Diplomatic

Debate:

Taking dialogue to the next level







Copyright 2014 Steven R Norton. The book author retains
sole copyright to his contribution in this book






Debate whats so special about that? ................................................. 3
Leadership .......................................................................................... 4
My debating and resume .................................................................... 6
A bit of information you need to know ............................................... 7
Facilitated debate ............................................................................... 9
Forage debate ................................................................................... 10
Framed debate .................................................................................. 12
Blind free debate .............................................................................. 13
Waste debate .................................................................................... 13
Teaser debate ................................................................................... 15
Spotting skills for facilitators ............................................................. 16
Examples of excellent facilitation...................................................... 31
Put yourself in their shoes ................................................................ 32
Modus operandi of debates .............................................................. 33
Other debates. .................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 39






Debate whats so special about that?

Debate? What is it? Surely any fool can do it? Isnt it what everyone
does anyway when discussing? Well thats why you need to read the
rest of this one. Here is where I assert that no! it is not!

All I see on television and have seen in business is a covert or
nonexistent framework for debate, with shallowness and poor
results. No joke! I rated the last presidential debates as scoring 1-
10... on having a framework which would allow a voter for choosing
a good leader... there was no forthcomingness of required
information and evidence, which lent to them having very little
chance of being clear cut outright in worth of vote. This looks terrible
and I for one wouldnt want to be seen employing or being part of
such a failing standard. But with all the recent outcomes in
information and knowledge, it isnt the last generations fault for not
having know, but we would be irresponsible to allow the knowledge
to be brushed aside... which makes it even more important for this
generation to be really good at more than just debating. I have since
devised a solution which tackles the problems for TV debaters
separately as I feel they have different constraints. Which could be
available upon request and purchase for a TV company, editor,
political party or presenter per se, and I do consultancy.

Having studied this field for some time and the sciences surrounding
the questions, I can assert that it will waste your time, effort, mind,
and patience as well as leave you standing in an untenable position
to assume that debating is as simple and single faceted as many
business people and bureaucrats might think... I havent even seen
any television material come close to what I know can be done and
achieved, and it is said that bureaucrats use tricks (which some of
which are shown in this easy to read, simple concise book a format
which I like to use.), and these tricks can be morally questionable,
and hard to validate, they can be inciteful and cause all kinds of
problems.

Our system of debate negates the problem of having to deal with the
tricks headaches and it cultivates the right kind of environment and
conditions (a framework) for excellence. I have information far
beyond anything I have seen in a spectrum of books in business,
people skills and all the other genres which I have cross checked... it
seems a lot of the information isnt out there, but there is a huge
spectrum of information which addresses in many different ways,
but very little seems powerfully practical per se in a multifascetted
rich way. So I am addressing it myself and holding back trump cards
for a second edition and consultancy. With business and capitalising
on a big economic decline... its a great time to get in the game! It
takes a real winner and a person with some solidity but fluidity of
character to pull off. You can either smooth your current qualities or
become more depth adept. Many doctors books I study point to the
difference of manipulation and influence. We only use influence,
since crossing the line to the other way and manipulating crosses
many other boundaries which can cost individuals, companies,
politicians and society as a whole in a very dangerous way per se...
but we need not go into this. This book gives you the purview and
tools you need to steer any and all developments to a higher quality
outcome. But it still takes more...

Leadership

As will smith the actor I heard say once pointed out we are only as
strong in character and capability as the people we mostly surround
ourselves with, so if we choose a think tank team, and we havent
done our homework on the differences of manipulative people as
one aspect, who do a lot of thinking covertly, and get easily upset
when they dont get their own way, who are in denial, then we will
have problems every time we hold a debate/talk and may come to
believe its normal, or they have leverage which infects/effects
outcome. Many of the things people are going to need to think of are
far from obvious as well, and since it seems most of media and
politics is not using the system that there is a good chance they are
not aware which means it is at a premium right now.

General Robert E Lee, who is viewed by many as a leader of highest
calibre who would not cross boundaries of sensibility or dishonour
and had excellent principles, and was able to keep beating forces 10
times as equipped and ten times as large with bare bones at times,
but would not resort to dirty tactics... had a way of dealing with staff
in this fashion... he saw himself as an equal for one thing and
believed in certain ways of being towards his junior colleagues and
grooming their own independent value rather than a chain of
command that is authoritative purely like a yes sir system... which
was recorded in a business documentary by General Norman
Schwarzkopf (who reportedly lost no troops in the desert storm
victory, and cost very few lives on the other side per se.), he asserts
that is this kind of chain of command which was to blame for the loss
of the Vietnam incident. Supported in the book Robert E. Lee on
leadership: executive lessons in character, courage and vision, by
H.W. Crocker and said to be Winston Churchills favourite leader.
He would never waste time with ill words, shouting, chastising, it
makes matters worse and doesnt achieve anything, but said he
would employ other generals and such to departments which would
do the greatest good for their cause... with references and genuine
good words for the good they did do in the front line... but there
would be no point in carrying on having a general in a position which
did not do the greatest effect in times of being outnumbered and out
resourced. Principles came first, peoples egos even of the generals
came second. Its no wonder today has such failings in debate and
business. He earned great respect from his men and great devotion. I
see this as rarely if not at all being the case these days in many
circles, though some are getting it wrong in defining it. Debate
requires people to be held to a contract of their employment or
business agreement to conform to the boundaries and purviews laid
out, else they can run amuck at whim, which brings room for
manipulators to steer business into dirty dangerous areas like
espionage and seriously dangerous manipulation.

If a permissive style leader allows the freedom in that fashion, then
he will always have the doubt and worry, and for one will not think
straight, become paranoid and lose the support of good people in
the group as well as be obvious to anyone there who is undermining
intentionally. It incapacitates our potential, cognition, perception
and awareness, causes us stress and anxiety, and will affect our
ability to out perform or compete at higher levels. It also looks
extremely unprofessional, it looks like their is disorder (which their
is) and it yields far too much information (see my book on
information a modern day plague


My debating and resume

I run a little group on face book and have done for a while called the
ethical debate forum. It is only a small group and has rules (reading
this book will show you why), but it is there as a free resource for
some new kinds of material and questions for debate and practice,
or for people to practice and help with feedback to a high standard
with myself as a facilitator. I have also offer debating groups for
children and adults in my own local community for them to be skilled
in critical thinking and to the reasons of how and why we need to
think and do things a certain way to keep us strong and on the right
track in life (asides any other moral and such advice we normally
get.) I myself am a member of many other groups who do more work
on particular topics. I have a fairly impressive rsum and history
too, I have made a national sports team, worked for a celeb, rich or
top business people, and supervised a million people, multi millions
in cash a day a day security office and call centre, calling the
businessman of the year at home when needed, I do psychological
profiling, counselling, analysis, run my own business, won an award
for charity and mental health work, sat as an advisor on several
charities board with the local counsel, trained and scored high as a
driving instructor, but not currently licensed and know my stuff really
well having written several books. So I do have some cross boards
experience firsthand.
A bit of information you need to know

I studied in the recent past a counselling law and overseers
material on the contentions and such of counselling. (I have
written a self help book for people myself Defence against the
dark arts: owning the unseen forces and beasts within and around
us which is available on Amazon.co.uk/com) recently retitled...
Social self management: Cognition, Logic, emotions, feelings,
spirit, angst, physiology and management.

