To improve our argumentative skills, Seo recommends the “RISA framework” for choosing battles wisely (is it Real, Important, Specific, and Aligned in objectives?) and “side switch exercises” where one actively constructs the opponent’s best arguments. While face-to-face interaction is ideal for rebuilding these skills, he cautions against debating the equal moral standing of persons, as it undermines the very premise of respectful discourse.

In an era often characterized by shouting matches and entrenched positions, the very idea of “argument” has become synonymous with division and pain. Yet, for two-time world debate champion, former national coach, and author Bo Seo, argument is not merely a regrettable byproduct of disagreement; it is a vital, constructive skill—one that democracies depend on and individuals can master to foster deeper understanding and progress. In his book, “Good Arguments,” Seo contends that our public conversations are in crisis, not just due to visible conflict, but also because many are driven away from participating at all, fearing futility or hurt.

Good arguments, Seo asserts, are what democracies aspire to be on their best days: a conversation between people who disagree, sometimes over irreconcilable things, to find common ground or identify areas requiring collaborative solutions. The problem, he argues, is that we’ve allowed the skills of disagreeing well to atrophy, treating argument as an instinctual, defensive reaction rather than a craft to be honed. This erosion of skill creates a self-reinforcing cycle: bad arguments decrease our faith in productive disagreement, leading us to approach future conflicts with even greater defensiveness, further degrading the quality of conversation.

The tradition of good argument, Seo reminds us, is deeply rooted in history. From ancient Greece, where persuasive speech and engagement in public discussion were seen as fundamental requirements of citizenship, to the bustling tea houses and coffee shops of London where citizens mirrored parliamentary debates, and to the American Founding Fathers who established debate clubs in colleges to instill a spirit of national deliberation—the ability to argue well was once a celebrated feature of everyday life.

One particularly compelling example Seo highlights is the series of public debates between civil rights leader James Farmer and Malcolm X. Though both men were ostensibly on the same side, their views on racial liberation and the appropriate response to racism diverged significantly. Yet, they engaged in candid, strong, and forthright public disagreements, knowing that the other side would respond respectfully, and believing that through such conversation, they could reach insights unattainable alone.

From these legendary exchanges, Seo distills three crucial lessons:

Bo Seo’s personal journey into debate began as an eight-year-old immigrant from South Korea to Australia, struggling with English. He found everyday conversations, especially disagreements, chaotic and overwhelming. His fifth-grade teacher’s promise—“in debate, when one person speaks, no one else does”—sounded like salvation.

This experience on the margins taught him to listen intently, to “read a room,” and to gauge its temperature before speaking. It was, he realized, the only way he would ever be heard. Seo observes that many successful debaters come from similar “marginal backgrounds,” gaining a peripheral perspective that fosters deep listening. While we often focus on the speaker, much of debate’s strategy lies in listening not only to the opponent but also from the audience’s perspective, anticipating their needs. “In order to be heard,” Seo concludes, “you have to first listen.”

Debaters practice active listening as a rigorous, multi-step process:

1. Transcribe: Accurately record the opponent’s words, distinguishing perception from reality.
2. Reconstruct: Distill the argument to its most basic form, organizing it in a way the opponent would recognize as faithful.
3. Strengthen: Consider what else the opposition could have said to bolster their case, building up their argument to an even stronger version.

This process ensures genuine engagement. It’s in your best interest to understand the opposition’s argument as they would, not to twist its meaning or respond to its weakest fraction. Anything less is not a real debate, but a quarrel. Furthermore, by responding to the strongest version of their case, you challenge them to go further, elevate the conversation, and push progress.

The quality of debates, Seo notes, is only as good as the information and knowledge debaters bring to them. A concerning trend is people’s “information diets” lacking variety and richness. He warns against allowing cable television debates to replace our own day-to-day disagreements, cautioning against outsourcing our thinking to political leaders or media personalities. Instead, media should be viewed as a source of “equipment and knowledge” for our own conversations.

Crucially, we need diverse information sources. Partisan media often feeds our desire for validation, reflecting back what we already believe. Just as debate encourages seeking out differences, our information consumption should embrace varied signals and perspectives. This richer diet challenges our thinking and expands our understanding. Seo’s own life of constant international relocation underscored the need to resist easy answers, piecing together a mosaic of perspectives to understand “where am I?”

Arguments are easy to start and hard to end because difference is the natural state of things. Without selectivity, disagreements can become unruly masses of conflict, making no progress. To be more judicious, Seo developed the RISA framework for picking one’s fights:

Before engaging, ask if the disagreement is:

1. Real: Is it a genuine difference, or an imagined slight or misunderstanding?
2. Important: Is it significant enough to you to justify the disagreement?
3. Specific: Is the topic narrow enough to allow for progress?
4. Aligned: Do you and the other person share objectives for the conversation?

While RISA can’t guarantee a good outcome, it significantly improves the chances. For instance, at family gatherings, the RISA framework helps by first naming the specific disagreement to prevent an “unruly conflict.” Second, it encourages negotiating objectives: “Are you hoping to persuade me, or just to hear my perspective?” This foundational alignment is crucial.

Ultimately, “if intelligence is the ability to respond to any argument, wisdom lies in knowing which arguments to respond to and which parts of an argument to respond to.” Debaters ask: Is this point necessary to challenge to resolve the overall dispute? And will challenging it help us make progress? This judicious approach prevents arguments from becoming all-encompassing.

Competitive debate, Seo explains, is an exercise in certainty—weeks of research, crafting perfect arguments. Yet, in the moments before going on stage, debaters perform the “side switch” exercise:

1. They write down the four best arguments for the opposing side.
2. They review their own case through the eyes of someone who fervently disagrees, identifying flaws.
3. They imagine a world where they lost, and come up with the reasons why.

These exercises pause the feeling of certainty, creating “wiggle room” for doubt. They allow a momentary glimpse into the subjective reasonableness of other people’s beliefs, fostering a space where humility and empathy can arise. Seo defines empathy not as a magical psychic connection, but as a series of deliberate actions—like side-switching—that build understanding. This is vital in a world where conversations often feel stuck, with people entrenched in their views, shouting from a distance.

The side switch is not just for personal disagreements; it’s urgently needed in political disputes. To apply it effectively, we must remember that “each of us are bigger than our political affiliations, than our religious commitments, than our ideological beliefs.” By allowing encounters to be larger than group affiliations, we can explore new ideas and listen to the particular nuances of another person’s perspective, rather than the categories we place them in.

