That was a very interesting listen. Extremely relevant to breakdown of structure in debate. It is questioning the role of formal debate (or if it even makes any sense at all) in favor of empathy, which was exactly my first point.
If you listen to the last few minutes — which is more useful, being able to elaborate the pros and cons of an issue at extreme length, in extreme detail — or simply having empathy and listening and truly hearing about what others are experiencing?
(The answer is sort of both, I guess, but when pressured, the judges favored empathy over artificial debate formats and arguments.)