Having studied both the UK and US ethical perceptions, codes and
such as well as variants in interpretive and practical law surrounding
serious interactive matters... I deem thus far (which is also concluded
from legal and oversight discourse and publications including UK
parliamentary and UK law assertions made by fairly reliable or
courtable sources.) that the US code is not only ahead but has more
conclusive and actionable coverage and is less ambiguous and
contentious, especially since it has been asserted and posited that
the UK lords and laws have not even looked at these matters in
certain context. Every child in U.S. law recently was given the right
not to be left behind in education, but it is difficult for many in the
UK to get into university, or have the web of support to do it. (based
on studies up to or around the end of the last millennium It is clear
that the law has in the UK dealt with matters pertaining to child law
and such on a different parallel also which covers decisions over their
welfare per se. But it is publicly clear and asserted by one author that
many dynamics have not been laid out and decided by law, but under
parenting law (and ethically), we would still be expected to find the
answers to these questions.) There may be closed door discussions
going on in private but not yet published... though I speculate based
on recent years parliament debate that it is not likely so, and it
would be complacent for me to assume, plus it is evident that human
rights are being discussed to be removed in the UK, by some house
of commons persons and there being present an air of intent to do
so I err on this side for safety because things such as rights in law are
being deemed as perhaps a thing of the past. Though there may be a
political reason of expressing it is so, without any intent to do so... I
am not privy to such information, and do trust individuals at their
word that their intent IS genuine and not otherwise.) one thing
asserted by the US higher authorities per se was the involvement of
members of the counselling profession to take a far deeper interest
in ethics and principles of them... which I have done for some time,
and to my surprise found I was the only one doing so on the internet
in an open and facilitated fashion with accountability and structure...
though some places offer rooms for blind free debates (explained
later in the book) So I may well have some new territory and grounds
as well as new information and ways to meet the problems in this
arena. And I play these cards wisely and cautiously as if to be
meeting the required standards in the counselling world. Not only
this I have picked up serious codes of procedural practice which are
extremely useful and powerful guiding beacons in navigating matters
of sensitivity.

There has not been much demand as yet for any seminars or
consultancy, but I have geared up on several new and rich subjects
for this purpose, and to a well structured and legally competent
fashion of high contemporary standard and confidence. (while I also
pursue other avenues of business.) Should there be a demand in
business or politics for seminars then I do consider it to be of greater
importance, even if there is a good financial inroad in physical
business... I would not hesitate to fill the void. Even to the level of
small franchises, which can run independently, but without an initial
charge, which is already a service I provide and have advertised
nationally at a higher rate of pay per hour by far than the minimum
wage for independent self employment.




Facilitated debate
A facilitator is someone who oversees and administers a debate. Just
because there is a person there running it or keeping the peace
doesnt mean that you have a facilitated debate. A skilled facilitator
can guide in terms of legal requirement, direction, steering within a
healthy framework, provide educative and growth feedback for
individuals confidentially where and if required. It would be bad
practice not to have a good scrutiny of any facilitator per se... and to
find out how good and current their array of knowledge and
experience extends, and not to just take their word or certification or
work history as a basis... you will personally need to know laws,
protocols etc to a high degree yourself in order to stand a better
chance of being able to challenge a phoney or weak facilitator... plus
you will need to learn to be elegant without being phoney yourself...
and trust me... this is really difficult! This is rarely seen these days in
management. These kind of lacking capacities in management go on
to cost the UK Billions of pounds which could be re-assigned to
needy causes. A facilitator will make good with the boundaries which
have a negative impact and which will lend to a lack of integrity of
quality, range and eventual closure. (though many businesses only
like to do their business on the grounds of instinct, or quickness
because they are already satisfied... but such styles are very
strangled in todays weedy economy... and I see that many big
businesses are slow to capitalise and poor to do so, and dangerous to
governments, people and the wider economics in doing so. For
example take the principle of a DVD mailing company able to let you
download all the Hollywood series and films unlimited for 6 a
month. You may have to forego a satellite TV channel or two, but
you save lots of money. Such eventual business could put other big
businesses at a loss of jobs... and our little download company only
needs ten staff to manage it. Sure... a big company will survive per
se, but hundreds or thousands of jobs are now at a loss, prices may
go up or come down, they may venture in to other big businesses
territory thus squeezing the cuts across the board, quality could be
effected, this in turn could undermine other supportive industry.
Now the government has to start again with finding more people
jobs. Such narrow minded management costs us all opportunities
and a loss of a greater good. Taxes could then go up to pay for it, or
cuts in government spending, plus less revenue from workers and big
companies. So that should give you a feel for the problem. Another
example is of a business I have run. Under the new apprenticeship
scheme it is possible to employ people at 2.90 an hour... if I take
advantage of this, I can undercut every other business in town and
cream the lot. Sure I will get rich, but then every other small business
will be put under and the government get less money because of
lower prices less profit is taxable, plus the people I employ are naive
and have no hope to get anywhere... but I am not breaking the law.
Plus the other business people are competing in normal corporate
jobs and such meaningless for youngsters, other than them having to
bear the headache and problems. A good facilitator will also give
people advance warning and time for preparation and also keep on
top of peoples involvement and contribution etc... constantly re-
planning and reviewing. The facilitator doesnt get to make the
decisions or do the discussing, but they do get to veto or call a
decision to be unacceptable, or to take control to refresh any veer
that occurred from the different boundaries set to business.
Forage debate

A forage debate is laid out on paper by oneself to map out all the
regions of difference in a problem or question, in order to know all
the territory which is there and its content to a well recognised
standard before going into discussion with others without healthy
ammunition and knowledge of how not to look a fool or take a vote
or decision down a likely destructive trail with time constrains and
change factored in to a point of ease and safety. It is very sensible to
do your own forage debates before debating with anyone else. You
will be able to look at points which are worthless... have a plan of
navigational steering whether you are in control or not... and be able
to break down the nomenclature of your particular debate into
components which are advantageous and practical in rich ways. You
can think ahead of any potential traps and pitfalls... like a good
lawyer will have a case won on paper ready for anything the
opposition will throw at them, since they might get just one
opportunity, if they dont have all the evidence on hand that might
cause a loss it would be regrettable where their client was innocent.
Evidence is paramount for debates... without highly rich evidence in
terms of science and such... there is little practicality. You might as
well be winning on opinion alone. That would be unprofessional for
you and any person who would allow you to win a debate without
evidence. You should always insist per se that in order to protect
your clients that they seriously review evidence... and when we start
to look into the realms of informational quality and evidence, then a
new skill is required asides this book on debating... because in
interpretative law per se a lot of cases can be lost dependant on the
styles in the room... utilitarian law, case law, paternal law... it can get
messy for the best... and it can be painful, inciteful, emotive, heated
or worse... its not for the faint hearted. You have to learn to get
elegant and seemingly effortless at this new level in order to start
winning properly... it takes lots of practice and extra curricular work
which to be honest can be left out by many professionals, and its
not easy to find these kinds of courses and such... they are very rare,
plus a lot of people are exploiting peoples naivety and lack of
knowledge, so its easy to get a poor quality course for your money
and you wouldnt know you are getting it.
Framed debate