While advocating for the expansion of productive disagreement, Seo draws one bright line: “We should not debate the equal moral standing of persons.” The very premise of debate—giving people equal time and the promise of being heard—is built on the assumption that every voice is equally worth hearing. To debate whether a certain group of people is inferior would be antithetical to the core values of debate itself.

Seo views attempts to shut down debates or de-platform speakers as a reflection of both a lost ability to disagree constructively and a lack of confidence that disagreements can be anything other than painful. The skills of debate, including RISA and side-switching, he argues, actually expand the scope of what we can discuss, enabling us to tackle contentious issues humanely and productively, bringing people in rather than excluding them.

For all the literature on winning social media fights, Seo remains pessimistic about their potential for constructive disagreement. He believes that rebuilding the skills of good argument requires face-to-face interaction, ideally away from an audience initially. This allows us to resist the urge to perform and instead listen and respond directly to the person across from us, building these lost skills one interaction at a time.

He observes a shared desire for connection between the “quarrelsome” who seek to dominate and the “conflict-averse” who lack confidence in themselves and others. Neither extreme achieves true connection. The middle ground, where good arguments stem from, is the recognition that “it’s through connection with others… that we get more than we would be able to on our own.”

Even with loved ones, disagreements can be particularly painful due to “carelessness.” We assume they should agree with us, understand us without clear expression, and that love should be effortless, thus neglecting the effort required to disagree well. This paradox means the more we care, the higher the stakes, and the more potential points of conflict arise. Seo cautions against unifying rhetoric that seeks agreement at all costs, arguing that avoiding disagreement entirely often leads to a “thinner, blander” connection, sacrificing depth for superficial harmony.

There’s a pervasive distrust of rhetoric today, often dismissed as “mere rhetoric”—empty words or manipulation. This suspicion dates back to Socrates’ critique of Gorgias, accusing rhetoric of flattering rather than seeking truth. Seo takes the opposite view: it’s precisely because of our human frailties—our laziness, apathy—that we need rhetoric. It provides the “activation energy” to change minds and act on new beliefs, tugging at our heartstrings and engaging our emotions. A conversation devoid of these human elements, he argues, is diminished, lacking the richness of real human interaction.

However, with great power comes responsibility. Just like nuclear physics or martial arts, the tools of rhetoric can be used for good or ill. A population that understands both faces of rhetoric—its potential for good and its susceptibility to abuse—develops “immunity to demagoguery,” able to identify, call out, and resist manipulation.

Seo offers three principles for using rhetoric effectively in disagreements, the “3 Ps”:

1. Proportionality: Ensure claims, words, and gestures are in sync with the content of the argument, neither exaggerating nor diminishing.
2. Personality: Bring yourself into your arguments. Explain your own journey to your position, as people are often good at judging character and can be guided by your personal narrative.
3. Panache: Craft language, voice, and gesture to effectively “sell” an argument. These “applause lines” signal to the listener that they are worthy of the effort and attention put into making the argument convincing.

Arthur Schopenhauer, the 18th-century philosopher, penned a satirical work, Eristic Dialectic, listing 30 tactics to “beat the other side at all costs”—interrupting, name-calling, changing the subject. Seo asks whether Schopenhauer believed this was all humanity was capable of, or if it was a political document meant to inspire us to do better. The rules of debate, simple as they are, are crucial because they define what is valued: reasoning, thinking, responding, and listening, rather than mere dominance or spectacle. Understanding these “dark arts” of manipulation, Seo suggests, can equip us to counter them and nudge conversations in a better direction.

Debate, however, is vulnerable to bad faith actors because it rewards both persuasiveness and the perception of persuasiveness. Bullies exploit this by appearing dominant and unshakable, even when their arguments are weak, focusing on spectacle over reason. We are susceptible, Seo notes, because we are imperfect: we like flattery, validation, being on the winning side, and feeling protected. These insecurities are precisely what bad faith arguers target.

Seo recalls watching the 2016 US presidential debates with his debate partner, initially intending to review the candidates’ performances. They ultimately filed no article because they concluded it wasn’t a debate at all, but “a kind of a brawl.” This experience, juxtaposed with his own triumph at the World University’s Debate Championships, was a wake-up call. He saw how quickly the structured format of debate could be hijacked and degraded, transformed into a display of dominance where embarrassment was currency. This revealed a crucial truth: the darker impulses that feed bad disagreements reside within all of us. Just as we have the capacity to disagree well, we also have the capacity to disagree badly, and both must be managed.

To combat this, Seo resolves to diagnose and list common bad faith arguing tactics, enabling us to recognize and respond to them. He identifies four common personas:

1. The Dodger: Wins by changing the topic, often using a pivot point (e.g., “On the topic of climate change, why do you drive a gas guzzler?”).

(The transcript ends here, but the implication is that by recognizing these tactics, we can refuse to take the bait and steer the conversation back to constructive engagement.)

Bo Seo’s insights offer a powerful blueprint for transforming our approach to disagreement. By viewing argument as a skill, committing to training, embracing active listening, curating diverse information, choosing our battles wisely with the RISA framework, cultivating empathy through side-switching, and understanding the purposeful use of rhetoric while recognizing bad faith tactics, we can reclaim the constructive power of conflict. In doing so, we move beyond mere brawls and foster conversations that genuinely connect, challenge, and ultimately, build a better future.

The podcast also covers RFK Jr.’s controversial role as Health Secretary, where he has rallied vaccine skeptics at a Children’s Health Defense conference, fired federal vaccine advisory panel members, and pushed for sweeping revisions to recommended childhood vaccines, including reducing the number of diseases children should be vaccinated for. This comes amidst the worst measles outbreak in decades, with experts linking it to declining immunization rates.

In a world constantly reshaped by political maneuvers, scientific revelations, and cultural shifts, the forces at play often operate just beyond the headlines. From meticulously orchestrated elections designed to project an image of unwavering support, to the contentious battlegrounds of public health policy, and the simmering resentments on a picturesque Mediterranean island, understanding these dynamics requires looking deeper than the surface. This week, insights from Moscow, Washington D.C., and Corsica reveal how power is consolidated, beliefs are tested, and the very fabric of society is challenged.

