Konstantin Kisin - debate analysis of THAT speech at the Oxford Union on Woke Culture
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 03. 2023
- Debate coach William Hagerup analyses Konstantin Kisin's speech at the Oxford Union's debate "This House Believes Woke Culture Has Gone Too Far".
What worked well and why? What could have worked even better? What can you learn for your future debates?
Find out more about 104 London Debaters here: 104londondebaters.club/
Read the debate blog here:
104londondebaters.club/?blog=y
I have enjoyed listening to Kisin's argument a number of times, and your analysis is equally enjoyable. I'm not sure that your criticism relating to his failure to define "woke culture" is valid, as he was apparently the fourth? "non-student" speaker for the proposition. He started by admitting that he wasn't going to restate the arguments of his predecessors. Your comment is valid, but only if we presume that he wasn't supported by their foundational arguments.
Thank you very much for your kind comment. You make a good point, but having listened to the whole debate, the term does not seem to be quite agreed upon by both sides, so it would perhaps have been helpful if Kisin reiterated the definition that he would be referring to. On the other hand, perhaps we "all know what is meant" by this term by now.
@@104londondebaters While we who heard Kisin may agree as to the meaning of “woke,” I have noticed, in Facebook posts by loyal democrats, an attempt to take back the word “woke”. They declare that they are proud to be woke because it means that they are aware of certain disparities and dedicated to fixing them … or something like that. I confess that once I see where they’re going I stop reading and go on to something else. I made a vow to myself several years ago not to be mean in my posts or ever to resort to ad hominems, so when my blood starts to boil I just go elsewhere.
That's a very good principle. Originally the term "woke" emerged in the Civil Rights movement and meant being awake to / aware of racism or other injustices. But just as the term "liberal" (once about the freedom of the individual) or "gay" (once meaning happy and jolly) once words take on different meanings, it is very difficult to make them go back to the original meaning. "Woke" has now come to mean a set of beliefs that are very well dealt with by John McWorther in his book Woke Racism - I very much recommmend the audio version: www.amazon.co.uk/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/B09RLWJDTJ/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=132100626212&hvadid=606059912566&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9045043&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=8887277468971027002&hvtargid=kwd-1304837499799&hydadcr=10808_2162900&keywords=woke+racism+john+mcwhorter&qid=1693405343&sr=8-1
@@104londondebatersThere was actually a guy on Triggernometry a couple of months ago (forget his name) who said woke comes from the Middle Ages in the sense of a great awakening (and in the civil rights movement to be woke is to be awake) to the bad things in the world of which are then going to purify the world.
Some good points for debaters!
Thank you!
well first of all it doesn't matter if woke culture is what he is describing as long as it is responsible for what he describes. What i mean is that if woke culture led to some people throwing soup at paintings, which is a fact as we have seen several times, then his point is valid. Since people that throw soup at paintings are doing it because they think they' re "woke", then his point is self proven. That point was well established by previous speakers from the other side, that people need to be "woke", instead of the previously established culture of people listening to scientists and institutions. By that definition people become judges and therefor throw soup on paintings. These are self proven arguments.
My take on why he didn't go on to present statistics or explain all these self proven arguments ect is time on the one hand, he simply didn't have the time to do it and secondly, he would bore his audience. He said that he wants to talk to a specific group of people. And that means that he takes for granted that these people are going to take his interesting story critically and fact check it later. If it's not interesting, then everyone will just ignore him. In my opinion as long as his arguments can be proved or are self proven, in the limited time he had, he made the right choice to focus on the delivering.
I agree with many of your points, but "not haveing time" to provide evidence for your claim is simply not good enough. Anyone making a claim has the burden of proof. You need to provide that proof either by demonstrating the logical connection between your premises and the conclusion and/or by referencing credible stats or expert opinions. I fear Kisin's speech has become popular because he is preaching to the converted - his speech would not convince anyone leaning towards the "woke" perspective (although it may have made some start to think, which would be a good thing of course). Providing stronger evidence and avoiding some obvious fallacies might have made his speech just that little more convincing for the fence-sitters and those wokeists with some ability to think for themselves and doubt.
I think thread he was using to try to link to his conclusion was that he says woke culture teaches you to be an activist instead of taking personal responsibility for the worlds problems and striving in your university education to work on some of those problems you see.
Demand action from others and feel morally superior for yhat but not actually acting in any meaningful way yourself. I think thats what he was getting at no?
