Weaponizing rhetoric (Advance) - Lucia Arce and Tin Puljić. MDA

Summary

This transcript from a workshop emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in debates, focusing on how to effectively capture the audience's attention and emotions. It discusses the use of narratives, moral intuitions, and impactful language to strengthen arguments. The speaker advocates for strategic introductions and conclusions to convey the significance of a case, suggesting that personal experiences and human elements can make arguments more relatable and persuasive. The summary also touches on the power of language to influence perception and the need to frame arguments within a societal context.

Takeaways

• 🎙️ The importance of rhetoric in debates is emphasized, as it helps to capture the room's emotions and further one's case effectively.
• 📖 Style in debates is not just about sounding angry or speaking fast, but about using language to make content more understandable and persuasive.
• 🗣️ The use of narratives is crucial for a winning case, providing a clear theme and sense of importance that resonates with the audience.
• 🏆 A strong narrative can make a debater's argument more memorable and persuasive, especially in short discussions where clarity is key.
• 📊 The power of framing arguments with moral intuitions and societal values can make them more impactful and relatable to the audience.
• 🔑 The significance of introductions in setting the stage for the debate, immediately giving judges a clear understanding of the debater's stance and argument.
• 🔍 The effectiveness of using personal experiences or stories to humanize arguments, making them more tangible and emotionally resonant.
• 📝 The value of practicing debate speeches to refine introductions and conclusions, ensuring they are clear, impactful, and memorable.
• 🌟 The role of conclusions in reinforcing the debater's stance and leaving a lasting impression on the judges and audience.
• 🚫 The potential pitfalls of using biased language or personal anecdotes that may not apply universally, and the need to generalize these experiences effectively.
• 🔊 The impact of using strong, emotionally charged words to heighten the intensity and persuasiveness of arguments.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the workshop mentioned in the transcript?

The primary focus of the workshop is on the importance of rhetoric and style in debates, specifically how to use language effectively to capture the room's emotions and further one's case.

Why is the use of rhetoric considered important in debates according to the transcript?

Rhetoric is considered important because it allows debaters to make their content more persuasive and understandable, not just by sounding proficient, but by strategically using language to advance their arguments.

What does the speaker suggest as a key element for a winning debate case?

The speaker suggests that a clear narrative about what the team stands for and what their argument is, including the theme they are defending, is a key element for a winning debate case.

How can the use of moral intuitions and societal values enhance an argument in a debate?

Using moral intuitions and societal values can enhance an argument by making it more relatable and persuasive, as it taps into the audience's pre-existing beliefs and values, making the argument more compelling.

What is the significance of having a clear and impactful introduction in a debate speech?

A clear and impactful introduction is significant because it sets the stage for the judge's understanding of the case, providing an immediate sense of what the team stands for and why their argument is important.

Why is it beneficial to use personal experiences or stories when making an argument?

Using personal experiences or stories can make an argument more relatable and emotionally engaging, helping judges visualize the impact of the argument and making it more memorable.

What is the role of conclusions in a debate speech, as discussed in the transcript?

The role of conclusions in a debate speech is to reinforce the team's stance and to leave a lasting impression on the judges, summarizing the most important points and why they should remember the team's case.

How can the use of biased language affect the perception of a debater's argument?

The use of biased language can negatively affect the perception of a debater's argument by making the argument seem less credible or by causing the audience to be less inclined to listen due to preconceived notions or biases.

What is the importance of using strong and impactful words when framing an argument?

Using strong and impactful words can intensify the emotional response to an argument, making it more persuasive and memorable, and potentially influencing the audience's perception of the argument's severity or importance.

What is the speaker's view on the use of personal pronouns and direct address in debates?

The speaker believes that using personal pronouns and direct address can make arguments more compelling by creating a sense of personal connection and relatability, making the audience more likely to engage with the argument.

How can debaters effectively use the final seconds of their speeches to their advantage?