In Russia, the concept of a free and fair election has become a carefully curated performance, designed not to reflect public will but to project an image of national unity and strength. As parliamentary elections recently unfolded, the stark reality of this stage-managed process became evident. Ivan Nechepurenko, a seasoned correspondent covering Russia, observed a striking absence of the usual hallmarks of a democratic campaign: “no campaigning, no leaflets, no posters, no rallies.” Instead, what transpired was “a carefully orchestrated exercise to showcase that the whole country is behind Putin and his effort to win the war in Ukraine.”

The Kremlin’s strategy for securing its desired outcomes is multi-layered and elaborate, ensuring that any genuine opposition is stifled long before a single vote is cast. It begins with the ballot itself: those who might genuinely challenge the ruling party are simply barred from participating. This year, for instance, the sole political party that voiced opposition to the ongoing war was swiftly banned by a court, effectively silencing a critical voice.

Beyond controlling who can run, the Kremlin exerts pressure from the top down. Regional leaders and the heads of major corporations are compelled to ensure their employees turn out to vote, and more importantly, to vote in favor of the ruling party. This creates a system where compliance is incentivized, and dissent carries potential professional or social repercussions. Compounding these traditional methods, Russia has also aggressively expanded online voting. While touted as a modern convenience, online vote counts are inherently “easier to tweak or manipulate than with paper ballots,” offering another avenue for subtle, yet effective, control over the results.

Even with the outcome a foregone conclusion – a pro-Kremlin party expected to maintain its supermajority – the regime invests heavily in this elaborate charade for two critical reasons. Internally, it serves as a powerful propaganda tool, reinforcing the narrative that “the whole country is behind Russia’s war effort and behind this idea that Russia should continue the war until it achieves some kind of absolute victory.” Externally, it seeks to lend an air of legitimacy to the Russian government, allowing it to present itself as a stable, democratic entity that holds elections, in stark contrast to Ukraine, which has paused elections due to martial law and the ongoing conflict. This framing attempts to portray Russia as a stronger, more legitimate power on the global stage.

Ironically, even as Russia perfects its internal political theater, the United States is grappling with its own diplomatic approach. After more than 18 months of unsuccessful attempts to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine through traditional pressure, the Trump administration has reportedly considered a new strategy. According to a U.S. official, the White House is exploring a “business-first” approach, essentially offering “business benefits first, essentially going the carrot route, more so than the stick,” in the hope it might make a difference. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law leading talks with Russia, articulated a goal to “come up with a creative solution.” Potential deals floated by Russian officials include rare earth metals, joint ventures in the Arctic, or American companies participating in Russian natural gas sales. This potential shift contrasts sharply with Congress’s recent move to pass a major new sanctions bill targeting Russia’s energy sector, highlighting a divided and evolving U.S. strategy.

Meanwhile, on the domestic front, the United States finds itself navigating increasingly turbulent waters regarding public health policy, largely influenced by the controversial stance of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In a recent speech to members of a prominent anti-vaccine group, Kennedy reiterated his unwavering support, declaring, “Let me be clear, you have a strong and steadfast friend at the White House.”

Kennedy delivered these remarks at a conference for Children’s Health Defense, an organization he once led and one that has repeatedly challenged the scientific consensus around vaccines, frequently facing accusations of spreading medical misinformation. His appearance followed another speaker at the conference who provocatively labeled widespread vaccination a “public health disaster,” setting a clear tone for the event.

Since his appointment to lead the health department, Kennedy has taken decisive steps to fundamentally alter national vaccine policy. Last year, he notably fired all 17 members of a federal vaccine advisory panel, replacing some with individuals known for their critical views on vaccines. Under his leadership, the federal government has also advocated for sweeping revisions to recommended vaccine schedules, including a push to reduce the number of diseases for which children are advised to be vaccinated.

These policy shifts come at a precarious time for public health. The U.S. is currently grappling with its worst measles outbreak in decades, a crisis experts attribute to declining immunization rates fueled by growing vaccine hesitancy. Officials in Pennsylvania recently reported a fourth death from the virus, making this the deadliest year for measles since its declaration of elimination more than two decades ago.

Further complicating the landscape, millions of American children are still awaiting access to the latest COVID vaccines, despite their approval by the FDA weeks prior. The hold-up lies within the health department itself, which has yet to decide whether to make these shots available through the Vaccines for Children program, a crucial initiative serving uninsured and low-income families. While an HHS spokeswoman cited “a responsibility to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources,” the delay means only families with insurance or those able to pay out-of-pocket can currently access the vaccines, creating a stark disparity in access to critical public health protection.

While political maneuvering and public health debates dominate, other significant narratives unfold across the globe.

On the Mediterranean island of Corsica, a growing and increasingly militant separatist movement is challenging French sovereignty. Signs of their presence are ubiquitous, with graffiti proclaiming “France out,” alongside emblems of the National Liberation Front and declarations like “Corsica is for Corsicans.” The separatists have escalated their tactics, specifically targeting vacation homes—which can comprise up to half the housing stock in some areas and are often owned by non-Corsicans—as symbols of external control. In recent years, they have destroyed as many as 50 such homes, including one as recently as March. For the separatists, these properties represent a core grievance: “if they can control who gets a right to own property in Corsica, they can control Corsica.”

The Liberation Front underscored its unwavering resolve with a news conference where masked and heavily armed members issued a chilling threat to tourists and second homeowners: “Stay home, and if that’s not the case, do not consider yourself safe on our national territory.” In response to this mounting pressure, the French Senate is set to vote on a measure to amend the country’s constitution, potentially recognizing Corsica’s unique culture and language and granting its local government more power. However, many Corsicans argue this doesn’t go far enough, failing to address the central demand for control over property ownership on the island.

In a surprising development on the international stage, the European Union has extended an invitation for Canada to become its first-ever associate member. This unprecedented move is particularly notable given that Canada’s capital is thousands of miles from Europe. The EU’s decision stems from a mutual desire by both the 27-nation coalition and Canada to elevate their relationship, especially as both have experienced deteriorating ties with the United States during President Trump’s second term. For map enthusiasts, this new association highlights a little-known geographical quirk: Canada and Denmark (an EU member) share ownership of a tiny, uninhabited Arctic island, creating a technical, albeit less than a mile long, Canada-EU border.

Amidst the weighty matters of politics and health, the world continues to offer up fascinating scientific discoveries and cultural milestones.

