one\Nthat really bothers me: Dialogue: 0,0:05:34.67,0:05:36.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If argument is war, Dialogue: 0,0:05:36.87,0:05:41.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then there's an implicit equation\Nof learning with losing. Dialogue: 0,0:05:41.90,0:05:43.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And let me explain what I mean. Dialogue: 0,0:05:44.07,0:05:46.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Suppose you and I have an argument. Dialogue: 0,0:05:46.63,0:05:49.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You believe a proposition, P, and I don't. Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.50,0:05:52.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?" Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.44,0:05:53.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you give me your reasons. Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.87,0:05:56.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I object and say,\N"Well, what about ...?" Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.27,0:05:57.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you answer my objection. Dialogue: 0,0:05:57.80,0:06:00.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I have a question:\N"Well, what do you mean? Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.23,0:06:01.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How does it apply over here?" Dialogue: 0,0:06:02.13,0:06:03.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And you answer my question. Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.80,0:06:05.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, suppose at the end of the day, Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.53,0:06:07.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've objected, I've questioned, Dialogue: 0,0:06:07.67,0:06:10.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've raised all sorts of counter\Ncounter-considerations Dialogue: 0,0:06:10.29,0:06:13.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and in every case you've responded\Nto my satisfaction. Dialogue: 0,0:06:13.90,0:06:16.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so at the end of the day, I say, Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.57,0:06:19.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"You know what? I guess you're right: P." Dialogue: 0,0:06:20.50,0:06:22.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, I have a new belief. Dialogue: 0,0:06:22.87,0:06:24.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's not just any belief; Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.30,0:06:30.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's well-articulated, examined --\Nit's a battle-tested belief. Dialogue: 0,0:06:31.80,0:06:32.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Great cognitive gain. Dialogue: 0,0:06:32.98,0:06:34.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,OK, who won that argument? Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.60,0:06:39.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, the war metaphor\Nseems to force us into saying you won, Dialogue: 0,0:06:39.57,0:06:42.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even though I'm the only one\Nwho made any cognitive gain. Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.30,0:06:45.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What did you gain, cognitively,\Nfrom convincing me? Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.97,0:06:48.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sure, you got some pleasure out of it,\Nmaybe your ego stroked, Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.97,0:06:50.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,maybe you get some professional status Dialogue: 0,0:06:50.97,0:06:53.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the field --\N"This guy's a good arguer." Dialogue: 0,0:06:53.57,0:06:56.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But just from a cognitive point of view, Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.57,0:06:57.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who was the winner? Dialogue: 0,0:06:57.87,0:07:02.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The war metaphor forces us into thinking\Nthat you're the winner and I lost, Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.70,0:07:04.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even though I gained. Dialogue: 0,0:07:04.77,0:07:07.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And there's something wrong\Nwith that picture. Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.07,0:07:09.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And that's the picture\NI really want to change if we can. Dialogue: 0,0:07:09.80,0:07:13.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, how can we find ways Dialogue: 0,0:07:13.17,0:07:16.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to make arguments\Nyield something positive? Dialogue: 0,0:07:17.63,0:07:20.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What we need is new\Nexit strategies for arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.37,0:07:24.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But we're not going to have\Nnew exit strategies for arguments Dialogue: 0,0:07:24.27,0:07:27.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,until we have new entry\Napproaches to arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.60,0:07:30.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We need to think\Nof new kinds of arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:07:31.27,0:07:33.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In order to do that, well -- Dialogue: 0,0:07:33.87,0:07:35.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't know how to do that. Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.10,0:07:37.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's the bad news. Dialogue: 0,0:07:37.47,0:07:40.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The argument-as-war metaphor\Nis just ... it's a monster. Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.50,0:07:42.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's just taken up habitation in our mind, Dialogue: 0,0:07:42.92,0:07:45.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and there's no magic bullet\Nthat's going to kill it. Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.39,0:07:48.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's no magic wand\Nthat's going to make it disappear. Dialogue: 0,0:07:48.05,0:07:49.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't have an answer. Dialogue: 0,0:07:49.33,0:07:50.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I have some suggestions. Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.70,0:07:52.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Here's my suggestion: Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.70,0:07:55.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If we want to think\Nof new kinds of arguments, Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.91,0:07:59.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what we need to do\Nis think of new kinds of arguers. Dialogue: 0,0:07:59.90,0:08:01.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So try this: Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.77,0:08:07.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Think of all the roles\Nthat people play in arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:08:07.23,0:08:10.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's the proponent and the opponent Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.23,0:08:12.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in an adversarial, dialectical argument. Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.43,0:08:14.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's the audience\Nin rhetorical arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.60,0:08:16.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's the reasoner\Nin arguments as proofs. Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.77,0:08:20.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All these different roles. Dialogue: 0,0:08:20.10,0:08:23.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, can you imagine an argument\Nin which you are the arguer, Dialogue: 0,0:08:23.97,0:08:27.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but you're also in the audience,\Nwatching yourself argue? Dialogue: 0,0:08:27.97,0:08:31.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Can you imagine yourself\Nwatching yourself argue, Dialogue: 0,0:08:31.03,0:08:35.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,losing the argument, and yet still,\Nat the end of the argument, saying, Dialogue: 0,0:08:35.53,0:08:38.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Wow, that was a good argument!" Dialogue: 0,0:08:39.13,0:08:40.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Can you do that? Dialogue: 0,0:08:40.50,0:08:43.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think you can, and I think\Nif you can imagine that kind of argument, Dialogue: 0,0:08:43.83,0:08:47.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where the loser says to the winner\Nand the audience and the jury can say, Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.63,0:08:49.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Yeah, that was a good argument," Dialogue: 0,0:08:49.60,0:08:51.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then you have imagined a good argument. Dialogue: 0,0:08:51.48,0:08:52.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And more than that, Dialogue: 0,0:08:52.67,0:08:54.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think you've imagined a good arguer, Dialogue: 0,0:08:54.67,0:08:59.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an arguer that's worthy of the kind\Nof arguer you should try to be. Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.57,0:09:02.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now, I lose a lot of arguments. Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.37,0:09:04.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It takes practice to become a good arguer, Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.80,0:09:07.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the sense of being able to benefit\Nfrom losing, but fortunately, Dialogue: 0,0:09:07.98,0:09:10.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I've had many, many colleagues\Nwho have been willing to step up Dialogue: 0,0:09:10.97,0:09:12.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and provide that practice for me. Dialogue: 0,0:09:12.70,0:09:13.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thank you. Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.90,0:09:17.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(Applause)