Debaters can use the final seconds of their speeches to reiterate their main points or to deliver a powerful conclusion, ensuring that the judges remember the key aspects of their case and the reasons why it is important.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ The Power of Rhetoric in Debates

The speaker emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in debates, suggesting that it's not just about language proficiency but the strategic use of language to capture the room's emotions and further one's case. They discuss how the use of certain objectives and introductions can be more impactful than others, referencing Nelson Mandela as an example of an effective introduction. The focus is on using rhetoric to enhance the content of the argument, rather than just for style's sake, and the use of narratives to create a clear and winning case.

05:02

🏆 Crafting a Winning Narrative

This paragraph delves into the concept of narratives in debates, highlighting the significance of having a clear theme and argument that the team stands for. The speaker stresses the importance of making the narrative sound important and memorable to the judges, especially in short discussions. They use the example of pro-choice versus pro-life to illustrate how naming and framing arguments can influence perception and the outcome of a debate.

10:02

🎯 The Art of Argument Introduction

The speaker discusses the art of crafting argument introductions in debates, advocating for strategic openings that immediately convey the importance and direction of the case. They argue against generic or arbitrary introductions, suggesting that a well-crafted introduction can significantly impact how the case is perceived and remembered by the judges. The paragraph includes an exercise for the audience to practice creating impactful introductions for hypothetical debate cases.

15:03

💡 Utilizing Moral Intuitions in Debates

In this paragraph, the speaker explores the use of moral intuitions and societal values in debate arguments, suggesting that grounding arguments in widely recognized moral values can make them more persuasive. They provide an example related to universal basic income versus welfare, illustrating how to frame the argument around the concept of choice and individual autonomy, which are intuitively appealing principles.

20:03

🌟 Making Impactful Conclusions

The speaker advises on crafting conclusions in debates that are memorable and reinforce the team's stance. They propose using 'at the end of the day' statements to summarize the team's position and the importance of their arguments. The paragraph also suggests practicing by comparing introductions and conclusions from recorded speeches to improve clarity and impact.

25:04

👥 Humanizing Arguments with Personal Stories

The paragraph discusses the effectiveness of using personal stories to humanize arguments in debates. The speaker suggests that while personal anecdotes may not be universally applicable, they can help judges visualize the impact of the argument. They provide examples related to feminist movements and the inclusion of diverse characters in media, illustrating how these stories can make abstract concepts more relatable and compelling.

🔍 Addressing Bias and Enhancing Persuasion

The speaker addresses the issue of bias in debates, particularly against those who may sound less confident or have accents. They suggest strategies for overcoming this bias, such as pointing out the speaker's personal experience and expertise, and using emotionally charged language to enhance the persuasiveness of the arguments. The paragraph encourages debaters to be aware of and counteract potential biases to ensure their arguments are given due consideration.

Keywords

💡Rhetoric

Rhetoric refers to the art of persuasive speaking or writing, often using specific strategies to appeal to an audience's emotions or values. In the video, rhetoric is discussed as a tool for advancing arguments in debates, not just for style's sake, but to make content more compelling and impactful. An example from the script is the use of moral intuitions in framing arguments to resonate with societal values.

💡Narrative

A narrative is a story or account that explains a series of events or the main idea behind a position or argument. The video emphasizes the importance of having a clear narrative in debates to establish what the team stands for and to provide a thematic defense for their argument. The script mentions creating a sense of importance for the argument being pushed forward in debates.

💡Moral Intuitions

Moral intuitions are the immediate, often subconscious judgments about the morality of a situation. The video suggests using moral intuitions to frame arguments in a way that appeals to widely recognized moral values, making the rhetoric more persuasive. The script provides an example of how using terms like 'pro-life' can leverage moral intuitions to influence perception.

💡Introduction

In the context of debates, an introduction is the opening statement that sets the stage for the argument. The video discusses the strategic use of introductions to immediately convey the theme and importance of the case, providing judges with a clear understanding of the argument's direction. The script illustrates this with examples of how to craft introductions that are not only clear but also imbued with a sense of significance.

💡Argument

An argument in the video refers to a point or claim made in a debate that supports the team's case. The script discusses the importance of structuring arguments around clear narratives and moral intuitions to make them more persuasive. It also talks about the need to remember arguments by their main points to make the case sound important.