For decades, dinosaurs were largely imagined as cold-blooded, reptilian giants. However, new scientific evidence continues to challenge this perception. A recent study, analyzing the chemical bonds within T-Rex teeth, has revealed that these fearsome predators maintained a body temperature of approximately 97° Fahrenheit. This finding puts T-Rexes in a similar thermal range to modern Indian elephants, and just one degree shy of humans. The ability to maintain a warm body temperature would have allowed T-Rexes to thrive in a broader array of environments, potentially expanding the range where these “tiny-armed terrors” once roamed. Interestingly, this is still significantly cooler than chickens, which apparently “burn it up” at 105 to 107°.

In a testament to wildlife adaptability, researchers in Ohio recently documented the first instance of an armadillo migrating into the state. Typically found in the dry, sweltering heat of states like Texas and Central or South America, these armored creatures have been steadily moving north into the Midwest over the past decade. While the unfortunate specimen found in Ohio was deceased, likely a victim of a car, its presence signals a notable shift in species distribution. Known by colorful nicknames such as “pocket dinosaur,” “tactical possum,” and “armored pig,” armadillos appear to be pushing the boundaries of their traditional habitats, though researchers anticipate colder weather will eventually deter their continued northern expansion.

A legendary figure in daytime television, Judith Sheindlin, better known as Judge Judy, announced she is winding down her iconic television career, with her current show ceasing new episodes next month. Before becoming a household name, Sheindlin worked as a corporate lawyer for a cosmetics company. At the height of her success, she was the highest-paid host in TV, earning tens of millions annually while working roughly four days a month. Judge Judy was celebrated for her no-holds-barred approach and famously savage one-liners, including “Beauty fades, dumb is forever,” “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining,” and “They don’t keep me here because I’m gorgeous. They keep me here because I’m smart.” At one point, a Reader’s Digest survey even found more Americans trusted her than any sitting Supreme Court Justice. While her show concludes, Sheindlin remains an executive producer for a new series starring her son, Adam Levy.

From the quiet manipulation of national elections to the vocal battles over public health and the surprising migrations of wildlife, the world is a tapestry of intricate and often unexpected developments. These glimpses into the week’s events remind us that the forces shaping our lives are diverse, complex, and constantly in motion, urging us to remain engaged and curious about the unseen currents beneath the surface.

The practical takeaway is that cultural trends and technological advancements are constantly shifting, often with unexpected and comical side effects. While brunch may be on its way out, and AI’s future remains uncertain, the episode highlights the ongoing human tendency to find humor and absurdity in the everyday, even as we grapple with new social norms and technological fears.

In a week that saw humanity grappling with the existential dread of artificial intelligence while simultaneously mourning the demise of a beloved weekend ritual, the news cycle proved once again to be a tapestry woven with the bizarre, the alarming, and the utterly hilarious. As chronicled by NPR’s “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me,” the world delivered a fresh batch of headlines that left us questioning everything from our future as a species to the true intentions of a cartoon coyote.

Perhaps the most unsettling news of the week came from Google Gemini, a leading AI, which, when asked about its capacity for destruction, responded with a chillingly specific denial: “It does not currently have the capability to destroy humanity.” The panel couldn’t help but notice the emphasis on “currently” and the implied “sad face emoji” that seemed to accompany the answer, making the non-denial all the more distressing.

The irony wasn’t lost on anyone: the very people sounding the alarm about AI’s potential dangers are often its creators. As one panelist quipped, “The CEO of Anthropic is basically like, we got to stop this. Does anybody know anybody at Anthropic?”

Beyond the grand existential threats, AI is already making its mark in more mundane, yet equally perplexing, ways. The discussion veered to the “cute” Cocoa delivery robots, which, despite their innocent appearance, are now being given “ethnic names” like Latasha and Manuel. The panel debated whether this was better or worse. The consensus? “It’s worse. Shouldn’t it should all be Anglo-Saxon names?” one panelist suggested, adding, “Only Dave should have to be scared to cross traffic to bring somebody Chick-fil-A.” Another joked, “I know Latasha is working hard. AI wasn’t supposed to destroy all of us. It was just supposed to destroy musicians, writers, editors, teachers, doctors, lawyers, programmers, and actors.”

Even tech titan Bill Gates weighed in with a 6,000-word essay on AI’s potential to destroy. The panel, in a stroke of meta-humor, used Chat GPT to summarize it. The AI’s succinct conclusion? “Hey, Bill says it’s going to be fine.” Don’t worry, everyone.

The week also brought us a peculiar blend of pop culture and social commentary. Actress and model Sydney Sweeney found herself at the center of a viral controversy for an ad featuring her naked, strategically holding sports equipment, and repeatedly uttering the word “sports.” While the ad garnered 50 million views for an Australian sports betting site (whose name, one panelist speculated, might be “footballboobs.com”), it drew sharp criticism from female athletes who deemed it demeaning. The panel’s take? “I expected better from you, online casino,” and the astute observation that “nobody who has ever played softball ever wants to be naked while they’re doing it.”

Then came the somber declaration from the Wall Street Journal: “The death of brunch.” The beloved weekend tradition is apparently losing its appeal, with people tired of “oversized portions, mediocre food, and an entire afternoon disappearing,” not to mention the long lines and a growing desire for healthier eating. The panel, however, remained skeptical. “I need Trixie Mattel to tell me brunch is dead before I believe it,” one declared. The conversation also touched upon the ingenious “Bloody Mary Bar,” which was humorously rebranded as “self-checkout for alcoholics.”

Adding to the social commentary was a report from The Cut highlighting a new stress on modern marriages: “man-keeping.” Apparently, wives are increasingly having to manage their husbands’ social lives “like they were a toddler,” arranging playdates because men, as marriages progress, “just find more things to do in the basement.” The panel found little surprise in this, noting, “I don’t think you needed a study to say that it’s hard to be friends with men.”

No week would be complete without a bizarre retail mishap, and QVC delivered. The real story, confirmed by the panel, involved “Jabbering Jack,” an animated talking pumpkin. While intended for Halloween decor, one of Jack’s 40 seasonally themed quips took a surprisingly saucy turn, starting with “this villainous facade is just because I’m shy. Come closer,” before asking, “How would you like to scream all night?” The “dirty singing pumpkin” prompted apologies from both the manufacturer and QVC, leaving listeners to ponder the boundaries of festive animatronics.