A framed range debate requires someone to limit the terms, range
or frame of the dialogue. It is not an endearing or friendly term.
Frames can do harm, they keep people from hearing the full and
free range of information which is needed for a best, solid, less
harmful decision. Often in corporate dialogue since the main or
primary goal is to be accountable to stockholders and bonuses per
se... many things are assumed not to be of great consequence per
se... or are presumed to have been taken care of, and most people
couldnt produce the evidence that they have proof themselves, plus
wage earners a many dont like to be seen rocking the boat or behind
and small ripples made. Frames can be cleverly manipulated, but as
one business advisor in Hollywood, who also has links to the oil
industry families in the U.S. put it... mind killing. This basically is
because we will automatically gravitate to this state or frame in
dialogue and our habit can contaminate our own decision making
and assessment capacity which can harm our life or relationships. If
we are given 2 minutes to come up with a range of solutions we are
bound to have a weak result. As opposed to a week... so be careful of
frames. One of the best ways to be safe is to be very well prepared
and wise... If you are up on industry information, law, and all the
other genres of specialism and their related pros and cons, dangers
and capitalisations... in a distinctly unique way away from
mainstream debate then you will be able to see things and make
decisions which by far are going to be advantageous to the company,
business and clients and the wider community as a whole per se. But
it will do you little good to be giving these up in a debate... you will
also have to find a way to convey these rich accurate facts without
giving anything away and thats another skill set which requires its
very own rich studies. The point being in a framed debate context is
that you will be able to spot things below the water line. But then
another requirement for you to be within the lines of good and safe
leadership is that you have professionalism codes equal to the best,
which are highly and richly moral, and look after society, families,
staff, clients and the business (which needs to make a profit)... which
means knowing the insides of societies institutions and structures
and their modus operandi etc... plus you will need to know a lot
more asides... im trying to bring more books in line with this... for
example I have published one accurate book on self employment and
another for workplace navigation where laws and
management/society is failing to be in line with its own laws etc. Self
help development in line with psychosynthesis standards.
Blind free debate

When people debate with no terms or such and with no direction or
aim... but are rummaging for consensus they can enter into blind
free debate. The outcome could swing from hitting the nail on the
head, being far off course, it might metamorphosise in to another
discussion, nothing may be learned to carry over to an easier effort
with better results in the future. Many people just impulsively like it
this way. But then it is most likely to be a raging bull, potential to
losing control, direction, purpose, and breakdowns in
communication and spirit as well as capacity to process and work
through it and see into it. A lot of people also get an adrenal kick
from this style and find it to be fun... its different to a waste debate.

Waste debate
Unless you have a purpose to be in a debate... its not worth having a
conversation on any matters that could reveal your information or
slant on matters. Think of a debate in terms of a professional lawyer.
A good professional lawyer may have obligations to his client, but a
truly good lawyer wants to serve justice and truth... not a wage or an
associate or a client per se. So if his client is guilty, he has a duty to
that, and if his client is innocent they have a duty to make that
happen. I have spent a fairly long time studying law and legal cases in
detail per se to have been able to gain an insight which can be of
value, and since I have studied personality profiling, neurology,
anthropology, genetic evolution, logic and criminality... I have got
myself into a position of being able to see courses and blockages as
well as pitfalls and curve balls per se. I also know when Im wasting
my time. I am able to see degrees of truths that are of a higher
spectrum of certainty rather than black or white, and I know how to
mitigate and proportionize to the highest hermeneutical levels per
se. A lawyer cant just hand a case over to his opposition through
information when there is complete evidence of innocence... and as
we know his opposition could still be wishing to win the case in a less
than quality fashion, which of course means this would endanger
truth and justice in outcome, and if a person is innocent they should
not have to pay a penalty. You need complete trust in the debate
group. There has to be a purposeful outcome which WILL be acted
upon per se (though I have a better system myself per se saved for
my consultancy) You might have to sit around tables for a while to
get to know the characters at the table in a fair way, not judgemental
or taking things personally since we all have rights to opinions and
beliefs, we are always going to have differences! But you have to get
able to see people who will follow through, otherwise it is a waste of
investment. The best way for this would be to have a
teaser/sweetener debate... where you have something which
everyone at the table can make a profit on or will pay off in a good
way, and its best to have a few of these else you can end up in a
dead end for progress. There is no point in holding a team meeting
or debate which doesnt bear a good spectrum of integrity and
forthcomingness, though some people may call it team building. As
for schmoozy debates, like for a debating club at school for political
studies etc... where people are just winning points (I personally dont
feel there is much quality out there in this sense from what I have
seen... there isnt much of a fair chance for kids in many debate
settings it usually can end up in bad sportsmanship and disgruntled
people, which is not good team building management of course...
there should be a healthy teampersonship across opposing teams
who are all operating for higher values and causes whilst still able to
maintain an opposive position.
Teaser debate

In order for a facilitator to assess levels, capacities, potential
discordant individuals who cannot see the picture. There are training
psychologists who vet and screen jurors in order than a free but
competent level of ability is admitted to the position. Which is very
important where justice is concerned. A weak group can more easily
make a poor decision. Plus there is a risk that the adjudicators have
been framed in terms of weaknesses. This is why things like
transparency are of utmost importance... as well as evidencing...
everybody needs to see powerful transparency of information in
order to be confident in the modus operandi of the debate per se...
but this doesnt mean that everyone in the room should be naively
trusted either. In good leadership in this situation... what I believe to
be paramount is excellent real trust (not a place where there is guilt
tripping for an insinuation that a person is 100% trustworthy without
some serious testing. Such things as making legal contracts within
current employment contracts for corporate lie detection for
loyalties... which specifically includes loyalties to a wider picture of
law, human rights and families etc... and regular spot testing per se...
where there is sensitive information which should be kept behind
closed doors like in security terms whether public, financial or
otherwise. You might also wish to have a debate to prelude any
changes like this... but only in terms to see if the think tank can see
any problems you cant see legally, morally, or in terms of security
and duty... so you have to be very careful and have a forage debate
with yourself first. As you can see there really is a lot of
battleplanning and care... and that kind of things far more fun to
direct than to be delegating to others... it feels great to be in an
overwhelmed position as a mature person and to see the outcomes
of your planning where few win. Plus no-one dies in the debate
room... its the ultimate ideal!

Spotting skills for facilitators

There have to be several conditions in place in order to gain a truly
genuine positive in the dialogue, but even before you can do that
there is a bigger problem which is linked to human character and
integrity. We shouldnt just enter into this realm of dialogue without
some careful grounding and such. For example... some people like to
habitualise in ways of doing things, so you could end up using this
tool in a setting which will make it incomplete and fail. In which case
people can become disillusioned that it fails and they will pick up
several headaches because of doing so, because some people
naturally exploit it and abuse it. So without having as thorough
grounding, understanding, practical experience and such, it like
handing dynamite to kids to throw, which of course just isnt right.
Plus it seems far too many people these days take espousal as a right
for granted per se. i.e. just because they have a rich piece of new
information or sound bite they feel they have a winning card and get
carried away playing it almost as if it is ethereal and that is a point
that it becomes emotionally compromised and immalleable to fit the
correct shape which is required in order to marry the problem and
solution fittingly per se.

Here are some elements/personality traits which will lend to failure...