💡Style

Style, in the context of the video, refers to the manner in which an argument is presented, including tone, pace, and emotional expression. The video differentiates between style for the sake of appearance and style that actively enhances the content's persuasiveness. The script mentions that style can involve elements like sounding angry or slowing down to emphasize a point.

💡Dignity

Dignity in the video is discussed as a concept that can be tied to the right to make choices for oneself. It is used to frame arguments around the importance of individual autonomy and the ability to choose one's path in life. The script provides an example of how the right to a dignified life can be a persuasive argument in debates.

💡Universal Basic Income

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a concept where every citizen receives a set amount of money from the government, regardless of need or employment status. The video script uses UBI as an example of a policy argument in a debate, discussing its potential benefits in terms of individual choice and empowerment.

💡Choice

Choice is a central theme in the video, emphasizing the importance of individuals having the autonomy to make decisions that affect their lives. The script discusses how arguments can be framed around the concept of choice, using it as a moral and practical foundation for various policy debates.

💡Emotion

Emotion plays a significant role in the video's discussion of rhetoric and argumentation. It is used to connect with the audience and make arguments more compelling. The script talks about capturing the room's emotions and using emotional language to enhance the persuasiveness of the argument.

💡Language Proficiency

Language proficiency in the video is not just about speaking a language well but using it effectively to persuade and capture the audience's attention. The script suggests that proficiency is less about the language itself and more about how it is used in the context of rhetoric and argumentation.

💡Human Impact

Human impact in the video refers to the effect that policies or arguments have on individuals' lives. The script discusses the importance of illustrating the human aspect of an argument to make it relatable and impactful. It suggests using personal stories or scenarios to help judges visualize and empathize with the consequences of the argument.

💡Bias

Bias in the video is discussed in the context of how certain accents or language patterns can influence how arguments are perceived. The script points out the potential for bias against non-native speakers and suggests strategies for addressing and leveraging such biases in debates.

💡Economic Impact

Economic impact is a recurring concept in the video, particularly in the context of policy debates. The script mentions the importance of framing economic arguments in strong terms, such as 'destroying economies,' to emphasize the severity of potential consequences and make the argument more persuasive.

Highlights

The importance of rhetoric in debates is emphasized, suggesting it's not just about language proficiency but how effectively one uses language to capture emotions and advance arguments.

The use of rhetoric is discussed as a tool to enhance the understanding of one's content, rather than just for stylistic purposes.

The concept of narratives in debates is introduced, highlighting the need for a clear and impactful story that defines a team's stance and argument.

The significance of introducing moral intuitions and societal values into arguments to make them more relatable and persuasive is explained.

The strategic use of introductions in debates is discussed, emphasizing the need to immediately convey the importance and direction of the case.

The power of personal stories in debates is highlighted as a means to humanize arguments and make them more impactful.

The importance of conclusions in debates is underscored, suggesting they should reinforce the team's stance and the importance of their case.

The use of personal experience to add credibility to arguments is discussed, making them more relatable and convincing.

The impact of language and accent on the perception of arguments in debates is addressed, advocating for the recognition of diverse perspectives.

The strategic use of emotionally charged words is explored as a method to heighten the impact of arguments.

The concept of 'choice' as a central theme in debates is introduced, linking it to the right to a dignified life.

The framing of debates around moral values such as the right to happiness and self-actualization is discussed.

The idea of using clear and concise language in introductions to set the stage for the debate is highlighted.

The practice of recording and analyzing one's own debate speeches is suggested as a method for improvement.

The use of human elements in arguments to illustrate the impact on individuals is explored, making abstract concepts more tangible.

The importance of practicing the delivery of introductions and conclusions to make them more memorable and impactful is emphasized.

The strategic use of personal anecdotes to justify broader arguments and connect with the audience on a deeper level is discussed.

The potential for personal experience to add weight to arguments, making them seem more authoritative and credible.