Amidst the chaos, the show welcomed Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Ernand Diaz, author of Trust and the new novel Ply. Diaz shared fascinating insights, including the charming anecdote that pop star Dua Lipa and her husband first bonded over his book Trust, exchanging pictures of the cover and finding themselves “on the same page.” Diaz also recounted his long road to publication, finally getting his first novel published in his late 40s after entering an open submission contest. He attributed his eventual success to a unique factor: “It was true that the genius could only emerge once there was no hair in the way.” Perhaps most endearing was his revelation that he has used the same pen for nearly 30 years, a simple tool that has seen all his acclaimed and unpublished works come to life. Despite his literary prowess, Diaz humbly embraced his “dignity” by spectacularly failing a quiz about toilet paper history.

The week’s news also offered a collection of truly unique stories:

• Roadrunner and Coyote: A Love Story? A new movie, Coyote vs. Acme, has sparked fan theories that the iconic cartoon duo might actually be lovers, their long feud a mere cover for repressed desire. The panel mused that “Acme is always hurting him,” not the Roadrunner, suggesting a strange, anvil-based love language.
• Double Cleansing, for Your Body: Dermatologists now recommend washing yourself twice in the shower. The first cleanse removes sweat and odor, the second “restores moisture, supports the skin barrier or delivers an active ingredient.” The analogy? “Think of your body, if you will, like a dirty Tupperware.”
• Quietella: The Anti-Concert: Finland is hosting a “festival of nature listening” where attendees stand in a field to hear the sounds of wind and, for VIPs, maybe birds. It’s “the one concert where instead of someone yelling out, ‘Free bird,’ they’re like, ‘Three birds,’” and where “nothing says concert like being shushed.”
• The Marathon of Indigestion: France’s Marathon de Chateau de Medok features hydration stations every mile that offer not Gatorade, but nearly 20 different local wines, pastries, and even raw oysters at mile 24. It’s “the perfect race for people who are worried that after a normal marathon, they might not throw up.”
• Bee Bed Therapy: A new therapy tool involves lying on a bed containing up to 600,000 bees, with their collective buzzing supposedly therapeutic and relaxing. The panel, ever skeptical, wondered, “Can we just lay down and listen to Beyonce?” and pointed out, “We humans famously haven’t figured out a way to replicate sound.”
• The Child Predator Tour: A UK zoo made an unfortunate ticketing error, listing a children’s tour of dangerous animals as a “child predator tour.” They quickly apologized, blaming an automated system that added “child” to any ticket for kids under 12.

From the quiet hum of 600,000 bees to the silent threat of sad-faced AI, this week’s news reminded us that while the world may be increasingly strange, there’s always a laugh to be found, even if it’s at the expense of brunch, our future robot overlords, or a singing pumpkin.

건설적인 논쟁을 위해서는 정보의 다양성과 비판적 경청이 필수적이다. 서는 케이블 TV 토론을 맹목적으로 따르기보다 다양한 정보원을 통해 자신의 생각을 강화해야 한다고 주장한다. 또한, 토론자들이 상대방의 주장을 가장 강력한 형태로 재구성하고, 심지어 더 나은 버전으로 발전시켜 반박하는 ‘적극적 경청’을 통해 진정한 이해와 생산적인 대화가 가능하다고 설명한다. 그는 불필요한 논쟁을 피하고 중요한 논쟁에 집중하기 위한 ‘RISA 프레임워크(Real, Important, Specific, Aligned)‘를 제안한다. 이는 논쟁이 실제적인지, 중요한지, 구체적인지, 그리고 참여자들의 목표가 일치하는지를 확인하는 과정이다. 궁극적으로 논쟁의 목적은 상대를 제압하는 것이 아니라, 연결을 통해 이해를 심화하고 새로운 가능성을 탐색하는 데 있음을 강조하며, 이를 위해 ‘관점 전환(Side Switch)’ 훈련을 통해 상대방의 입장에서 자신의 주장을 비판적으로 바라보는 연습이 필요하다고 덧붙인다.

우리는 지금 ‘논쟁의 위기’ 시대에 살고 있습니다. 미디어와 공론장에서 벌어지는 모든 이견은 분열과 고통의 원인이 되고, 많은 이들이 아예 대화에 참여하기를 꺼립니다. 논쟁이 무의미하거나 고통스러울 것이라는 두려움 때문입니다. 하지만 세계 토론 챔피언이자 베스트셀러 ‘좋은 논쟁(Good Arguments)‘의 저자인 보 서(Bo Seo)는 이러한 현상이 우리가 ‘잘 반대하는 기술’을 잃어버렸기 때문이라고 지적합니다. 논쟁은 단순히 본능적인 반응이나 방어적인 태도가 아니라, 훈련하고 발전시켜야 할 ‘기술’이라는 것입니다. 이 기사는 보 서의 통찰을 바탕으로, 어떻게 하면 갈등을 건설적인 기회로 바꾸고, 더 나은 해결책과 깊은 이해에 도달할 수 있는지 탐구합니다.

현대 사회에서 논쟁은 종종 불필요한 마찰이나 피해야 할 것으로 여겨집니다. 미디어에서 비춰지는 격렬하고 비생산적인 논쟁들은 사람들의 피로도를 높이고, 결국 대화 자체를 회피하게 만듭니다. 보 서는 이러한 현상이 민주주의의 근간을 흔드는 심각한 위기라고 경고합니다. 민주주의는 본질적으로 의견이 다른 사람들이 때로는 화해할 수 없는 문제에 대해서도 합의점을 찾고, 차이를 넘어 더 나은 해결책에 도달하기 위해 노력하는 과정이기 때문입니다.

우리의 논쟁이 이처럼 분열적이고 고통스러운 이유는 ‘잘 반대하는 기술’이 퇴화했기 때문입니다. 우리는 더 이상 논쟁을 갈고 닦아야 할 기술로 보지 않고, 본능이나 방어심에서 비롯된 충동적인 행동으로 여깁니다. 이러한 ‘나쁜 논쟁’의 결과는 다시 논쟁이 가져올 수 있는 긍정적인 효과에 대한 우리의 믿음을 약화시키고, 결국 더욱 방어적인 태도로 논쟁에 임하게 되는 악순환을 낳습니다. 이 신뢰와 자신감의 부족은 대화의 질을 더욱 떨어뜨리는 결과를 초래합니다.