Yes, I think that's a fair summary. But how convincing was he to someone who doesn't already agree with him, in your opinion?
Very interesting, thank you!
Glad you found it interesting.
It was a great speech
In terms of rhetoric it is a 10 out of 10, no doubt.
One can see why debate is kryptonite to the woked.
Your perceived "failures" of this speech notwithstanding, the inherent truths and logic is not only hard to refute, but rather resonates to the very core of decent conscientious people, which i believe is still the overwhelming vast majority in the world.
I think what I point out are mostly technical errors to do with logical fallacies that weakens the overall case he makes for his claim. I did not say that his point was untrue or that it was not a good point. In fact, I personally (that's me, William, not 104 London Debaters, the club, fully agree with Kisin's central argument. But I think he could have made a stronger case for it.
Whether you believe the ‘arguments’ (if you can call it that) he makes or not. In a proper debate, his case is quite easy to refute. The vast majority of the claims made are rhetoric heavy but lack any analysis or mechanical explanation. E.g. the thought experiment he gives abt being a parent would likely be easily refuted. That is, an opposition speaker would point out that the thought experiment is inconsistent with the underlying assumptions he concedes to early in his argument, and so sets up a false dichotomy. A better dichotomy based on his own concession would be one where his son pays some price for his father pressing said button.
But the biggest problem with the thought experiment is that I could easily see an experienced opposition co opting it. If the conclusion is that humans are inherently selfish and do things for their own gain, and according to proposition woke culture teaches us to be victims selfishly that lead us to protest and other forms of civil disobedience, realistically, all opposition needs to do is prove that civil disobedience leads to positive social change inorder to co opt proposition’s claim that people are too selfish to act on others self interest by using prop’s own reasoning to show how people can selfishly care for others through wokeism.
I’m not saying that this is true (opposition wouldn’t even believe this claim but rather use it as a rebuttal) I’m saying that; from a strategic and technical perspective this case is vulnerable.
Are you missing the point that the audience in the Union are all Oxford Students - the UKs premier university - our "Brightest & Best" - see it as a focus for them to do something about it
I don't see how that affects any of the points I made in the analysis.
FYI Stasis is a greek word. 8:59
Well, it is in fact both a Latin and a Greek term. It is true that it comes from Greek originally, but it is also a Latin term in the meaning I use it here. I should have made it clearer that it is both a Greek and a Latin term, so thank you for pointing that out. I will have to upload a new version with corrections soon :)
Thank you for your analysis. I love Konstantin Kisin, but I thought his debate offering was more a stand-up comedy routine and less a well-constructed argument. In one routine I saw, he’s playing a Russian man of the street. At one point he denies that Russians like comedy, sort of. What he says is, “If you want comedy, read Dostoevsky.” As a second generation Russian American, I think that’s laugh out loud funny, because I know the truth: If you want comedy, read Gogol.
It's true that Kisin relied more on his comedic talent for turning out great lines than solid logic in this speech - that is one reason why I didn't focus too much on "fallacies", as it would be a bit like criticising a house painter for not producing a Mona Lisa. I love your point about Dostoevsky and Gogol - having read both (in translation, I am sad to say, but recommended by my Russian-speaking friends), I do get your point.
😂
The main issue with Kisin is that he likes to point fingers, like most people do. You are responsible for your actions, not of others. Is he working for that 20% of people in Russia who don't have toilets to get in-house toilers? No, so why point the finger at others? Just because you disagree with them on climate change?
I don't see how the speech was about "finger-pointing". His point was that woke culture is naive when it comes to people's priorities and so are unlikely to convince most people about what to do about the problems they care about.
@@104londondebaters Agree to disagree on the "finger pointing". Well, a lot of people care about climate change, because it threatens those people who have latrines instead of toilets. It affects the poor because it displaces them due to extreme weather events. It is already displacing millions of poor people in the middle eat due to the extreme heat, which causes crops to fail, etc. What can the poor do? Well, its up to them. Besides, the poor aren't really listened to in general. Poor people have seething critiques of Capitalism, yet nothing changes for them, it gets worse.
Additionally, as someone who deals with poor people all the time because I volunteer in a food pantry and a community clinic, I can tell you categorically that they care about climate change. They cant sleep with the heat at night, they come with heat exhaustion, dehydration, they complain that its too hot outside, they lack access to water and I can go on.
All that said, thank you for responding to my comment and being respectful.
Ha ha such a manipulator you are 😂