Transcripts

so we're gonna do what we like you're

entering the reason what I think is some

really important workshop are thinking

about bonds level because like in many

cases is defined by how well you sound

or out well you able to capture the room

capture that emotions of the argument

capturing language and not in a way that

I think is determined by your language

proficiency but rather in how you use

certain objectives like do you say bad

to loose a terrific

do you use an introduction that is

useful in furthering your case rather

than just like something Nelson Mandela

or whatever for no reason

the second reason is because I think

that when we talk about style we usually

just mean things like do you sound

really angry doing the base or if you

style when I come and click there and

explaining or do you slow down a little

bit but they don't really fast and other

those things are related to style I

think of a real reason why you want to

rhetoric it's because it allows you to

make you content better so we're not

gonna talk necessarily about how to

style the vectors for the sake of

something that are more understandable

but rather a way to actively use

rhetoric as a way to further your own

content so I do think the Frederick's

can be quite useful but I think that it

is quite useful because it allows your

content to get to the next level so

that's why I think that is quite that

sort of useful thing to have in debates

so I wanna have let's talk about the

narratives and how to further and then

we're going to talk about I think that

one of the best ways to have a winning

case is to have a clear narrative about

what your team stands for and what your

argument is like what is the thing that

you theme is defending and not just that

we're also giving a sense of importance

to think that you're trying to push

under further in debates when an

especially notification under 15-minute

discussions it's very difficult

sometimes for judges to what team that

does everything kind of right and ask

for argument and the

Oh fine but it's hard for them for

judges to be like I think that this team

has won against teams that have maybe

just one or two arguments so remember

your arguments by the passwords and my

happens that's very important to make

your headline sound important I think a

very good example of this is in debates

where we debate about the right choice

for example how you bring the white

[Music]

