Oral Public Discourse Verbal expression aimed at a public audience

Reading Time: 11 minutes

---

Discourse profoundly shapes our perceptions and interactions. Exploring different forms of oral discourse—such as debates, interviews, and conversations—reveals how we convey ideas and navigate conflicts. Examining these genres gives us a richer understanding of the subtleties and complexities that characterize human communication.

---

Introduction

Communication lies at the core of human interaction, influencing how we perceive the world and connect. In this collection, I have gathered videos that highlight and contrast different genres of oral discourse. These videos demonstrate how we engage in spoken communication, ranging from the structured nature of debates to the subtleties of interviews and the collaborative spirit of group discussions.

Oral public discourse refers to the practice of communicating ideas, opinions, or information verbally in a public setting. This can include speeches, debates, discussions, presentations, and other forms of spoken communication intended for an audience.

Oral public discourse is often characterized by its focus on addressing a broad audience, engaging listeners, and potentially influencing public opinion or decisions. It plays a vital role in civic life, education, and various professional fields, where clear and effective communication is essential.

In the following sections, I provide definitions and examples of various discourse genres, from the formal structure of debates to the dynamic exchanges in interviews and conversations. Each genre offers a unique lens through which we can understand the complexities and subtleties of human communication.

The Need for Diverse Forms of Oral Discourse

Oral discourse is fundamental to our social and intellectual lives, serving as the primary means by which we share ideas, resolve conflicts, and build relationships. Each form of oral discourse fulfills a distinct role in this ecosystem:

• Debates are essential for examining contentious issues. They allow for a structured exchange of opposing viewpoints, help us critically evaluate different perspectives, and develop informed opinions.
• Interviews provide a platform for eliciting detailed information and insights from individuals. They can reveal personal stories, expert knowledge, and nuanced perspectives that might remain hidden.
• Conversations are the bedrock of everyday interaction, enabling us to build and maintain social bonds. Whether friendly or challenging, they foster mutual understanding and personal connection.
• Panel Discussions bring together multiple speakers to share their insights and perspectives on a given topic. This format encourages collaborative thinking and provides a platform for diverse viewpoints, offering the audience a deeper understanding of complex issues giving the audience a deeper understanding of complex issues through an engaging exchange of ideas.
• Group Conversations bring together multiple participants to share and discuss ideas in a collaborative setting. Unlike structured formats, group conversations allow for free-flowing exchanges where everyone can contribute. This open dialogue helps to broaden perspectives, encourages mutual understanding, and often leads to creative solutions by blending diverse viewpoints in a natural and interactive way.

The Ecology of Oral Discourse

The concept of an “ecology of discourse” reflects the interconnected nature of various forms of communication. Like a natural ecosystem where balance and interaction among species are essential for sustainability, oral discourse benefits from the coexistence of different genres to enrich our communicative landscape. Each type of discourse plays a distinct role, enhancing our collective understanding and enabling us to navigate complex social interactions.

Each genre of discourse brings unique advantages, but it also has its limitations:

• Formal debates are structured to sharpen our analytical skills by presenting well-argued positions side by side, ideally offering clarity and a rigorous examination of opposing views. However, debates can often focus on winning rather than understanding, emphasizing style over substance and reinforcing entrenched positions instead of fostering genuine exploration.
• Informal discussions allow for open-ended exchanges of ideas, encouraging spontaneity and often sparking creativity in a more relaxed setting. Yet, without structure, they can easily lose focus, remaining at a surface level and potentially avoiding challenging topics, which limits their depth and potential impact.
• Structured interviews provide a focused, in-depth exploration of specific topics, drawing out detailed insights through a predetermined framework. While this approach ensures thoroughness, it can also restrict spontaneity, potentially missing unexpected insights and limiting the natural flow of conversation.
• Casual conversations excel at building rapport and creating a comfortable space for personal connection, often enhancing social bonds with immediacy and ease. However, they can sometimes stay superficial, lacking the intentional depth needed for fostering lasting relationships or a true sense of community.

By exploring this diverse array of communicative practices, we gain a deeper appreciation for the richness and complexity of human interaction. Each genre offers its own strengths and weaknesses, showing us that the effectiveness of communication depends greatly on context and purpose. Recognizing these nuances enables us to choose the most suitable approach for any given situation, ultimately enriching our ability to connect, understand, and grow through conversation.

In the following sections, you’ll find definitions and examples of each discourse genre, from the formality of debates to the open exchanges found in interviews and conversations. Together, they reveal the varied ways in which we engage with one another, reflecting the intricacies and subtleties of human communication.

---

Debates

The term debate encompasses two distinct forms of discourse, each serving a unique purpose in the exchange of ideas:

1. Informal Debate: This form of debate is a more casual and open-ended discussion between two or more individuals. Participants express differing opinions on a topic, often without strict rules or structure. Informal debates can occur in everyday conversations, classrooms, or social gatherings, where the primary goal is to explore various perspectives, foster understanding, and engage in thought-provoking dialogue.
2. Formal Debate: In contrast, a formal debate follows a structured format, typically conducted in settings like parliaments, academic institutions, or public forums. Participants are often divided into opposing sides, each presenting arguments for or against a specific issue. Formal debates are governed by established rules, including time limits, rebuttals, and often a moderator to ensure fairness. The purpose is to critically examine the topic at hand, with the outcome sometimes leading to a decision or vote based on the arguments presented.
3. Political Debate: Political debates, a distinct genre, focus specifically on public policy and governance issues, often involving candidates or representatives from competing parties. These debates are typically broadcast to reach a wide audience, aiming to influence public opinion and clarify candidates’ positions on various issues. Political debates are generally formal, with a moderator to guide the discussion, enforce time limits, and pose questions. Examples include televised presidential debates, parliamentary debates on legislative proposals, and public town hall debates where candidates address community concerns.