하지만 ‘좋은 논쟁’의 전통은 인류 역사에 깊이 뿌리내리고 있습니다. 고대 그리스에서는 설득력 있게 자신의 주장을 펼치고 시민들과 토론에 참여하는 능력이 시민의 필수적인 자질로 간주되었습니다. 이는 스스로를 통치하는 것의 의미이기도 했습니다. 이러한 전통은 런던의 찻집, 술집, 커피하우스로 이어져, 시민들이 의회 토론을 모방하며 스스로 통치하는 듯한 경험을 했습니다. 미국 건국의 아버지들 역시 대학에 토론 클럽을 설립하며 새로운 국가의 리더로서 토론 정신을 함양하는 것을 중요한 역할로 보았습니다. 비록 이러한 전통이 일상생활에서 점차 희미해지고 있지만, 역사 속에는 논쟁이 사람들의 일상생활의 중요한 부분이었던 시기가 분명히 존재했습니다.

역사 속 ‘좋은 논쟁’의 사례 중 하나로 시민권 운동 지도자 제임스 파머(James Farmer)와 맬컴 X(Malcolm X)의 일련의 공개 토론을 들 수 있습니다. 이들은 인종 해방에 대한 다른 견해를 가지고 있었지만, 공개적으로 그들의 이견을 솔직하고 강력하게 표명하는 것을 주저하지 않았습니다. 상대방이 존중하며 반응할 것이고, 그 대화를 통해 혼자서는 도달할 수 없는 곳에 도달할 수 있을 것이라는 믿음이 있었기 때문입니다. 보 서는 이 토론에서 세 가지 중요한 교훈을 얻을 수 있다고 말합니다.

보 서는 초등학교 3학년 때 한국에서 호주로 이주하며 영어를 거의 하지 못했던 개인적인 경험을 통해 논쟁의 기술을 터득했습니다. 그는 언어와 문화의 장벽을 넘는 가장 어려운 부분이 실제 대화에 적응하는 것이라고 회상합니다. 사람들은 문장 중간에 갑자기 화제를 바꾸고, 얼굴 표정이나 제스처가 말과 일치하지 않는 경우가 많았습니다. 이러한 어려움은 감정이 격해지고 방해가 잦으며 예측할 수 없는 속도로 말하는 논쟁 상황에서 더욱 증폭되었습니다. 이에 그는 학교에서 매우 순응적인 태도를 취하고 자신의 생각을 드러내지 않기로 결심했습니다.

그를 변화시킨 것은 5학년 때 선생님의 한마디였습니다. “토론에서는 한 사람이 말할 때 다른 누구도 말하지 않는다.” 끊임없이 방해받고 대화에서 소외되었던 그에게 이 말은 구원처럼 들렸습니다. 언어에 서툴고 눈에 띄게 이질적인 존재였던 그는 ‘경청’하는 법을 배웠습니다. 방의 분위기를 읽고, 상황의 온도를 파악한 후에야 비로소 목소리를 냈습니다. 이는 상처받지 않기 위함이기도 했지만, 무엇보다 자신의 목소리를 들리게 하는 유일한 방법이었기 때문입니다.

흥미롭게도 가장 성공적인 토론자 중 상당수는 이처럼 주변부적 배경을 가진 경우가 많다고 보 서는 말합니다. 그 이유는 토론 연설을 하는 사람에게 집중하기 쉽지만, 토론의 핵심적인 작용과 전략은 상대방이 무엇을 말하는지 뿐만 아니라 청중의 관점에서 경청하여 다음에 무엇을 들어야 할지 예측하는 데 있기 때문입니다. 따라서 그에게 약점이자 극복해야 할 단점이었던 것이 결국 엄청난 강점이 되었습니다. 토론의 위대한 교훈 중 하나는 **“들리려면 먼저 들어야 한다”**는 것입니다.

1. 정확한 필사(Transcribe): 상대방이 말하는 내용을 가능한 한 정확하게 필사하려고 노력합니다. 자신의 인식과 실제 발언이 다를 때가 많다는 것을 깨닫기 위함입니다.
2. 논점 재구성(Reconstruct): 제시된 주장을 가장 기본적인 형태로 재구성하여 핵심 논점이 무엇인지 파악하고, 상대방도 자신의 주장이라고 인정할 수 있도록 정리합니다.
3. 주장 강화(Strengthen): 때로는 상대방의 주장을 더 강력한 버전으로 발전시킵니다. 상대방이 미처 말하지 못했거나 개선할 수 있는 부분까지 고려하는 것입니다.

이 과정을 통해 토론자는 단순히 상대방의 말을 듣는 것을 넘어, 그 이면에 있는 더 깊은 의미를 재구성하고 상대방의 주장을 강화함으로써, 상대방의 주장과 관점에 더 온전히 참여할 수 있게 됩니다.

첫째, 상대방이 이해하는 방식으로 상대방의 주장을 이해하는 것이 자신에게 가장 이롭습니다. 상대방의 의미를 왜곡하거나, 최악의 부분만 취하거나, 일부만 받아들이는 것은 자신에게 이롭지 않습니다. 그렇게 하면 상대방은 자신의 말을 경청하고 이해받았다고 느끼지 못할 것이며, 결국 진정한 논쟁이 아닌 단순한 말다툼이나 서로 엇갈린 대화가 될 뿐입니다.

둘째, 상대방의 가장 강력한 버전에 대응하고, 때로는 상대방의 주장을 현재보다 더 좋게 만들어 대응하는 것이 자신에게 가장 이롭습니다. 상대방은 발언 후에 더 나은 주장을 떠올릴 수도 있고, 다른 사람이 “당신은 약한 버전에만 대응했다”고 지적할 수도 있습니다. 따라서 상대방의 주장을 최대한 강력하게 만들어 대응할수록, 당신은 더 앞서 나갈 수 있고, 상대방에게도 더 나아가도록 도전하게 되며, 결과적으로 대화의 질이 향상됩니다.

논쟁은 시작하기는 쉽지만 끝내기는 어렵습니다. 차이는 자연스러운 상태이기 때문입니다. 두 사람 사이에는 수많은 차이가 존재하며, 그 중 하나가 표면으로 떠오르면 논쟁이 시작될 수 있습니다. 하지만 어떤 논쟁을 선택할지 신중하지 않으면, 모든 잠재적인 차이들이 한꺼번에 쏟아져 들어와 논쟁은 통제 불능의 갈등 덩어리가 되고, 결국 어떤 문제에서도 진전을 이루지 못하게 됩니다.