innocency to fulfill their interest you

get to be more happy because we can

follow your own image of what you want

to be - wanna support but if you can

bring them differently

if you say look the only way in life in

which I can be happy is to follow my own

interests in my image and ask how I want

to be that means I do not have the right

to Jesus every student formula I am

denying the achievement of my future

this is the dignity of my life is

dependent on my ability to choose how I

want what you have is that the question

of a debate about the right of choice is

a question of the right to a dignified

life because without a choice

you do not have the ability to choose

for yourself therefore your picture it

will become it somebody else's extension

somebody else will not yours at this you

are making an argument about whether

choice with an equal level of analysis

but the truck remembers your argument as

speak about the right to life which

intuitively sounds far more persuasive

and I think there's a real life example

is if people can be unfortunately

there's a reason why the left is very

clumsy and that is take a look at that

they call the companies pro-choice

versus pro-life getting the name

yourself as pro-life is a very useful

because they didn't print they call me a

person as being about these people say

they're pro-choice they want you to be

able to choose about somebody else's

life how do you believe is legitimate

but somebody else has a full agency over

whether life exists around we are grown

like you're not they can make other

people's life as the fundamental value

here and when you turn to present a

clutch doesn't know much about the first

thing that they hear if that's the

headline

which people

we good intuitively something they want

to support it they want to stand on

they're far more likely to listen to you

and know that the best drivers in the

world have certain internalizes their

concentration especially so when I think

are therefore most important ways in

which you can weaponize rhetoric so one

of them is I think that not just making

the arguments but making the argument

using moral intuitions and important

moral values that we in society are

familiar with so don't just say that we

improve the quality of life of people be

like this affects individuals right to

choice right to happiness things that we

intuitively already a bunch of very

powerful while you do so i think thats

hanging into those moral intuition

people already have it's quite a clever

way to frame it I think given to been

treated really well so I think that's

one of the ways that people will just

like run content from the best second so

they will immediately be like three

points into a speech really quick a

medium to jump in already men and I

think that works fine but that just

makes you the kind of things that I

described earlier it makes you the theme

that kind of girls argument might not

seem reasonably well but there's no

sense of importance or where your case

is going I think that introduction is

between really really strategic

introductions are the best way to eat

mmediately give judges up this is what

I'm stopping for because that's I think

I'm going to remember you by by the best

words that you say so I think that the

way that you need to utilize

introductions is again not by random

code my tongue saying something that

maybe it sounds pretty it means to be a

a picture of what your case is and why

you think is important so I hope that I

useful way to think about it it's like

given that I am learning an argument

about the importance of choice how do I

explain that in a sentence what it is

quietly mutters I'll try to make it

sound like important precisely using

those moral intuitions so for example

yeah so for example I'm gonna just give

you guys an example and ask you a really

good point with arguments that you would

run into in a debate and then how you

would use an introduction to really

quickly not analogous with arguments no

more than 30 seconds just explain to me

what your cases and give me a sense of

importance to it so like I read this

house believes yeah so a very common one

believe we should give instead of

welfare a universal basic income to

people importing so let's say we are on

government we say that we should give

them a universal basic income rather

than welfare really quickly like think

of argument when you might say

[Music]

[Music]

other than some economics probably need

at least three meeting away that look

just because I just because we today

live in the world you are define by both

how you work doesn't mean that that

should be the narrative that should

exist if someone is able to self

actualize without working you should be

he should not be denied the right to

life

[Music]

