3 ms·

Many things are at play here: 1) the interviewer has a calm and very open demeanor. 2) He is able to build rapport with that person (first URL video) quite quic

Many things are at play here: 1) the interviewer has a calm and very open demeanor. 2) He is able to build rapport with that person (first URL video) quite quickly. 3) The interviewer obviously has an 'advantage' because they have thought about the subject and are focused on it, which is not the case for the interviewee being 'ambushed'. I think given some time and thought that interviewee would be better able to gather his thoughts and better articulate them. Quite simply, taking the time and listening to what other people are saying and really giving their opinion some importance goes a long way into both parties learning something new, without having to 'persuade' them of anything.

zebrafish 9y ago
I've had this thought recently, that staged debate is not necessarily a great way to settle disputes. It mostly relies on the skill of the participants to think critically on the fly or their anticipation of the opponents questions and their practiced retort. Effective discussion or debate should take place over time such that each participant has time to logically organize their thoughts or gather more evidence/ evaluate the evidence presented by the opponent. "Ambushing" average people on the street in their sweats headed to a math test isn't exactly fair. To be honest, it isn't much different than what your typical atheist purports to oppose. I have found that people are typically against faith based religion because it's pushed on youth by families and takes advantage of their malleable mind. You should probably allow for people to be in the correct state of mind for these discussions, not take advantage of their unpreparedness. This video makes it seem like he can only engage these people when he clearly has the upper hand.