Healthy interrelating

Dr John Gottmans 4 elements (in his words he calls them the four
horsemen in his book, why marriages succeed or fail) the four
principles which infect in close relationships towards catastrophic
failure.

Criticisms
Contempt
Defensiveness
Stonewalling

Another things he mentions is effectively debate rage. He asserts
that for any serious relationship resolutive debate to take place
between two parties (in the couples setting), that several conditions
need to be met for successful interaction.

That afterwards the couples have planned something enjoyable
and rewarding to do to settle them if there was a problem
That they only discuss one thing at a time, at a set arranged
time when some space has been made to do it with the
intention for everyone to gear their day towards calmness and
clarity per se.
To spend no longer than 20 minutes talking about it if things
get difficult or flared up.

He asserts that if we allow a flared up state to enter the dialogue or
exchanges, then persons in this state cannot rationalise due to
their chemical state. (they will see red.) He has studied thousands of
couples for over 30 years... he should know, and his success rate of
predicting the outcome of a relationship succeeding (so dialogue has
worked and will keep on working), is in the high ninety percent! This
is one of the reasons I have set the framework for debate the way I
have... its allowing the traffic of a debate to stick to the one side of
the road so there is flow and no congestion and gridlock which so
much political and business suffers from. I have included the part
about accommodating in this section which gives further emphasis
on this.


Ambiguity

For this element of the framework I will quote the work of Dr
Deborah Tannens from the book Thats not what I meant: how
conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others I
have picked up on two elements from her unique (so far as I have
found in all the books I have studied and people I have met) skills,
knowledge and interpretation which is truly remarkable.

Implicitness
Insinuative tone

These two combined often add up to contempt (which you basically
will usually not get satisfaction or closure in dialogue.

She is a rare Doctor of language and she expresses and asserts that
people often convey their true dialogue in words which in fact imply
other meanings. Like when someone says Im not angry!, while
they go red in the face or grit their jaw/teeth together with fists
clenched, and hiss while saying it. How we say what we say,
communicates social meanings and for one... people can hide
behind a veil of politeness to hide social meaning or bully from a
position of rage, two factors we need to deal with. So finding out and
making sure we get to know peoples true feelings is really important,
and to get to know that they are not going to be a cost to others
when they say they care about others rights, welfare, and quality of
life... when they actually mean... they want the bonus the job pays,
or the power they yield is their poison of preference. This is one
reason I have taken character profiling and truth detection like the
Dr Paul Eckman institute which trains the FBI so seriously in all my
dealings... as well as the laws, rights, wisdom, truth of our fragility
and the cost to our spirits, futures, happiness and such to the highest
degree modern science currently allows... I can see from the cutting
edge of science, which is barely known in the mainstream but well
respected in the expert realms.

Clarity
Clarification is gold in dialogue... one thing I have learned is that
everyone has a different meaning to the simplest of words,
definitions etc, and it changes everything in a conversation and its
implications and outcomes. By clarifying, we can gauge a depth of
knowledge and if there is a spectrum of diversity and depth of the
person we talk to, which gives us a working point and indicates which
approach to take. We also get to hear what is being said or clarify
any implications or implicitly. We will also see who is a Contextual
Frequency abuser (a term I have coined though there may be
another similar already [or not] in language somewhere. Frequency
is a term that Dr Harriet Braiker uses in her afore mention book. I
have watched so many people run rings around excellent facilitators,
and I would make CFA a crime of dialogue per se, as I see it as a thing
people cant spot and it is a Bain to getting closure for people using a
righteous honourable system. Clarification is a beautiful tool!

Listening

This is a tough one for many... with so many things in layers around a
contention or problem, it often lays a fog on top of the persons at
the centre, defending so many problems, points and such people
become dig in to sticking to a Defensivity system and try to use
control, right fighting (to coin a Dr Phil phrase), phobia reactivity
relieving, threats, passive aggression or aggression, or hoping it will
go away which is a self exacerbating situation, easily frustrated or
obsessed, even co-dependency and withdrawal, and lastly childish
leverage like walking out of the meeting. In order for them to keep
hold of the feeling of control which makes them feel alleviated
some... they forgo the capacity to be able to do rich listening
processing with the brain, as the brain schemes and such, we
incapacitate ourselves without awareness, and unless you are really
well tuned to it and work with it on a daily basis like I do. It is hard
work to become richly realistic and aware. When it boils down to it...
if you look at counselling cases for example... where dialogue is
sensitive and personal, may be dangerous and abusive, may cause a
lot of arguments in a family... excellent counsellors and professionals
both civilian and military have learned that there are rules to work by
which require listening to be done in a very specific and consistent
way... and its not just simple when everyone is on edge and tense.
But it is possible to take advantage of it if you are in the spotlight of
potentially negative attention if you have been thorough and diligent
and you are not fixated on winning, but intent on honesty, win/win
outcomes and the best for all involved as well as getting a fair deal
yourself. But remember... many people believe they are truthful...
but I have seen many cases where people do not realise why their
truth is only 10% of the fact. One of the things needed is a better
understanding of this truth. People get defensive and manipulative
without realising... plus Ex Military neuropsychiatrist Dr Amen in his
book magnificent mind at any age asserts that he has even caught
himself self lying... we can actually listen to our automatic thinking
and be totally perceptively misled. Plus have you ever seen a TV
debate where people assert they have blackouts... like Alzheimers...
big portions of peoples daily memory can be a blank. Have you ever
been on a long journey driving and found yourself in automatic and
before you know it you are there? (Psychologists have found
competency called flow... when a surgeon becomes competent to
an automatic level during a surgery they can flow automatically
without mistakes, its a phenomenon for competent people, but it
has a down side.) It relates to introspective listening. For me
personally I have spent a long time answering these questions about
me ... and there are some solutions in my self help book. Did you
ever see the film hoodwinked? There is an interesting scenario in
there... its worth looking at. People with Alzheimers dont know
they have it... even if they were a specialist doctor themselves. Its
really tough to gain peoples attention through appeal to them when
they can see you fall short... so it is essential to get right per se. It is
really hard to listen to people if you havent tweaked all the little self
development point to the highest level. Have you ever seen what
happens to your performance levels in a job when there has been
some rumours in the department which are problemic or focussed
on your team or may suggest you have been targeted and bullied. I
remember having this scenario... and I was clean, healthy to a really
pure level and I was positive, I was competent, caring and always put
in extra for all on the team, always willing... one ex army senior said I
was a REAL can do guy, and a more senior boss had me flagged for a
promotion after 2/3 years of excellent performance records. In terms
of counselling again... there are lots of nuances in working with
people, and lots of top brand counselling are falling short of them.
Its not easy to find these, and just one tiny new nuance can change
the whole dynamic massively.

