How_do_People_Undermine_each_other_in_Debates

Mathew Mark Aspey 9400765201 PSY-40035

Mathew Mark Aspey

9400765201

PSY-40035 Qualitative Research Methods

“You’re providing a Little Bit of Variety

Though, You’re Making it like Dad’s Army”:

How do People Undermine each other in

Arguments?

A Qualitative Approach.

Word count: 3,325

Page 1 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


“You’re providing a Little Bit of Variety Though, You’re Making it like Dad’s Army”:

How do People Undermine each other in Arguments?

A Qualitative Approach.

Introduction: -

The purpose of this paper is to explore how people undermine one another in

order to get their points across during debates. The arguments were sampled from 2

video clips; a 30 minutes long Government Committee meeting discussing the

efficacy of abstinence interventions compared to methadone treatments and a 20

minutes long debate from the BBCs Question time about where the government can

improve its policies on drug addiction. The videos were chosen because they feature

two distinctly opposing sides and show how each side argues their case. At times

the arguments presented become rather hostile and aggressive and at times they

become childish in the ways that people choose to undermine one another. This

essay attempts to explore how this back and forth of undermining and at times even

insulting one another serves as a tool for debate.

Hample (2005) describes arguing as a “fundamental human activity” and is

the basis for reaching new understanding. He states that an argument is a

conclusion supported by a reason, the conclusion often being controversial in nature,

but some aspect of the reason should be automatically acceptable in order to reach

the conclusion. Van Eemeren et al (1996) defined it as a verbal and social activity

aimed towards altering the acceptability of a controversial standpoint by putting

forward a “constellation of propositions” designed to either support or refute the

standpoint in order to change ones perspective. Willard (1989) described argument

as “a form of interaction in which two or more people maintain what they construe to

Page 2 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


be incompatible positions”. Willard and his peers place more emphasis on the

interactional nature of arguments, placing the focus on the elements of disagreement

between two or more parties. Kuhn (1991) suggests that that arguments are

stimulated by the perception of opposition and its means are evidence, weighing and

integration.

Throughout these videos the arguments presented are not simply following

the sequence of making a claim and then backing it up with evidence, the people

involved are often resorting to undermining one another, either through humour and

sarcasm or by more aggressive communication, mainly through insults and blatant

anger. Sarcasm, by its very nature, is rooted in ridicule; Lee and Katz (1998) define it

as “a taunt or cutting rebuke that expresses contempt or disapproval regarding some

violation of expectations or a shortcoming”. With regards to aggressive

communication, Infante (1987a) suggests that behaviour is aggressive if it puts either

physical or symbolic force to dominate or defeat the “locus of attack”, which can

relate to anything from the person’s body to their behaviour or topics of discussion.

Symbolic aggression is the focus of these two videos, which involves the use of

words or gestures towards another person in an aggressive manner, often with the

goal of getting the person to back down from their argument.

This paper intends to explore how things like aggression and sarcasm can be

used to undermine each other in arguments.

Method: -

Recording: -

Page 3 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


The data comes from two video recordings taken from YouTube.com. One is

a 30 minute video in which the comedian and actor Russell Brand debates,

alongside Focus 12 founder Chip Somers, with a Parliamentary Committee arguing

for the efficacy of abstinence based recovery over Methadone interventions in the

treatment of drug addiction. The second clip is a 20 minute video of an episode of

the BBCs “Question Time”; in which Russell Brand and Chip Somers debate with

Daily Mail editor Peter Hitchens and Conservative Party MP David Burrowes over

what the Government is doing wrong in the fight against drug addiction.

Data Collection Procedure: -

The videos used were available in the public domain and were attained from

YouTube.com. The videos were analysed and transcribed manually by playing the

video and typing up verbatim what was said. The first run through just transcribed

what was said by everyone involved. The video was then watched again to add any

overlaps in speech, pauses, laughter and intakes of breath to the whole transcript. A

Jefferson analysis; derived by Gail Jefferson et al (1997), was applied to a few

selected extracts of the transcript for a more in depth analysis of how the participants

are saying what they say during the more heated parts of the debate.

Analytic Procedure: -

The analysis of this data is qualitative, taking a highly descriptive account of

all interactions as they appear in the video. A Conversation Analysis (CA) was then

applied to the transcript. Derived from the work of Harvey Sacks (1992),

Conversation Analysis examines language as a social action. A CA transcript delves

Page 4 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


deeper than an average transcript, taking into account interactions between

individuals allowing for a more detailed analysis, putting more emphasis onto how

things are being said rather than what is being said. CA allows for a deeper insight

into how the speakers do undermine one another, in the way they interrupt one

another. The Jefferson transcript allows us to observe tone, so that when sarcasm or

humour is present it is explicit within the transcript, there making it easier to analyse.