so fundamentally both of those are about

choice right here that individuals

regardless of their circumstances know

their circumstances better on the

government and they're better people to

make their lives better and get out of

poverty if you allow them the choice

that rich people already have to get out

of those circumstances to use the money

in a way that is useful to them so I

think that's starting with that sort of

very intuitive as an individual I knew

my own circumstances better than anyone

in the government everywhere

I know what I need to get out of poverty

and therefore giving me well there it is

unhelpful to me achieving that goal we

think that by giving individual ceremony

do you empower them to make decisions

for themselves that will improve their

lives so I think that that allows you to

really quickly in like a sentence say

what is that word choice the idea that

individuals know the circumstances best

and that therefore they're the ones best

place to make those decisions for

immediately judges already know what

their kids all about and in a missed

I'm comedian Joey died I think o g1 I

think mother principle of choice

individuals but I think for you but the

problem is if you do it as all this you

essentially wasting time to hear much

recommended the judgment here White's

important at the beginning of your

speech so that you cannot do this you're

already wasting time on this but they

didn't change the way so one way was to

say well the CSS the other was to say

first came to prove the principal point

of why we go to have choice say we're

going to move is to practically more

efficient because this one people get

buying how to use their money they start

miss an argument at the judge can

reasonably concluded to go to mother but

from that there is no emotional response

there is no idea why the support I think

there was a mention of example that we

always got it means is mostly less

violence and people always introduction

in every single but the point is not

only the way to break a sentence when he

starts with the end of the war of the

world women an occasion should call

alternatives that first sentence is

already the Braverman he's already

telling you what I am going to prove is

that regardless of all of these parts

regardless of what

as annoying when you don't have an

alternative another point where you are

forced in that position in his words

shuffle you are legitimate in reality

you're not wasting time here because

he's already delivering content

he's already telling it in his first

sentence eight years an alternative in

his second only talking about the

shackling stuff instead of you these

people are forced in terms of

alternative universe by someone you're

legitimate to supplement his entire case

permeated by that recipe and then would

be waived as a judge you say okay they

very clearly state that their stance was

the condition of no alternatives is once

make this legitimate therefore

opposition half moon it's a critical

target you get to celebrate your Senate

burden and this in a way in the universe

loop voting and I think that's what you

can aspire towards and I'm joining

watching to debase is a way for you guys

to get a half of what goodies are

supposed but also more to be something

that you do want to very carefully think

about each one that they're saying so I

think I don't think to get into the

practice of thinking what is my case on

what is the best way in which I can

express what my cases why my case

numbers in like a sentence or two how

can I give up

practicing it is pretty reusable because

of things that if you just say the

arguments there's no solution of expose

and Noreen says to be poured out why do

I care 17 facts that you're giving me so

I think they need to be purchased some

very useful way I also think that

conclusions in the same way but the

conclusion is always be like because

it's like the other points each

important out of time I think I'd like

to deliver my last 45 seconds of

anonymous what do I do now I think it's

really useful to have like upset

conclusions that you just I always like

that you know ways I'm very boring for

watching conclusions but I always

include with at the end of the day and

then the way that I do it is we prefer

to have X versus Y so it's like I would

rather live in a world where the poor

come on meaningful way to opt out of the

systems of oppression that they live

under rather than the world or we cling

to what is the best women's work but

really if you really look at

alternatives so I work when I think my

competition I am still saying this is

what we stand for and visit what we

prepare it we're willing to trade it off

against what the opposition is going to

say so if I end up also thinking about

conclusions in the same way like a star

equals like

to establish a cradle or using them in a

sentence say what your case is the most

important thing of a debate like the

most important people to make on the

thing that judges you need to remember

it's whatever you think is the most

memorable part of your speech but I

think that I can using those best

seconds on those not seconds which are

the things which others are going to

remember you keep most by it's really

really really great

I think the way you can practice this to

this movie which promise p.m. speeches

so very open to people I Serbian speech

is it okay make a motion for every case

give a speech record your speech and

then compare it to another street

somebody else be able to record is

anything to do with interest and give me

a sign the attendance is 15 inches take

30 second general arguments and make an

introduction final recording planning

and watch how these speakers made the

introduction and then if I had elected

not to work or work what did they

deliver their introduction what did you

deliver do you think that they were more

clear than you in conveying other

flavors do you think they were more

clear than in conveying what their words

are in the other conspirators are you

people take that much time you can

visually substituted 15 minutes of prep

time you would have come to the PSP

within 15 minutes to literally analyze

the two introductions and see what was

different consumer fashion Fiat which in

the debate they try to repair the

perfectly why you changed operation

modules remove

fifteen seconds I think the principle

here is similar

so the way that you achieve that you

never want to make an argument and give

like a personal example because inside

yeah without happened to you or to your

sister it doesn't apply to everyone I

think that's true but I only think that

it's or I do think that human aspect to

your impacts is really useful so when

you're talking about like like for

example in the previous workshop and

also with intermediates we were talking

about how for example things are good

for women who are housewives but bad for

women don't want to have children at all

and I think that in those cases it's

quite useful actually a human element

because it helped judges visualize what

your impact of helping women who don't

have options looks like and I think of

using that you need to do things so

fastly its tell my story so we like for

women who are like whatever they argue

with this for women who don't want to be

pressed to do to do the things on the

pager can prescribe them to move who

don't want to be housewives want to go

to university who don't want

or for those women it becomes incredibly

difficult to ever get the things that

they want when the feminist movement is

not protecting them but rather

supporting the other side I think the

bear you draw a story right and you are

explaining what happens to an individual

and how it makes your life worth rather

than just say in very general terms that

it does and if you do that I do think

