These days everyone seems to have an opinion about a surprisingly wide range of topics. I suppose that some version of this has always existed. But a couple of years ago came the game changer. The advent of digital platforms elevated individual thought to surreal heights as a result of which personal ideas now reach audiences in a way that was unthinkable before the digital revolution. These days we all get to see, hear and read opinions on all kinds of subject matters divulged by phony polymaths. In English there is a word for those individuals: ultracrepidarian. The ironic consequence of this state of affairs is that most of those who engage in dialogue don't seem to perceive the difference between idle chatter and truly productive exchange.
Opinions
The borders between meaningful conversation and small talk have been blurred to the point where many speakers simply can't tell them apart. Indeed, a large number of people who spend long hours on social media exercising their right to voice opinions are dismally ignorant of the art of conversation and, therefore, ill-equipped to even attempt a debate. Nevertheless, some of those individuals (usually self-styled influencers or podcasters) keep posting and tweeting in the delusional belief that their views are just as valid as those of bona fide experts. Some of them go so far as to join panel discussions and debates!
I understand that some public speakers give off a certain aura, a charisma (that most intangible of qualities), which, in the eyes of some spectators, makes up for their lack of substance. However, when it comes to serious subjects, a person's good looks, sophisticated manners, personal style and the number of followers on Instagram become utterly irrelevant. We need more. After all, an opinion is not worth much if it is not backed up by facts.
Debates
And yet, countless videos depict interactions where speakers simply disagree. The titles of these clips often use the term 'destroy' (as in "[Name of Random Guy] Destroys [Name of Celebrity]"), implying that one debater has left the other speechless. In reality, these exchanges are frequently just a clash of views with no actual debating.
Contrary to some people's assumptions, debating does not consist in simply opposing an adversary's views for public entertainment. It is supposed to be a regulated discussion. For starters it requires factual information. That much should be obvious. Before someone forms an opinion about the rate of unemployment, for instance, they ought to know the actual rate of unemployment. The figure in question (11.5 % in Spain at the time of he writing this post) is objective, the debater's opinion, by definition, is not. Debating also demands that a participant be ready to concede a point, that is to say, to acknowledge the merit of someone else's views and contemplate the possibility of being wrong. So, if you are not prepared to be fact-checked or proven wrong, you should probably steer clear of debates and stick to casual banter and private conversations.
Conversations
Why? Because conversations are far easier. They don't need rules, timers or moderators. Like a debate, though, a good conversation does entail the use of some objective information and/or references that go beyond personal anecdote. Still, it is a flexible category. Two good conversationalists may well exchange experiences and points of view, but will ineluctably gravitate towards a discussion that, of necessity, involves arguments. And it's there that things get slightly hairy. Arguments are based on facts which, of course, are articulated by logic. Therefore a misinformed speaker with a feeble grasp on the basics of logic is, quite simply, not a good conversationalist.
What I'm trying to say is that verbal interaction based on personal views are fine for a quick coffee, but a real conversation is a little bit more demanding than that, and a debate is probably best left to the experts.
At any rate, whether you're just chatting to pass the time or striving for self-enlightenment, I think you should ensure that your arguments are always anchored in fact. Otherwise your words will not be worth much. Sadly, though, (and this is clearly my opinion) we live in a society in which a shocking number of people seem to disregard facts, which probably explains why the term post-truth was chosen as the Oxford Dictionary word of the year in 2016. To me that symbolic decision enshrined the irrelevance of facts in public discourse. These days, it is common for people to gloss over their own ignorance. When confronted with facts, they will typically deflect, trivialize objective data and elicit emotional responses from listeners who also run roughshod over reality. It's a lose-lose game.
On the opposite end of that spectrum we find Sam Harris, a well-spoken public figure who excels at crafting coherent thoughts and compelling arguments. His background as a neuroscientist regularly shines through his speech, which is an added bonus. To you, learners of English, he can be a reference. He routinely uses complex syntax and precise vocabulary in an effortless way, which is a far cry from the proverbial word salads that fill the speeches of many self-appointed experts. In the video below Sam Harris offers great material for any advanced English learner: an efficient analogy (tennis), interesting terms (diverge, intent, align, tap out) as well as a useful collocation (to pressure-test one's views). Not bad for a 60-second clip, right? Also, the point he makes is thought-provoking: if you're not prepared to find common ground or be proven wrong, you should not engage in any form of debate. Chit-chat is probably your trade.
I
