helloboseo

First, topics should not be as broad as "the economy" or "healthcare." They should be statements that highlight the difference between the two speakers—one person is for forgiving student debt, the other is against.

Second, speakers should have equal time to speak and should not be allowed to interrupt one another. Instead, they should get a turn after their opponent has spoken to respond. Remember how much better the 2020 debates got when the moderator switched off the mic for the person who was not supposed to be speaking?

Third, we as listeners should demand that speakers make actual arguments rather than winning 20-second ripostes that run across Twitter. Those "gotcha" moments may be exciting but they are deeply unfulfilling, undernourishing, which is why we reach for more and more extreme content.

I agree with the premise of your last question. I argue in the book that good arguments are not only what good democracies do but what they are. The question about the sources of our present dysfunction is harder and I think there are many answers ranging from social stratification to misaligned incentives for social and legacy media. But the cause I'm most interested in is the loss of the skill of good argument—in the political sphere and beyond. The loss of those skills feeds into a crisis of confidence in our ability to argue, which in turn makes us more defensive and strident in argument.

I can't believe someone took the time to transcribe all those speeches—and I'm grateful to them; I used it to pull quotes for my book!

How did it go? I don't have 7-8 minutes of your mom material...

I do flow but I think your question comes down to what it is that you are flowing. I try to listen to the opponent as if I were a member of the audience. What is likely cutting through? What could potentially sway me to side with them? Those are the parts that you need to focus your energy on.