How many times have you seen a programme like the Jeremy Kyle
show, Steve Wilkos, Maury, Dr Phil, Judge Judy and it has seemed
that people arent listening or hearing what is meant or being said
and how many times has it seemed that people arent really
interested in getting involved in the solution? (its lots and they are
told this a lot too, but are still in denial) Denial and closed
mindedness to all the things others have to say is another thing
which is a huge problem. Many people jump in during a debate with
a pre-conceived reply/retort... (This is wrong)... the only time you
should be entering a debate is once you have done your depth
research... listen to ALL opinions for years before to a level where
you can see the sense in anyone elses points and how they relate to
the truth. To want to win the debate with single answers or retorts in
10 minutes is only for fools! And its not worth entering a debate
with neophytes... even if they are high ranking or positioned when
they are ignorant of this art. If one is intent on pushing a point or a
quick fix then quality will be out the window, which means there is
more likely going to mistakes, scapegoating, then backstabbing and
defensivity and then a slippery slope of mistrust and such in a self
exacerbating cycle in which all involved lose their best mind set and
such... their time will be spent thinking defensively and such and it
really will infect people much deeper than they realise. I read a
professional report a short while ago which has seen results around
this area in the US Navy... it was reported that performance by staff
drops 50%... this is a death trap in positions like the US Navy... so you
see how dramatic and serious an impact this can have on you and
others.

It also is the same with people who seem perfectly polite and well
spoken... the same internal processes per se can and do go on... so
dont be fooled... there is a parallel of inner capacity and inability
going on, though slightly different, so often when people have got a
degree or a seemingly conservative or posh manner, though they
may not be course like some people can be, though they may be
more disciplined in some ways, I see many important people
making a fool of themselves or beating a debate into the ground
leaving it nowhere near to quality or good. I have recently finished
seriously deep research in this area of manipulation and logic as well
as psychiatric pathology... where we really have our Hitlers and
failures of leadership and parenting which has the worst of impacts
on life. You will have had to have studied for a very long time in the
right areas for it to be otherwise. And for someone who knows it will
be obvious to me when someone is otherwise. But one essential
thing to bring into any debate room is that everyone in the room is
innocent till proven guilty and switch off your opinions and
suspicions. What sane businessman or bureaucrat would openly
make a serious breach to their own harm or demise... I cant think of
any examples! People in debates are very sensitive and you must
have a very high level of trust and delicacy so as not to be a trigger
element in the talks... plus you have to know how to deal with other
peoples innocent self lying and suspicion based decisions and
direction. But like I do say... I will do consultancy which can cut down
the needs for others in training where I have experience... I cant
claim to give you the full range in your situation, but I can do a
degree of positive...

One very important thing posited by counsellors and doctors on the
whole per se... is that of listening to peoples feelings on matters and
to reason with them from a professional point of view. Its no good
just going through the motions of being agreeable to them, you must
genuinely and sincerely hear them and work with them. But again
many peoples ideal of sincere falls very short... this is where you will
start to get subconscious problems and I cannot stress this enough,
it causes lots of problems if you dont address it. Many times I have
watched Dr Phil have to explain to the family unit that they are not
listening to one member, and still they dont hear! People get several
conditions during discussions. It is important to see who is taking all
said by all into account sincerely, and that every case, element and
person has feeling taken into account. Once again this is deeply
covered in my book defence against the dark arts renamed to self
help book social self management: Cognition, Logic, emotions,
feelings, spirit, angst, physiology and management. But if there is a
chance you will manipulate or if you gain feedback from people
around you and they are forthcoming about your shortfalls (many
wont be negative around a subconsciously perceived manipulator.)
you must address this first before moving into sincerity you must
first look at and remove your old habit well, because we
automatically think in certain ways, it is proven we can fall into the
trap through our own thinking, getting feedback from people who
ARE your critics IS essential and to take it seriously... until the time
they agree you have changed, then you likely havent... but you must
not take it personally or argue YOUR position during the process. If
you fail to do this, you will lose trust, you will cause a change of
dynamics in the room which will make situational interpretation
much more difficult and highly less accurate, which opens the
debates up to failures in standard and potential problems which
themselves lead to defensive, manipulative behaviours... which
breeds even more wider problems plus massive losses in group
performance and ability.


Sensitivity

One of the requirements of the most sensitive types of counselling in
very sensitive cases to the highest care requires that no personal
opinions and judgement (in that same context) are harboured or
used. You will be very careful to avoid words that could be offensive
AND be willing not to use any words you see people have trouble
with, plus investigate their modus operandi in a fair and impartial
way which will not be EVER used against them. (since you will always
only ask for evidence bearing influence on decisions, you will never
need to get personal! It would be unprofessional to get upset or
angry or take things personally.)

Some schools have a confused code of conduct or ethics which are
ambiguous to both client and therapist, but some have clear cut
issues. This has been a proven problem in top end business now. I
recently had a period requirement given to me to go through the
current system of counselling and I saw a lot of problems and
mistakes, since I have been writing codes for counselling practices
per se and have written books to a deep level on several specific
elements of counselling and researching intentionally for 30 years to
very deep levels... including putting myself into jobs on the receiving
end of bad management and such. I know I can achieve hourly
earnings of 3 figures per hour on my own initiate, I know I can make
it to get invited to train with the national squad because of my
standards, I know I can write a 390 page counselling book which was
well endorsed by a qualified physician, I know I can supervise a very
high pressure department looking after the security of over 1 million
people a day, I know I can run a business which is fairly risky and very
expensive in terms of consequentiality and not have to pay out for
mistakes... and I could go on! I have also seen my own development
along the way... and I know all the things that have been against me
and for me during my journey and I see them in a well proportioned
fashion and relate to others that takes into account where they are
at. Being able to empathically relate to the suffering of others and
the reparative requirements of their situation which may include
familial problems etc, financial etc... to be a leader who ignores these
is not a good position. So we add another skill requirement... with
our aim being to steer and cultivate everyone within a spectrum
margin which facilitates choice freedom, diversity, excitement etc...
and allows them to have room to grow from any point of
development or situational variant from birth or community .

Given that no threats are made at the table or no one has been
threatened (people use the veil of inference) and there is no risk of
harm to others, then it is widely accepted that any conventional
perversions of growth and development and such or of individual
choice are expected to be kept confidential (and you are legally
bound to do so except for the requirement of wider legal or
advisory capacity per se.)

Without these things in sync... you have a recipe for throwing petrol
at a bonfire party as far as serious or delicate debate goes... and with
warring parties per se, etc... trying to gain control, or manipulate
the debate... there will be major problems, and exacerbated further
doing so, as a lot of this book has brought up in discussion. You may
never get the discussion back from DEFCON 1... with too much pride
or ego in the room and everybody projecting per se... de-escalation is
likely a no-go. This discussion has passed the point of no return!
Thats why it is so imperative to have all your homework done like a
good boyscout/girlscout (be prepared), you dont want to find out
the hard way when its diplomacy or community contentions on the
arbitration table!

It could be argued that it isnt so, or its just another selling point for
my debate system, and it would be transparent and righteous to
have this on the debate table... we dont exclude anything. But if I
AM getting ahead AND people believe that, it means more of the
market to me and the team that think and do business this way.
Which is of course a positive... plus we have the moral high ground of
having shared the information openly and honourably. So one thing I
would urge you to do if you are sceptical... to do it the right way...
that means you have to get together some pretty heavy evidence
which can not just be proven in a theoretically proven scientific way,
but is also proven in the theatres of debating and such. You would be
hard pressed to find this and actually have a first hand practical
knowledge... hear say and conjecture is inadmissible in a trial per se,
plus in this specific kind of vulnerable case where a lot rests on good
diplomacy etc... there are set rules as to the way you deal with these
matters and these terms state that even the scientists and specialists
are in a position of conjecture till proven otherwise per se. With
these kinds of sensitive cases we dont make mistakes... imagine it
was you as a child and If the opposition wins the case, then you will
be put back into an abusive high risk environment... realistically...
would you want to be put back into a risk of torture? If you answered
Yes... or didnt have a sincere confirmative NO!... then you would not
even be allowed to testify in court per se... since your position is non
compos mentis (not sane per se)! And you probably havent been
tortured or in such a situation where you would have preferred to
have died.