Ethics: -

As both Videos were taken from YouTube.com; the video containing the

committee hearing is also available from www.parliamentlive.tv from the Parliament

Archive and the video containing the Question Time debate also aired on the BBC

and was available to watch on BBC iplayer. Therefore both videos are in the public

domain; this means that not only are they available for analysis, but anonymity is not

required as both videos have already been televised and feature celebrities and

officials in the public eye.

Page 5 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/


Results: -

Extract 1: Transcript from Video 1, Page 22.

On lines 9 and 10, Russell seems to chastise his own counterpart for letting

them tell them what to do, it is as though Russell is being wilfully disobedient and is

upset with his counterpart for not joining him in his rebellion.

Russell changes his position on addiction three times. On page 22, line 14, he

defines addiction as a “disease”, then he corrects himself and defines it as a

“condition”. He then, on line 19, he describes it as a “problem”, it appears that he

diminishes the intensity of his definition of addiction each time he mentions it

throughout this extract, perhaps with the purpose of making his argument more

palatable for his audience.

Page 6 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


The use of the term “mate” on line 17 is very pertinent as it represents a shift

in power over the debate; showing little respect for the Chair and for the committee

as Russell brings them down to his level by breaking away from the traditionally

adhered to formalities. Not only does it diminish the distance between the position of

the Chair and the expert committee from Russell Brand the “lay person” invited as a

witness, it also serves to patronise his opponents. Rubinelli and Schultz (2006)

studied argumentation within the doctor-patient interaction, they suggest that doctors

often use patronising language to assert their dominance over their patients, in order

to influence their decision making in medical matters.

When Russell talks about the solutions to the problem of addiction; he refers

to them as a “we”, placing himself amongst them as striving towards a solution

together. However, when he talks about the problems with the current system, he

refers to them as “you” which serves to distance himself from them and placing him

in a higher position by making him part of the solution but not a part of the problem.

On lines 19 and 20, he says “otherwise you just seem like you don’t know what you

are talking about”. Here he is basically saying “if you don’t start to see things my

way, you will look stupid and out of touch”. By presenting his argument in this way,

Russell is by employing the interventions that he is suggesting, everybody benefits

going forward, whereas, the current system is reflecting badly upon the committee

members only. Deutsch (2000) suggested that an argument that presents both sides

benefiting facilitates more constructive discussions while an argument that presents

one side losing facilitates more uncooperative and hostile discussions.

The next extract, from the Question Time debate, illustrates this attempt at

creating a more constructive discussion.

Page 7 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24



Between line 11 and 18, Russell attempts to empathise with his opponent’s

position, saying that he understands why he gets frustrated with drug addicts as he

gets frustrated with them too. He is using his empathy in order to appear less

combative, thus attempting to create a more collaborative conversation to develop a

solution that will benefit everybody. Deutsch (2000) emphasised that collaboration

involves viewing both sides of the argument and viewing other’s resources as

valuable assets in coming to a solution. Collaboration requires a flexible and helpful

attitude with emphasis on striving to achieve common goals.

Page 8 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12


On line 19 to 21, Peter Hitchens is showing aggression towards Russell

based upon past altercations between the pair, he is bringing up these past

encounters in order to undermine Russell’s statement about approaching drug

addicts with compassion rather than aggression. Russell responds to this by

downplaying his previous aggressive as “having a bit of fun”, this diminishes the

effect of Hitchen’s justification for his own aggression. Peter Hitchen’s behaviour

here stands in stark contrast to Russell’s attempts to appease him. Peter’s hostile

behaviour demonstrates a desire to win at Russell’s expense (Deutsch, 2000), his

behaviour seeks to advance his own position within the debate at the expense of

everyone else’s. The competitiveness displayed in this extract suggests an attempt

to thwart the goals of his opposition whom he regards as an obstacle that must be

overcome in order to achieve his own goals.


Page 9 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


On lines 3 to 7, Russell is attempting to reach out to Peter’s cause,

suggesting that they both want the same things. Rahim (2001) suggested that

although there is great potential for destruction, at times conflict can be constructive

and promote mutually beneficial outcomes when tackled in the correct manner, much

like what Russell is attempting to achieve here.


On line 4, Russell has been interrupted by an elderly member of the

committee, taking issue with his flippant use of comedy in his previous argument.