that after that you need to be like and

this applies to women everywhere or this

applies to women who want anything that

goes against a major key when you're

explaining the human impact and then

giving her enough like explaining how

that's human impact does it justify to

that person for applying to everybody

like a demonic individual and

representation like having gay

characters in between movies or having

gay characters be like very prominent in

media is like imagine another child

growing up the incredible difference

that seem someone who looks like you

feel like you would like the same gender

that you can have in a world where

everyone tells you that what you like is

wrong and where you never see anyone who

looks like you or who behaves like you

I've every feel different and that

happened to every single child who grows

up in more conservative society there's

no gay individuals around them to tell

them that their existence is funded so

that I am doing this sort of like

individual story here is what happens

human person and then I am doing this

applies to everyone and I think that

that can be quite useful in debates

where it sometimes is like kind of

difficult to conceptualize the human

impact so explaining the human impact

and then after explaining how it gets

better

helps judges visualize your impact and

help them feel like your argument is

important economic side this one is

where you kind of implied that your

personal experience things you've all

sorted it's not safe or I went to

political science and decided that's why

why on earth but that's say for example

if you're debating about conservation in

a certain country you can't start an

argument by saying look here's the

Balkans we understand interventionist

the other step reasons why they are not

there these are these reasons then

immediately you some liberal funny the

judge more inclined to listen to you

because there isn't a miracle Geneva 2

you see I experienced this I know how

this went through and it's far easier

for you to push arguments from your own

personal comments so these reasons I

gave to you look it's exactly what

happened I made about me this Lobby out

in 99 in the years and then your example

also becomes

because you seem to be speaking from on

a personal perspective it is like

correctly that you're still making the

general argument however you are

constructing an image of yourself in

which the reasons you are presenting a

more credible because you become God

within yourself person the same thing

isn't even a supplies are quite squishy

arguments its ability colony human

emotionality so when you're trying to

make an argument of how someone will

feel it was about regretting the norm

that forgiveness is a virtue and we were

running argument about that was very

important to be able to be angry at

someone to December as motivation to

December as for amendment and it's very

hard to way that because husband won't

fly you feeling angry and this and he

said was look we know this sounds fishy

but we also go to experiences we know

that all of you have had things issue

record life with all the incarnations

are hard to deal with and we all know

that sometimes it was very useful for

you to be able to say let the person

off I'm gonna show the thing wrong

and that this was the way in which you

like to resolve those negative thoughts

on which to reject them is through the

voluntary and at that point the judge

because most people didn't do this and I

tell me in your everyday life do realize

although it's hard to quantify debaters

it means something to you every day

really something that we do is every day

and you start incidentally so how corny

you can literally say look we know you

experienced this we know this happened

to you anything is your problem there

are a lot of people

[Music]

because it like whenever I get out I'm

gonna Mexican let me talk to you about

the war on drugs and then like where it

tries to respawn it's just by the

awkward position doesn't the one that

looks like I guess she must know what

you're talking about right I wasn't very

hard I didn't want anything about

interventions precisely because of that

right because I haven't had one in like

two hundred years and I think that you

can use up for literally anything and it

doesn't just have to be something that I

can mean to your country but rather you

can use up with like any particular

policies you can be like this has

happened

introducing the bucket or like us a

woman for like a person who doesn't

speak English as a first language I

think it's a pretty useful what to draw

on like yeah but one of these I think

having a missile you need to bring it

down to a human

some people in the final and individuals

were listening so I think is pointing

out biased language is my personal

perspective one of the greatest problems

and contemporary community is the fact

that there is a huge robot especially

you have an accent especially if you

stop if you sound less confident because

you're stubborn because you can't find

the word judges especially media Johnson

already charges are less likely to like

give you importance are less likely to

consider you because they think that you

know less about the ways I think it's

very useful to point out the fact that

you are yourself and still the human

analysis so we did this all the time for

saying things like I know that we they

are may sound better but our case is

doing more that's true in the same in

the semifinals and I like is Israel same

things like look we not read beyond this

America we know the economics make

judges consider your case twice because

they feel bad about who may be listening

to a team more because radio because

nobody does this on purpose

notice the high 80s of people I wanna be

able to go through without a road rage

love this

but things are costly and then we call

the nominate they are self equation - uh

Berkeley MIT genes were speakers simply

because they sound in a different way

because health impacts

so they point out that Alice Rivlin is

permanent file

and like jokes on that I mean we spend

eternity in his UBC pilot said oh I'm

going on two more years apart my gaze

back watch over their flock allowed me

this something that's captivated with

your is incalculable to the judges and

will give you more attention as a team

especially means that you listen to me I

mean will likely think might you feel

partner is more persuasive if it's

argument that we need only Turner's are

like maybe so weaponize this every I

think it's very useful in the other

thing that I think is also quite good is

to change that was certain words that

you use to impact arguments or to

analyze arguments I think that it is

quite different to say that something is

bad time to say that something is

horrific or to say that something

is terrible so trying to change the

words that you use I like it's still

just a word in a sentence but I think

that makes a fight a different impact

and I think I'm getting used to our life

at least the way that I did it cuz I

used to speed up is it because all the

time and I think they're just changing

that to different words and quite

literally after your speech I found I

found that I did I think you just need

to get used to using certain words as

well this is going to destroy economy

and ravaged nations but I think the new

can use those words in many other IR

emotions right we're in many other

economics motions that you might be

encountered so I think that just

changing the like this is going to be

bad for the economy

so this is going to destroy economies

and can't quite literally change the way

that you impact is perceive particularly

winter days are way more likely to

impact something kind of bad they're

like people

perhaps Bloods

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]