I could waste your time with more examples, but Im keeping it
simple and Im geared up to write a more in depth second edition if
there is a demand, so I have covered all necessities. I am currently
trying to sell to very big media and political corporations in the USA
and UK... with an intention for resale in Europe too.

I set out to read just about every genre and book which I could get
hold of (though I wont have read every book), I deem the
worthiness of having a good majority of the spectrum of information
that is out there in this realm that has been forthcoming enough to a
point where necessity to continue stopped, though this was not
intended. I did set out to study deeply for 60 years before writing a
book on what I had learned and this course came from my findings
and such when I questioned the morality and conscience of not
sharing the information. But I have learned to adopt a new style of
writing and editing which fixes most political and media debate
problems these days... it can be an exciting time to capitalise and get
involved in debate... Im very excited, it would be great for politics
and diplomacy!

There are a lot of executive style books on sale which I dont feel are
forthcoming, so I dont waste my time with them... there are not any
fitting this field which I have come across yet, though many have a
little gem which is good in other settings. There just isnt much!
There is of course philosophy and such, but there is just so much
information, and much of it written in a fashion which results in a
headache and the need to hire a code decipher to get to the core of
what is being said A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush!...
which in itself is a double entendre. I have loads more material to
add... but I keep my hand rich, plus it gives others time to get up to
speed this way.

Accommodation

I like to use the rules of the highway code in the UK to steer all my
thinking on this one... every effort has been made to the safest levels
to prevent head on traffic incidents and who and why we give way
to keep everybody on a fair and happy journey within a written
system of law which is already well known and courts know how the
decisions play out. It couldnt be simpler and richer if you tried and
its already set out in the palm of your hands. We all drive on the
designated side of the road to avoid clashing, give way to people
coming up a hill, give the same courtesy to non vehicular public,
always be first to stop and make the effort, leave enough time for
your journey so you dont have to rush or end up forcing other
people to take sharp action or put them in danger. Anyone who is
horn honking (heckling), not accommodating (can provoke road rage
from others, or debate rage.) I have got to the point in book reading
now that I am able to skim read in 5 minutes a book and know
exactly if it is going to yield anything which will add to what I already
know... and I do mean literally! Just imagine how many books I can
get through! The other thing I will say on this subject will be the
internet revolution. Many people think they are ahead with the way
we can get our hands on internet information of quality. But I have a
whole different view point from a new ad oculus position in my
accidental findings of insignificance. I CAN see that a person today
CAN use the internet for research and practically get the information
which carries to a standard, which 20 or thirty years ago could have
took a guy or girl whose parents paid for a good education, would
have had difficulty getting to over a ten year period! Because of the
degree people kept industry secrets in order to keep their positions
and how difficult it was to get to the good books. But I can see the
other side where people think they have a better point of view from
their internet research... it actually falls far short of the whole
spectrum of research in general.


I could get the evidence to back my claims up if you are still
doubtful... my aim is at this point to filter professionals into 2 sets...
once that are going to trust and start down the road, and another set
who doubts and really isnt interested enough to find out. I am a
great believer in this shibboleth system, a Hebrew word... of
hidden doors within education per se. In the samurai culture... many
stupid punks would try to gain skills... when in actual fact to be a
samurai had a moral code and a duty of laws and service and loyalty,
honor and compassion. (though there were the good and the bad in
balance like in all things) It was a responsibility NOT to give your best
skills to pupils... to have a retention of security in delegation of
information which protected a wider service... we cant just be giving
superior weaponry to thugs and crooks, it would endanger people
and the balance of good power and such. Information is a
responsibility and as the legal owner of new intellectual property, I
am legally and morally obliged to be responsible with that
information!

Dr Kathleen Taylor from oxford has written a diverse book called
Brainwashing: the science of thought control ), She mentions a lot
of traits of brainwashing in the world including the very subtle things.
One of them she refers to is ethereal things... seemingly perfect,
dreamy or heavenly ideals/things they hold a lot of appeal to the
person it has infected. (I dont mix this seen state within people with
any labels of contention... like religion or belief... I see it as a label in
itself so as not to infect and provoke a response of defensiveness
from people, which people believe they have a legal right to. I like to
think of this state as a teaching platform to work with in order to
learn how to righteously influence and appeal to hearts and minds of
others ( which is a longer and more difficult road) and not
manipulate or use dialogue and other subtle tricks like mentioned in
this book. It is common for people to start believing or have the
political social majority atmosphere that these things are right
because the majority gain the advantage, but when the economy has
collapsed and looking a long way from recovery... then this brings
this balance into question. From my understanding and experience...
I would describe the ethereal state as something that turns a person
unwittingly to a place/state of denial, and fascism (subconsciously or
covertly/forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, without
allowance for open dialogue or reasoning and evidence.) Buddhist
psychology also puts emphasis in this being the case with a
premise/assertion that being passionate about an ideal can cause a
toxic and delusive mind state, which could be paralleled to the
ethereal state.

Dr Kathleen Taylor expresses that the solution is open public debate
(many mainstream professionals dismiss the terms of open and
remain in a single spectrum of grain and ambiguous to a loss.

I can literally feel an atmosphere during a debate... without knowing
anyone and some atmospheres make me feel like wretching! I tend
to look for employment where there is a good feeling, initial trust
and growth of a trust account. If we are not formally told before a
debate what the framework is, then we cannot rightly know what
kind of covert influences we are entering into, and cannot get the
best conclusions if someone is controlling us from having free and
open well facilitated, structured and steered contractual debate in
which we can walk away feeling that all questions to the highest
degree have be dealt with to conclusion within the right purview
genuinely and in full understanding of its implications and listening
to all the parties to no exclusion per se with rich checks and
balances. Plus without notice... its a guaranteed failure in many
political debates, CEOs are made to look like fools all the time per
se... its not gentlemanly and its not honourable and its pretty
irresponsible to have that on the table and put yourself there... not
being able to be prepared would make you, your
boss/party/client/country look like idiots. There must be a set
understanding of how this framework I write has purpose to contend
with covert influence. All the different areas of law need to be
checked off to guarantee that no harm will come of decisions on a
wider scale in the community, worldwide multinational community,
individual basis, economic basis and so on. And most people do not
have the resources, training or information to come close to covering
this.

mn, even putting the simplest of terms of time, outcome, etc first,
will collapse the framework required for successful, healthy outcome
and will lead to lots of people believing no other outcome or way is
possible. You need to think in terms of a Petri dish... you have to
keep it sterile for it to be of any good to grow antidotes for disease.