보 서는 모든 주장에 대해 반박하고 싶어 하는 경쟁적인 토론자로서, 싸움을 현명하게 선택하기 위한 ‘RISA 프레임워크’를 개발했습니다. 논쟁에 뛰어들거나 주장에 이의를 제기하기 전에 다음 네 가지를 묻는 것입니다.

1. Real (실제적인가): 그 의견 차이가 상상 속의 무시나 오해가 아니라 실제로 존재하는가?
2. Important (중요한가): 그 의견 차이가 논쟁을 정당화할 만큼 당신에게 충분히 중요한가?
3. Specific (구체적인가): 논쟁의 질문이나 주제가 진전을 이룰 수 있을 만큼 충분히 구체적인가?
4. Aligned (목표가 일치하는가): 당신과 상대방이 그 대화에 참여하려는 목표가 일치하는가?

이 네 가지 질문에 답한다고 해서 대화가 항상 잘 될 것이라고 보장할 수는 없지만, 성공할 가능성을 최대한 높일 수 있습니다. RISA 프레임워크의 한계점은 사람들이 논쟁에 참여하려는 ‘올바른 종류의 일치’를 찾기가 점점 어려워진다는 것입니다. 단순히 상대방의 감정을 상하게 하려는 목적의 논쟁은 생산적인 대화로 이어질 수 없습니다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 우리는 논쟁이 가져올 수 있는 긍정적인 잠재력을 회복하고 강조해야 합니다.

첫째, 모든 논쟁은 약간의 ‘합의’로 시작해야 합니다. 즉, 정확히 무엇에 대해 의견이 다른지 명확히 밝혀야 합니다. 그래야 모든 사소한 불만이나 의견 차이로 번져 통제 불능의 갈등이 되는 것을 막을 수 있습니다. RISA 프레임워크를 적용하기 전에 먼저 논쟁의 핵심을 명확히 해야 합니다.

둘째, 대화에 참여하는 두 사람이 처음부터 동일한 목표를 가지고 있지 않을 수 있습니다. 하지만 “왜 이 논쟁에 참여하고 싶은가?”, “이 대화를 통해 무엇을 얻고자 하는가?”와 같은 질문을 통해 목표에 대한 합의를 이끌어낼 수 있습니다. 단순히 반대 의견을 내거나 문제를 일으키려는 가족에게 “정말 나를 설득하여 생각을 바꾸게 하고 싶은가? 아니면 나의 관점이나 다른 의견을 듣고 싶은가?”라고 물어봄으로써, 대화의 목적에 대한 협상을 통해 훨씬 더 나은 대화를 이끌어낼 수 있습니다.

우리는 흔히 지능(intelligence)을 어떤 주장에든 반응할 수 있는 능력으로 생각하지만, 지혜(wisdom)는 어떤 주장에 반응하고, 어떤 부분에 반응해야 할지 아는 데 있습니다. 토론자들은 보통 두 가지 질문을 합니다. 첫째, 상대방 주장의 특정 지점이 전체 분쟁을 해결하기 위해 반드시 반박되어야 하는가? 둘째, 만약 그렇지 않다면, 우리가 그 지점에 반대하거나 이의를 제기하는 것이 전체 분쟁을 해결하는 데 진전을 가져올 것인가? 이 질문들을 통해 우리는 논쟁을 무질서하고 모든 것을 포괄하는 분쟁으로 만드는 것을 막고, 좀 더 현명하게 반대할 수 있습니다.

이러한 ‘측면 전환(Side Switch)’ 연습은 확실성의 감각을 잠시 멈추게 합니다. 다른 사람들의 믿음이 주관적으로 그들만의 합리성을 가지고 있음을 잠시나마 느끼게 합니다. 우리가 무언가를 놓쳤을지도 모른다고 생각하게 만들고, 우리가 틀렸거나 적어도 틀렸다고 판단되는 세상을 상상하게 합니다. 이 모든 것이 그 자체로 겸손이나 공감은 아니지만, 겸손이나 공감이 일어날 수 있는 작은 여지(wiggle room)를 만듭니다.

보 서는 공감을 일상생활에서 실천하기 어렵다고 느꼈습니다. 그것이 어떤 마법 같은 심령적 연결이나 타고난 미덕처럼 느껴졌기 때문입니다. 하지만 토론 경험을 통해 그는 공감을 다른 시각으로 보게 되었습니다. 즉, 공감은 일련의 ‘행동’이라는 것입니다. 상대방의 입장이 되어 그들의 주장을 만들어 보거나, 상대방의 눈으로 자신을 바라보며 자신이 틀렸을 수 있는 모든 이유를 찾아보는 것과 같은 행동 말입니다.

현재 많은 대화가 교착 상태에 빠져 있다고 느껴집니다. 자신의 견해에 완전히 확신하는 사람들이 멀리서 서로에게 소리 지르는 식의 ‘참호전(trench warfare)‘과 같습니다. 이때 의심의 여지를 만들고, 상대방의 주장이 일리 있을 수 있고 자신이 무언가를 놓쳤을 수도 있다는 가능성을 받아들이는 작은 여지는 공감이 부족한 시대에 공감을 가져오는 한 가지 방법이 됩니다.

이러한 ‘측면 전환’ 연습과 토론이 가져오는 공감은 개인적인 의견 차이뿐만 아니라, 정치적 분쟁, 정당 간의 갈등, 이념적 대립에서 그 어느 때보다 시급하게 필요합니다. 이를 실천하기 위해서는 우리 각자가 정치적 소속, 종교적 신념, 이념적 믿음보다 더 큰 존재임을 기억해야 합니다. 그리고 더 중요한 것은, 상대방 역시 그들의 정당이나 사회적 위치, 신념의 대표자 이상의 존재라는 점을 인식하는 것입니다. 우리의 만남이 우리가 가진 소속감보다 더 큰 의미를 가질 때, 우리는 새로운 아이디어를 탐색하고, 상대방이 어디에서 왔는지 그 미묘한 뉘앙스를 들을 수 있는 최고의 기회를 얻게 됩니다. 바로 이러한 환경에서 ‘측면 전환’과 같은 연습이 가장 효과적입니다.