Together, these three forms of debate illustrate the versatility of the genre in addressing complex issues—whether in a casual setting where ideas flow freely, a formal context with meticulously structured arguments, or a high-stakes political arena that directly impacts public policy and decision-making.

Contrasting Civil and Aggressive Debate Styles

A debate’s style can significantly affect its outcome. In a civil debate, participants focus on critiquing ideas rather than attacking the person presenting them. They avoid using personal insults or demeaning language and allow each other time to speak and respond. The arguments are based on logical reasoning and supported by facts, with a polite and professional tone maintained throughout.

On the other hand, an aggressive debate often involves hostile or mocking language aimed at embarrassing or dominating the opponent. Participants might interrupt or talk over each other, relying more on emotional appeals than well-reasoned arguments. The goal in an aggressive debate is often to score points rather than engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas, with little regard for etiquette or decorum.

The key difference between the two styles lies in the approach: civil debates focus on the arguments while maintaining respect, whereas aggressive debates focus on overpowering the opponent through personal attacks and emotional manipulation.

Here are two examples of civil formal debates that highlight the structure and impact of this genre:

Munk Debate: Political correctness: a force for good?

Oxford Union Debate: Islam Is A Peaceful Religion

Aggressive Political Debate

Here is an example of an aggressive political debate. A significant issue with this style is that it can quickly devolve into a shouting match, where participants focus on overpowering each other rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. These debates are often of limited value.

First Presidential Debate Quickly Turned Into A Heated Shouting Match

Civil Political Debate

Labour frontbenchers Roy Jenkins and Tony Benn faced off during the 1975 European referendum campaign. For 50 minutes, they engaged in a focused discussion on a single topic with no audience, minimal studio setup, and little outside interference. This is an excellent example of a “genuine” debate where two intellectual figures tackled complex issues, listened to one another, and responded respectfully and thoughtfully.

Full Debate: Roy Jenkins & Tony Benn - Common Market Membership 1975

---

Interviews

Interviews are frequently televised with experts in a particular field, politicians, or people in the public eye.

An interiew is not a convesration. The participants are not equals, and they have well-defined roles.

Interviews can broadly take three forms.

1. A friendly interview is when the interviewer is overly courteous and never challenges the interviewee on their responses. The interviewer aims to allow the interviewee to express their opinions freely.
2. A challenging interview is when the interviewer courteously challenges and constantly presses the interviewee on their views. The interviewer’s purpose is to try to reveal the truth of the situation.
3. An aggressive interview is when the interviewer challenges, goads, and baits the interviewee. In this case, the interviewer aims to ridicule or reveal the interviewee’s hypocrisy or lies.

Jason Wilson’s article in the Guardian, “The Aggressive Political Interview,” examines the history of televised political interviews.

Friendly Interviews

Munk Dialogues - Rudyard Griffiths interviews Zhang Weiwei

Challenging Interviews

David Frost interviews Margaret Thatcher about the sinking of the Belgrano

Aggressive Interviews

Cathy Newman interviews Jordan Peterson

Andrew Neil interviews Ben Shapiro

Jeremy Paxman interviews Michael Howard

---

One-to-One Conversations

One-to-one conversations like interviews can be friendly, challenging, or aggressive.

Friendly Conversations

Lex Friedman has a conversation with Douglas Murray

Agressive Conversations

Jordan Peterson, in conversation with Helen Lewis

---

Panel Discussions

Panel discussions offer the advantage of bringing together diverse perspectives, allowing audiences to gain a broad understanding of complex issues. The dynamic interaction among panelists can lead to engaging and insightful debates, and audience participation through Q&A enhances the discourse’s relevance.

However, the format also has its drawbacks. The need to cover multiple viewpoints often limits the depth of exploration on any single issue. Dominant personalities can overshadow others, leading to an imbalance in the conversation. The emphasis on maintaining civility may result in superficial consensus, reducing the discussion’s overall impact. While panel discussions effectively introduce topics and showcase various perspectives, they often sacrifice depth for breadth.

Typical Panel Discussion with Q&A

Somewhat better panel discussion with Q&A

---

Group Conversations

Group conversations provide a unique opportunity for participants to share and understand different perspectives through open dialogue. Unlike structured debates or interviews, these discussions are more flexible, allowing ideas to flow naturally as participants contribute to a shared exploration of topics. Without a strict format, group conversations encourage participants to build on each other’s thoughts and reach a common understanding.

In these exchanges, the emphasis moves from individual viewpoints to a collective exploration of ideas. This format welcomes diverse opinions, enabling participants to approach complex issues from various angles. Group discussions often uncover surprising connections between ideas, spark creative thinking, and allow participants to understand different perspectives better. By engaging in open-ended dialogue, group conversations highlight human communication’s varied and interconnected nature.

Krishnamurti, David Bohm, and G. Narayan

An insightful discussion that explores philosophical ideas and human consciousness through open dialogue.

Knowledge Café

A collaborative space where participants discuss topics of mutual interest, building a sense of community and collective learning.

Al Jazeera Cafe - Kenya's unwinnable war

A group discussion that brings together a range of voices to explore a complex and divisive issue, showcasing the strengths of collective insight.

---

Exploring different forms of oral discourse reveals how we communicate and connect. By observing and reflecting on these genres, we gain insight into the nuances of human interaction, enhancing our appreciation for the diverse methods we use to share ideas and understand one another.

---

POST NAVIGATION

CHAPTER NAVIGATION

SEARCH

Blook Search

Search for:

Google Web Search

Photo Credits: Midjourney ()