It will also infect the proceedings and the outcome... (using the free
association model of outcome in dialogue and the conditions it will
produce, for someone to arrange or dictate terms and conditions
without a knowledge of the purview is to enact several problems
upon themselves.) It requires seriously qualified people to arrange
and set terms... it may even be a whole new industry for business as
a whole. So it is possible I would be able to set up and put forth the
first regulator system with some professional scrutiny on the first
table like lie detection... as for my own personal modus operandi and
allegiances etc... that is all easy to clear of the table and regulate and
to keep a check on. Which means we can get a clean result and
regulation on the table which IS safe and could be regulated
between professionals, people and government AND corporate
concurrence and representation in the same room.


Examples of excellent facilitation

I have been hunting and reviewing debates of all kinds for years
now... and by far the best and for my experience I find to be
enigmatic in style, (I cant see how it is done or the framework that
may or may not be used.) Is the Doctor Phil show, of which there is a
lot of material to view on the internet. He imbues a lot of the skills
we talked about and does so to a very high level where few people
actually can. He is very experienced! So if you like what you have
heard then I recommend you study his shows for the principles of
what he is trying to achieve and the way he does it, and he certainly
has a lot of interesting, entertaining and deep subjects covered... and
be warned some of them are of a very serious content you might not
wish to explore. I actually recommend that you dont bother with
other places... I have found the standard of debate in political and
public arenas to be so poor or misleading that there is little to be
learned. That doesnt mean there arent any, and I did find a lot of
debates which were excellent in many ways, but are not relevant to
this context. But have a look yourself anyway and see if you agree. It
would be a good thing to find out some details or points I have
missed out on. This is one thing I have experienced in this field for
some time now, and have published in one of my other books to the
fact already. I shall explain in the next segment.

I have set a rule of perception... that there will always be someone
out there with a better piece of knowledge or a trump card in a
spectrum of any field. So if we do not conform to these actual ways
in debate, then people who do live by them will not wish to share
their trump cards with you since you are not playing on the same
team, and you arent going to know it... but they will know it and be
able to make a better level and quality of life decisions without need
for communicative interaction. If you do the maths yourself... you
will realise why it would be a waste of time and economically
wrong... you would be giving yourself problems and it just doesnt
add up to a positive as a whole in many ways. So it doesnt matter
what party, affiliations, religion etc you belong to... there are two
teams whatever else you may decide or choose in life. There are
people who CAN be trusted to play on the team and those who
cannot. And in terms of business of all kinds across the board... I see
it that the ones who hold true and loyal as a team outside of their
other team will be the ones to succeed or to a better standard. And it
doesnt have to do with any other social affections you have with any
other sub cultures per se.

Put yourself in their shoes
Can you put yourself in other peoples shoes... and see how things
might be different or worse for them? This is an interesting question
and test of character... to ask anyone the answer to this question for
fun and the types of responses you will get and the possible nature
of their responses. Some people react unaware in certain styles
which are very revealing. Of course we wouldnt do this in a serious
debate, but if someone says they agree to you asking them a
question... it must be okay, since you wont hold it against them...
you will be appreciative for their participation, but dont make it a
habit... its also a very bad trait by many, which isnt particularly
righteous. And realistically do this for yourself now... do you know
the subtle difficulties of having to live on the street because of a
collapse economy? Facing imprisonment for something you didnt
do? Whats your honest answer without thinking... write it down. So
what did you write? What is your answer... so many people are self
absorbed that they lose their capacity to relate realistically. Now ask
yourself... do you really feel strongly for people in these situations?
Write it down, and try not to peek ahead... what was your answer?
So have you really gone out of your way if you passed a homeless
individual? Have you done charity work? Or did you think well...
these people do it out of choice, or... these people make it hard for
themselves or something equally dismissive. When we cant extend
ourselves to others... we are self absorbed... no matter what
contention in life it is possible to go through a trial or small
contention AND also have enough energy for others in order not to
be self absorbed and to be seen being so by other witnesses. I have
won my award for my voluntary work... and although I was paying
for an abused girl to have room rental when I was economically
better off... I dont count giving through charities in the same way...
how do I know how my money is being used? But I dont mind
putting in other peoples pots even if I am a little tight, I will still buy a
subway once in a while for a poor guy or girl (of course I cant afford
them for all, and I never got too popular with any particular
individuals.

Modus operandi of debates

Some people just want to win... Among the most common things I
see in dialogue

Courts
If we talk in terms of the highest principles per se and justice in
particular. When a judge is making a decision, they will look at
mitigating circumstances, proportionality, the account of what has
happen and its cost, the social danger, any ignorance or contempt,
intent, callousness and its degree and lots more per se. But there is
one ingredient which we must use in terms of professionalism... and
in one style... we have to do it in terms of self abasement... like
debasement... we learn to punish ourselves in the same way a boss
would treat us or society... in terms of fines and such... it can become
normal, we learn to self regulate like our worst bosses etc... but
because we are in control and free to do so if we wish... when we
self abase... we do it in a healthy comfortable way... and it turns out
our worst spectrum of bosses couldnt get the same performance
out of us without consequences or harm... but we can be abaseful
worse than anyone would ever dare and because we learn to make it
effective. But be careful... it would not be good for you to just jump
in and I have a responsibility to tell you. You still need to have the
right kind of character and intentions/skills etc, maturity and
responsibility... and that is my next subject linked to this. Just how
confident are you in being responsible... are you willing to gamble
your resignation or bigger? Well if you are truly confident then you
would have no problem in doing this right? (Im sure I can hear some
sceptics out there thinking out loud.) If you are serious about being a
responsible leader then this will be a serious thing! But of course you
are not gambling it in a naive and irresponsible way... you are lending
credibility. And if you are truly confident you will have the court
cases won in writing before hand in such a way as to be able and
confident that any character assassins will already have their cases
lost.

But it isnt that easy! Having watched many court cases, I have seen
the limits of the problems in dialogue and their terms. I have studied
and classified terms of processes which in many cases are not
available or published, plus these fit in with my whole web of
thinking in several fields of life which all mesh together in tandem. I
am able to think about these and rationalise and such, which is not
possible when you do not have the terms of dialogue. It is not
possible to comprehend, and many people assume its either not
true or possible, but one thing I make sure of is that I always have
good evidence when I make a claim. Mental conditions, pressure
conditions, manipulating conditions, inability conditions, confusion
conditions, mistrust conditions are all present. It makes for real
messy dialogue.

Many people cannot represent themselves or their case to the
degree they wish and where legal counsel gets involved it can
confuse and misguide, and many legal counsels are not concerned
when it comes to their 2 % loss rate per se... which isnt any good to
you if you have to wait for a re-trial in custody and you know you are
innocent. There was a case with a military SAS member recently...
and the legal counsel (it seems as insinuated by the press), had told
him to plead guilty at the original hearing. Then he took this to court
to get it quashed or re-tried and he won. But either way... it looks
really bad that he had plead guilty in the first place to something
which he then claimed to be innocent of... the point being is that it
could have been the legal counsel which caused this problem. I for
one would never mince my words or misrepresent myself because of
the trouble it causes, and because I am genuine and congruent,
careful and do not manipulate... things go differently, I have no story
to keep fabricated which it is easy to pick holes in. You may have
heard of terms like badgering the witness, misleading the witness.
Well there is a whole range of words to define the dirty tricks people
can use in dialogue to win a case and destroy your credibility when it
may not be so. For example... Framing, argumentum ad captandum,
ideograph, emotive conjugation, loaded question, sophism, weasel
words, inconsistency ad hominem, tu quoque... are all covert tactics
deployed by manipulative people to win discussions covertly. And its
easy to see who uses clean dialogue and ways versus dirty ones.
I have seen and studied the levels of skills to entrap people in a
guilty position used by unjust lawyers who are after their financial
bonus and not the justice. They frame the outcomes.