Russell then responds on line 7 with a retort which is designed to poke fun at the

committee members’ age; comparing him to the characters from the TV show “Dad’s

Army”. This use of humour is rather aggressive and therefore derogatory in nature,

Janes and Olson (2000) describes aggressive humour as the use of negative

information about a person in order to put that person down, in this case, using the

man’s age to insult him in a humorous way. According to Goodwin (1990) an insult

differs somewhat from mere sarcasm in the fact that they include an explicit

characterisation of the opponent that is presented as defective in a way that has

Page 10 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


some social relevance to the situation. Here it is the man’s age that is presented as

defective as the implication seems to be that he is out of touch.

With regards to being out of touch, in the Question Time video, Russell makes

a similar joke about Peter Hitchens in order to discredit his argument. On page 39,

lines 7 and 8, Russell says, “Peter, did you come here in a time machine from

Victorian Britain”. Once again Russell is asserting that his opposition is out of touch

and does not have a finger on the pulse of the modern world in the same way that he

does. This comment lies more on the insult side as it is a more personal attack

based on Peter’s standpoint and its relevance to the debate (Evaldsson, 2005).


On lines 21 to 24; it is interesting to note the clear dismissal of the issue that

is being raised, Michael Ellis tries to bring the discussion back to the impact of drug

related crimes on the victims and Russell quickly and clearly cuts him off with, “We

talked about them”. What he is saying here is that ‘the matter has already been

discussed I don’t see any point in revisiting it, therefore I won’t’.

Page 11 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19


Extract 6: Transcript from Video 1, page 23.

On lines 4 to 8; it appears that Chair is sensing that he is losing control of the

proceedings and therefore attempts to wrap it up by saying that they are running out

of time. Russell then undermines him by joking that “time is infinite”, which is a rather

childish disregard for the authority that the Chair holds over the committee. The

phrase “time is infinite” is sarcastic in nature; Seckman and Couch (1989) viewed

sarcasm as a response to an act of violation to the established social norm. Here the

Chair has attempted to cut short the debate, which Russell has taken as a violation

and is now directing his sarcastic response towards his perceived violator (Gibbs,

2007).

It may be the case that by cutting the debate short at that moment, the Chair

is conceding the argument to Russell Brand in order to appease him. Benoit and

Hample (1997) identified strategies that are employed in order cut an argument

short, they found that when avoiding conflict, people either disagree in a more

indirect manner or simply let it pass.

Page 12 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19



The focus has now shifted from Russell to his counterpart, Chip Somers. As

the focus is now off him, Russell is paying less attention to the debate than he was

and uses the fact that two ladies are trying to get by them, to distract Chip from his

statements and bring the focus back to him. By distracting Chip and making him

forget what the point he was trying to make was, Russell is undermining him as a

reliable witness, at least making him seem less competent than he is. Whether

deliberate or not, Russell throws Chip off topic and causes him to forget his point,

Page 13 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


creating the impression that Chip is not really engaging with the argument as much

as Russell is, diminishing his value as a witness in the debate.

Extract 8: Transcript from Video 2, Page 32 and 33.

Russell is being criticised by Peter based upon his apparent lack of expertise

around this subject. Russell brushes this insult off and seemingly takes the high

road, on line 1 of page 33, asking “why are you so angry?”, then chooses to poke fun

at him with the line “what happened to you mate?”. The last line here could be seen

as antagonising towards Peter Hitchens as the hint of laughter at the end of the word

“mate” suggests that he is less concerned with why Peter is so angry than pointing

out his anger and exacerbating it, with the intention of undermining his abilities to

debate.

Page 14 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19



On lines 17 and 18 Russell is saying that Peter is not a bad person, he just

doesn’t know what he is talking about. The line “I just think you’re innocent” is rather

patronising, when he says innocent, he really means that he is clueless to the

Page 15 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


realities. This statement instantly undermines the point that Peter is trying to make

and is sarcastically ironic in the sense that Russell is not explicitly saying what he

actually means. Regarded by Muecke (1983) as the “crudest form of irony”, sarcastic

irony is defined as statements which hold the opposite meaning in order to express

disdain with the intent on hurting the opposition or undermining their point of view

(Kreuz and Gluckberg (1989). Line 20, “you’re like a peculiar child” attempts to bring

humour into an argument that is becoming increasingly hostile. Here, sarcasm is

used not only to lighten the mood but also to elevate Russell’s social status by

mocking Peter and proking further responses (Leggitt and Gibbs, 2000).