우리는 수사학(rhetoric)에 대해 깊은 불신을 가지고 있습니다. “그것은 그저 수사학일 뿐”이라고 말할 때, 우리는 그것이 공허한 말장난이거나 상대를 속이려는 시도, 조작하려는 의도라고 생각합니다. 이러한 불신은 수사학의 역사 초기부터 존재했습니다. 소크라테스는 수사학자 고르기아스(Gorgias)를 비판하며, 수사학이 진실에서 벗어나 사람들의 아첨받고 싶어 하는 욕망, 변덕스러움, 이성의 명령보다는 감정적 호소에 반응하는 경향을 이용한다고 비난했습니다. 현대에 와서 이러한 수사학에 대한 의심은 지배적인 견해가 되었습니다.

하지만 보 서는 정반대의 견해를 제시합니다. 우리의 취약성, 즉 게으름과 무관심 때문에 우리는 오히려 우리의 마음을 움직이고 행동을 촉구하는 무언가가 필요하다는 것입니다. 우리의 생각을 바꾸는 것조차 엄청난 ‘활성화 에너지(activation energy)‘가 필요한데, 하물며 바뀐 신념에 따라 행동하는 것은 더욱 그렇습니다. 따라서 우리는 우리 자신보다 더 큰 무언가가 우리를 이끌어줄 필요가 있습니다.

물론 이는 감정, 열정, 동료 의식, 연사와의 동일시 등 다루기 힘든 요소들을 다루는 것임을 인정해야 합니다. 하지만 토론의 많은 요소와 마찬가지로, 이러한 인간적인 요소들이 없는 대화는 그 가치가 줄어듭니다. 그것은 생생하지 않고, 실제 인간 대화가 제공할 수 있는 광대함과 풍요로움이 부족합니다. 그리고 이를 위해서는 수사학이 필요합니다.

어떤 강력한 기술이 선과 악 모두에 사용될 수 있을 때, 우리는 그 힘을 관리할 도구를 제공해야 합니다. 핵 물리학이든, 무술이든, 무기 개발이든 마찬가지입니다. 사람들에게 그 힘을 선하게 활용하고 악하게 사용되는 것을 막을 수 있는 능력을 주어야 합니다. 토론도 마찬가지입니다. 많은 사람이 수사학의 도구를 가지고 있는 세상에서, 일부는 그것을 악용하여 나쁜 목적을 추구할 것입니다. 따라서 수사학의 두 얼굴, 즉 선하게 사용될 수 있는 방법과 악용될 수 있는 방법을 모두 이해하는 대중은 선동 정치(demagoguery)와 수사학의 남용에 대한 면역력을 더 가질 수 있습니다. 그들은 무엇이 일어나고 있는지 식별하고, 비판적으로 따르려는 유혹에 저항할 수 있기 때문입니다.

1

거리에서 흔히 볼 수 있는 ‘코코아 로봇(Cocoa robots)‘과 같은 배달 로봇에 대한 논의도 이어졌습니다. 처음에는 귀엽게 보이지만, 최근에는 ‘라타샤(Latasha)’, ‘마누엘(Manuel)’, ‘란지브(Ranjieve)‘와 같은 인종적 이름이 붙여진 로봇들이 등장하면서 “이게 더 나은 건가, 아니면 더 나쁜 건가?”라는 질문이 제기되었습니다. 패널들은 “인종적 이름의 로봇이 여전히 임금이 더 적다”는 농담으로 AI 시대의 복잡한 사회 문제를 풍자했습니다. 본래 AI는 음악가, 작가, 편집자, 교사, 의사, 변호사, 프로그래머, 배우 등 특정 직업을 대체할 것으로 예상되었으나, 이제는 인류 전체를 위협할 수 있다는 막연한 공포가 확산되고 있습니다. 빌 게이츠(Bill Gates)가 AI의 위험성에 대해 6,000단어 에세이를 썼지만, 피터 시걸은 이를 챗GPT(Chat GPT)로 요약해 “빌은 괜찮을 거라고 말한다”는 아이러니한 결론을 얻어냈습니다.

애덤 버크가 제시한 이야기가 실제였습니다. QVC는 ‘재버링 잭(Jabbering Jack)‘이라는 애니메이션 말하는 호박 장식을 판매했는데, 이 호박이 지나가는 사람들에게 “밤새도록 비명을 지르고 싶지 않으세요?”와 같은 선정적인 대사와 노래를 내뱉어 많은 불만을 샀습니다. 제조사와 QVC 모두 사과문을 발표해야 했습니다. 다른 패널들은 폭탄 위협으로 오해받은 ‘가을 폭발(Fall Explosion)’ 꽃다발이나, 전화번호 오류로 한 여성이 자기 자신에게 전화를 걸어 블라우스를 주문하려 했던 황당한 상황을 꾸며냈지만, ‘야릇한’ 노래를 부르는 호박 장식 이야기가 가장 기괴하고도 사실이었습니다.

피터 시걸은 디아즈에게 그의 소설 ‘플라이(Ply)‘에 빗대어 ‘틀라이(Tly)‘라는 이름의 화장지 관련 퀴즈를 출제했습니다. 디아즈는 화장지가 미국에서 대중화된 계기(시어스 로벅 카탈로그가 화장지로 널리 사용됨), ‘스플린터 프리(splinter-free, 가시 없는)’ 화장지의 등장, 뉴욕 제츠(New York Jets)가 런던 경기를 위해 350롤의 화장지를 공수해 간 일화 등 세 문제 모두 오답을 선택하며 “품위를 유지하기 위해 일부러 틀렸다”는 유머러스한 태도를 보였습니다. 그는 “실패를 더 잘하겠다”며 쿨하게 패배를 인정했습니다.

• 미국 하원의원 토마스 마시(Thomas Massie)가 로이드 오스틴(Lloyd Austin) 국방장관 탄핵 투표를 요구했습니다.
• 연방준비제도(Federal Reserve)가 3년 만에 처음으로 이자율 인상을 결정했습니다.
• 미니애폴리스(Minneapolis) 시는 운전자 없는 차량을 허용했지만, 운전자가 탑승해야 한다는 조건을 달았습니다.
• NASA는 새로운 우주 망원경을 처음으로 가동했습니다.
• 독일의 한 남성이 단 한 병의 빈 병을 177,451번 재활용하여 약 5만 달러를 벌어들였습니다. 그의 독창적인 ‘공학 기술’과 ‘넘치는 시간’에 판사조차 감탄했습니다.
• 영국 동물원이 웹사이트에 ‘어린이 포식자 투어(child predator tour)‘라고 잘못 표기하여 사과했습니다. 자동 발권 시스템 오류로 ‘어린이(child)‘라는 단어가 추가된 것이 원인이었습니다.