Betting lines are a useful tool for understanding what makes a good on-air debate. The reason: Both involve getting an equal amount of interest on both sides.
For the sportsbook, it’s an equal amount of money. The fact that the Los Angeles Rams are favored by 4.5 points over the Cincinnati Bengals in Sunday’s Super Bowl does not, in fact, mean that the sportsbooks believe that will be the margin of victory. It means that is the number the sportsbook expects to generate equal bets on both sides, which is what the sportsbook wants so it is not exposed. It simply makes money off the commission it charges for the bets.
For an on-air debate, the goal is to get an equal amount of passion — or interest — on either side of a question. A debate in which both sides agree is not actually a debate. It’s a discussion. And while discussions are fine, they’re not as effective as attracting and retaining an audience as a good debate, which may not produce a commission but will generate interest.
This isn’t going to be a discussion about either the need to embrace debate or the dangers of doing so. I think we’re past all that. I’m going to provide you with a starter kit on how to find the right line for your next debate:
1. Search For Conflict
In planning a show, we naturally gravitate toward the subjects others are talking about, whether it’s locally or from a national perspective. What is trending? What is generating interest? I think of this as fish-finding. I want to know what topics the audience is congregating around.
Getting those fish to bite, though? That’s going to depend on the bait you use, and I believe that debate is the best bait. A debate requires two sides, though, which means you must find disagreement. What is something being said on this subject by a specific person that you disagree with?
Now, if you work with a co-host, you want to find something the two of you don’t agree on. If you’re hosting a solo show, find a specific statement from someone else either from an audio clip or even online.
The best disagreements have equal stakes. You feel as strongly about your point as the person you disagree with feels about theirs.
2. Don’t Debate the Degree of Appropriate Reaction
A good argument or debate has two opposing sides. A bad debate has two people who agree on the general point, but are arguing over how much — or how little — they agree. It’s bad in that it’s not actually a debate. It may sound like a debate, it may even feel like a debate, but it’s not actually a debate. You’re arguing about the difference between being mad and being really mad. Or being excited and overjoyed.
Here’s an example: “I don’t think people should be as upset as they seem to be about Aaron Rodgers and his stance on the vaccines.”
This is an opinion. It may even be a provocative opinion, but it is not an opinion conducive to a good debate because the opposing side is a person who is really upset about the way Rodgers has handled that. What dialogue comes from that? It’s not that one side is wrong, per se. It’s debating the degree of feeling on a subject. At that point, you’re calibrating emotions instead of arguing over a point.
Find the actual point of disagreement. In this example, what are people upset at Rodgers for that they shouldn’t be? What, specifically, has someone gotten wrong? THAT is actual debate. And if you’re wondering whether your opinion is conducive to actual debate, define the opposing side to the point you’re making and ask yourself what the disagreement is over to make sure you’re not arguing about degrees of emotion.
3. Start the Debate by Stating the Opinion You Want to Debate
This sounds like something self-evident, but there’s a natural tendency to begin a conversation by explaining the steps that led to a certain conclusion instead of simply stating that conclusion. The reason for this tendency is simple. We’re describing how we reached the conclusion we’re providing. We’re showing how — logically — we arrived at this point. The problem with this is that you’re not giving your audience — or your co-host, if you have one — a chance to react.
When you start with the opinion, the listener (or your co-host) will have a natural reaction: either agreement or disagreement. The information or facts that led to your conclusion then become the basis for further conversation or argument as opposed to steps you’re outlining in your journey to this conclusion.
Again, it’s helpful to think of a betting line. A sportsbook doesn’t explain to the bettors how it arrived at the line before posting it. It doesn’t enumerate all of the logic that went into the decision. It posts the line and then waits to see the reaction among the bettors, and if needed, the line gets adjusted.
Think of your debate in the same way. Your homework and show prep are about finding a point of conflict that you think will create passion and interest on both sides. Write it down before the show if you need to, and then — like a sportsbook unveiling its line — state this opinion as if it were the headline and see where the reaction goes.
Danny O’Neil is a sports media columnist for BSM. He has previously hosted morning and afternoon drive for 710 ESPN Seattle, and served as a reporter for the Seattle Times. He can be reached on Twitter @DannyOneil or by email at Danny@DannyOneil.com.