One upmanship, right fighting and the last word.

I have seen so many times when people think they are winning using
an unrighteous and flawed system. Examples of this include
telephone sales and call centres. I spoke to one the other day after
the company who they are partner with had a defect built into its
technology which ended me with a bill I didnt sign up for. I said that
it was a crime to take peoples money outside a contract... he said
no its not, to which I replied... have you ever worked in
law/policing or security in order that you have a practical expertise.
He replied No!... which looks pretty stupid. He didnt listen or
comprehend and he didnt understand... which is usual when people
on phones are being told to work off of scripts which are outside of
the law... I see it all the time... having supervised a big call centre in
the past, I know what is out there. So many people are used as
patsies and dont have a clue... if I had been well connected and
gone for someones job to be sacked... to be sure the individual
would have got the blame from their boss in most low paid cases.

I have been in charge of supervising a serious security call centre
involved in policing and crime as well as emergency escalation with
serious and senior people including the top business man in the
country (with the top recognised award), ex police commissioners
and lots of high ranking corporate people and powerful
governmental departments. Because our department from our bomb
proof room which opened from the inside and had gas detectors,
protecting a million or so people a day and multi millions in cash
daily and huge equity and 2000 or so massive properties over several
countries. We had to assert ourselves to our code above these high
ranking individuals, else we would have been a threat to our bosses,
ourselves and public. We had to deal with eleven bomb threats in
one day once and we had several days a year that might have sent a
caring war room or air traffic control centre into a
meltdown/breakdown of PTSD or such crazy crazy! There was that
much pressure of responsibility and our head on the block. Some of
the people running the department were ex green beret and had run
a garrison, and they were good leaders... they had geared it in the
right way, but lots of younger mainstream managers had different
goal priorities other than putting realistic goals first, so it wasnt an
easy ride. We had goals IN the call centre, time, facts and details and
of course good service to a high standard, which meant good
communication. So I know the difference between good standards
and have seen all the problems and ways they were dealt with to
keep a department flowing correctly at the same time. I know a
ponzi too (scam). Many of the calls I get from call centres stem out of
India these days... and I have tried to complain about matters with
big companies who formerly have had great reputations per se... and
consistently had the phone put down on me by a supervisor or
manager just because they dont want the complain on their
departments records. I do also sympathise with staff who have
tyrannical bosses, I do understand. But wage slaves, puppets and
automatons or patsies per se will also be really creepy and many
dont even realise they have lost their job already if it comes to it. I
regularly get a call from India for sales in the UK where the caller is
ambiguous, and takes control of the dialogue, knows all the ways to
hustle the control back, works from a script and if I ask a question or
slow them down on their quota call they just put the phone down, so
I dont even get heard. Another problem is that when I genuinely say
I have no money or need, they still carry on trying to sell, so I used
the opportunity to be righteous and polite, learning to reason with
them, and I like to mention my book and use it as a fair for all sales
opportunity, but I have got them calling me, so I dont feel hard done
by. So its easy to see a script or subtext vs genuinity. In my other
book Social self help... I go into the deeper realities of the whys and
wherefores of dialogue, thinking, consequences and such... it is an in
depth system for dealing with the problems of manipulation and
ambiguity without putting oneself in the frame for trouble. I also
have training in personality profiling... so I have a really deep and
rare set of skills which have a different capacity to most ordinary
ways... and it even comes with a code of honor and ethics, so that
boundaries which should remain between people are healthy and
righteously non invasive. There are a lot of people schooled or
expected to use manipulative tactics and such and sadly it is not a
crime and causes a lot of harm (you could find this out from my book
so I come with good evidence.).

So one of the Modus operandi... M.O. (reasons behind the way
things are done) is that someone is being unrighteous and
manipulative. And boy o boy... I have seen some range of different
problems! They can leave you feeling sick, speechless, outraged,
flummoxed, and every time someone tests a new manipulation on
purpose... they learn better how to... (but one of my social self help
book... is that we dont assume things are this way i.e. that people
are intentionally manipulating and its backed up with some of the
best specialist doctors and experts in the world. You will lose out for
doing otherwise, but you do need to read the book to get the
smooth ways of dealing with it. Many people who seem manipulative
are innocent except for ignorance and delusion and their own
psyches gearing and functioning is seemingly pseudo manipulative,
so they truly are innocent and will get upset with you if you blame
them. Anosognosia is a lack of insight into the truth and ourselves.

In OUR debating, decision making, modus operandi... we are set on
being non ambiguous and to look at and bring good insight and
closure to any questions asked within the debate and of ourselves.
We purposefully work towards a set way, and for an accommodating
for all cases of reason to accommodate per se. We are open and
forthcoming. We never close the door on others during proceedings,
we strive for healthy rich habits which pay off to a greater degree for
all. Where a door gets closed even if it is unintended, we close the
door to democracy and its richness. The U.S. government had a trial
in the 80s even the U.S. president got hustled by a slick lawyer, and
boy o boy even he was pinned in a corner and couldnt wriggle out of
it. It also implicated some of the most famous divisions of troops in
the world, it went on for months. The findings applicable to us from
this 700 page report produced from the investigation was that
covert policy is incompatible with democracy. Its the same in
family management... there are autocratic and democratic styles,
and a lot of emotional, growth, and interrelative problems stem from
an autocratic style, though some people are genetically disposed in a
way that they have a dyslexic degree in this respect and cannot
physically do it if they try, and it is imperative to give these people
the extra space to feel equally safe. If you get stuck with a debate
and think this may be the reason things arent moving forwards then
things need to be re-addressed and some re-planning and thinking
employed to the individual situation. This is the standard training in
driving instruction for teaching pupils... learning plateauxs happen
and it helps to have other styles of approach in order to deliver the
impetus of change to that dynamic. Sadly when people are under
time restrains, or have a set covert M.O. (they may or may not be
aware of... it can be subconscious), they can be in denial or unaware,
and crabby at any suggestion they may be so, or for someone to
remove them from their focus of conscious or subconscious intent.
Sympathy sympathy sympathy, awareness, no assumptions, constant
personal clarifications as to what those words mean to the person
they come from.
Other debates.

One other set of debates I like to watch... are the court cases of
Judge Milian, Alex, Brown, Ross, Judy on you tube... there is often a
difficulty attached to them so its interesting to practice cutting
through the fog. There are also chat shows and politics.


Conclusion

I have laid out all the information from years of study in human
sciences through the top cutting edges in the known published world
right now... I do have more and my ethical debate forum is on
facebook for anyone who needs to go or have some feedback.

If you genuinely really want to get these skills, I have written this
book intentionally with a structure that requires you to do some
work. I advised going through and doing some research with the
information given and to put things into your own familiar context
and order, and to write an action plan for yourself of how you will go
about things. Maybe you will use it for school or community and set
up a debate group like I have. I facilitate people taking turns leading
the debates as a method, so everyone gets a turn in learning to lead
and teach. Its really imperative to have skills as adults or to teach
youngsters to deal with debate and its lessons from a young age so
they will be well on track.