On lines 5, 6 and 9, Peter says that the fact that Russell is making his

documentary for the BBC instead of him is what is wrong with this country. It appears

here that Peter is jealous of the fact that someone like Russell, who is not a

professional journalist like he is, is regarded by the BBC as someone with enough

knowledge and expertise to make a documentary covering the issue of drug

Page 16 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16


addiction, while he has not been afforded such an opportunity. Salovey and

Rothman (1991) argued that the degree of jealousy depends on whether what is

under threat carries much weight towards an individual’s self-esteem. Peter

Hitchens’ expertise on the issue of addiction being viewed as greater than the

expertise of Russell Brand is a source of great self-esteem for Peter, the jealousy

comes when that expertise is perceived as under threat.


Russell is subtly ridiculing Peter here and claiming that not only is he bigoted

towards drug addicts but is also prejudiced towards homosexuals as well, this view is

presented more explicitly in the next extract.


Page 17 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13


It is interesting how Russell explicitly accuses Peter of being homophobic in a

slightly whimsical, humorous manner and further softens the blow by following up

with “you’re a lovely man”. It may be the case that this statement was made not only

to undermine Peter’s credibility, as a bigoted man can hardly influence fair policy, but

to ridicule him and elicit and angry response, which, as can be seen in the following

extract, achieved the desired response.


Russell’s comments have angered Peter and have resulted in him launching a

series of insults back in Russell’s direction. As discussed before, insults are defined

as explicitly personal attacks on the social shortcomings of others. It has been noted

that insults often serve the purpose of positioning others as outsiders. In this extract,

Peter Hitchens positions Russell Brand as an outsider, with regards to the serious

debate that they are having. He attempts to undermine him by questioning his

credentials to even be included in such a debate. Here insults may be used to

demonstrate aggression, positioning their opponent as outside the social order, and

therefore positioning them as an outsider (Evaldsson (2005).

Page 18 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


To conclude, the extracts I have analysed show how much people do

undermine one another in arguments. As we have seen, they use a multitude of

techniques to undermine one another from humour and sarcasm to insults and

aggression. It appears that although aggressive debates can serve to help people

reach a common ground, the constant undermining of one another’s arguments can

also see a debate fall into chaos and can often do more damage than good as has

been shown within the many extracts I have shown.

Reflexivity: -

Initially I wanted to explore how people present arguments, I had seen the

video of Russell Brand talking to the Parliamentary Committee before and found it

rather interesting. After several watches and pairing it with the video of Russell

Brand debating with Peter Hitchens on Question Time, I found it would be more

interesting to see how people undermine one another while they are presenting their

arguments.

The transcription process was long and gruelling, luckily I found a transcript

for the Committee video, which I was able to edit to fit the video to make it into a

more accurate transcript, the Question Time video proved to be considerably more

difficult. The main issue with transcribing this video was that at any given moment

there could be as many as three people all talking over one another, shouting to get

their points heard. This made transcribing very difficult as often it took me several

listens to catch what was actually being. To make the later analysis easier on myself

I chose to add selected parts of the Jefferson transcript to the whole corpus of

transcripts; adding any pauses, overlapping speech, periods of laughter and intakes

of breath where ever I found them. I then selected to pages from my transcript to

Page 19 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


perform a full Jefferson analysis on what I considered to be the richest set of data. I

then went through my transcripts jotting down notes and ideas as they came to me

so that I could pick out any issues and relate them back to relevant theories and

research.

On the whole I feel as though my understanding of Qualitative Research

Methods has increased, I have never used Conversation Analysis before, so I found

it very interesting and useful to delve into something outside of my comfort zone,

increasing my skill set and experience.

Page 20 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


References.

Videos:-

Russell Brand talks to Committee on Drug Addiction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ

Question Time Debate: Russell Brand Vs Peter Hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqVohFEAfo

Academic Papers: -

Benoit, P. J., & Hample, D. (1998). The meaning of two cultural categories:

Avoiding interpersonal arguments or cutting them short. Argument in a time of

change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques, 97-102.

Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. M. Deutsch, P. Coleman

(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

(2000), pp. 21–40

Evaldsson, A. C. (2005). Staging insults and mobilizing categorizations in a

multiethnic peer group. Discourse & Society, 16(6), 763-786

Page 21 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqVohFEAfo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ


Gibbs, R. (2007). Irony and talk among friends. In Gibbs, R. and Colston, H.

editors, Irony in Language and Thought, pages 339-360.

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual review of

anthropology, 283-307.

Hample, D. (2005). Inventional capacity. Argumentation in practice, 337-348.

Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. Personality and interpersonal

communication, 157-192.

Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of

observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4),

474-485.

Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic

reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General,118(4), 374.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. J., & Katz, A. N. (1998). The differential role of ridicule in sarcasm and

irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(1), 1-15.

Leggitt, J. S., & Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Emotional reactions to verbal

irony.Discourse processes, 29(1), 1-24.

Muecke, F. (1983). Foreshadowing and dramatic irony in the story of

Dido.American Journal of Philology, 134-155.

Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., Antonioni, D., & Rahman, S. (2001). Do justice

relationships with organization-directed reactions differ across US and

Bangladesh employees?. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4),

333-349.

Page 22 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


Rubinelli, S., & Schulz, P. J. (2006). “Let Me Tell You Why!”. When

Argumentation in Doctor–Patient Interaction Makes a

Difference.Argumentation, 20(3), 353-375.

Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. J. (1991). Envy and jealousy: Self and

society. The psychology of jealousy and envy, 271-286.

Seckman, M. A., & Couch, C. J. (1989). JOCULARITY, SARCASM, AND

RELATIONSHIPS An Empirical Study. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography,18(3), 327-344.

Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. F., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996).

Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds

and contemporary applications.

Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of

Alabama Press.

Page 23 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


Appendix i

Annotated Interview Transcripts

Page 24 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


Page 25 of 44

1

2

3

4


Page 26 of 44

1

2

3


Page 27 of 44

1

2


Page 28 of 44

1

2

3


Page 29 of 44

1

2


Page 30 of 44

1

2


Page 31 of 44

1

2


Page 32 of 44

1

2


Page 33 of 44

1

2


Page 34 of 44

1

2


Page 35 of 44

1

2


Page 36 of 44

1

2

3


Page 37 of 44

1

2

3


Page 38 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Appendix ii

Jefferson Transcript.

Page 39 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


R. B.: ↑Arr::esting people- ◦can I just interrupt for a bit◦,

>because otherwise< it is like they are telling us what to

do .hh ↑being ar:rested isn’t a lesson. It is just a- an

administrative blip. Cos Wel- you need to demonstrate an

awar::eness of the situation. Yes, of cour- er in many ways

the disease or the condition of addiction ↑does exacerbate,

>and if you start taking drugs< it is likely you will take

worse drugs, >and if you are taking expensive drugs< you

will end up committing crime. .hhh but er again mate .hh

>what we er we need to< identify is a degree of authenticity

and ↑compassion in the way we deal with this problem,

>otherwise you just seem like you don’t know what you are

talking about<.

M. E.: What about the victims of the crime?

R. B.: =>We talked about them<. £You can tell what party they are in

from their questions innit hah hah You- £!What about the !

victims of the crime?£ hah hah hah

Page 40 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17


M. E.: I think- I think- I think all parties are interested in

victims of crime [Mr Brand.]

R. B.: [Of course] we are. That’s what we’re

saying. We are not saying, “£Let’s er ign(h)ore victim(h)

£s”.

Chair: I think we are running out of time. I have a final question

[about-]

R. B.: ◦[Time is] infinite◦

Chair: Er- Er Unfortunately we hav-

R. B.: hah hah hah

Chair: Hah hah it- it is-

R. B.: We !CANNOT run out of time!.

Chair: It is. But for this Committee, I am afraid—

Page 41 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


R. B.: WHO’S NEXT? £Theresa May?£ >She may not show up<. Check she

knows what £day£ it i(h)s.

Chair: >Mr Brand<, I have a final question for you.

Mr Winnick: #It is not quite a variety show, Mr Brand#

Chair: We have-

R. B.: You’re providing a little bit of variety, £though£ Hah hah

You’re >making it more like< Dad’s Arm(h)y hah hah.

Chair: Mr- Mr- Mr Brand, you have- you have 4- 5- 4.5 million

Twitter followers—

R. B.: Oh yes.

Chair: —and 1.5 Facebook followers (.) Having gone through addiction

and then rehabilitation, what is your message to young

people who want to get involved in drugs? >What would you<

say to them about the effect that it has?

R. B.: My (.) message isn’t for young people. >My message is for

people< that have <this condition of addiction>. If you have

the condition of addiction there is help available for you,

and >I recommend< abstinence based recovery. I think some

people can safely take drugs, I think they can. As long as

it doesn’t turn them into criminals, or harm their health,

then (.) I don’t feel like it is any of my business. I am

not here to do some “Just Say No” stuff. >The kids that sung

that< “Just Say No” were all taking drugs in the White House

when they were visiting Nancy Reagan. >It’s a further

demonstration< (.) of the disjunct between reality and

Page 42 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


authenticity. Let’s have an authentic, truthful, honest

debate and some funding for (.) abstinence based recovery

Page 43 of 44

1

2


Page 44 of 44

1

Date post:	20-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mathew-aspey
View:	100 times
Download:	0 times

How_do_People_Undermine_each_other_in_Debates

Documents