ABOUT THE ART OF DISPUTE

Plan

1. Tricks in the dispute.

2. Reaction of the opponent to tricks in the dispute.

3. Rules of the dispute.

1. Tricks in dispute

The need for knowledge of this kind of means is not in doubt. Anyone who fights for his convictions, is looking for the right decisions, asserts the truth, should not only be armed himself, but also know the methods of his opponent well. The ability to recognize this or that trick, to show what purpose it was used for, to give a fitting rebuff to the enemy is a necessary quality of a polemicist.

The trick in the dispute is any method by which they want to ease the argument for themselves and make it more difficult for the adversary.

The practice of public disputes, starting from ancient times, produced a lot of such methods, diverse in nature and essence. Many of them are described in detail in the literature. For example, a kind of "catechism deception" is the book of William Hamilton's "Parliamentary logic" , published in England in the XIX century. A set of tricks is presented in the book “Euristics, or the art of conquering arguments” by the German philosopher A. Schopenhauer . Much attention is paid to the description of tricks in the dispute in the work of S. I. Povarnin “Dispute. On the theory and practice of the dispute . The author divides the tricks into permissible and impermissible, analyzes psychological tricks, examines various kinds of sophisms.

Let us examine the most common situations encountered in the dispute. For example, the opponent made an argument to which it is difficult to immediately find a worthy answer, so they try to “delay the objection” unnoticed by the opponent . To this end, put questions in   connection with the above argument, as if to clarify it; begin to answer from afar, with something not directly related to this issue; they begin to refute minor arguments, and then, having gathered strength, break the main arguments of the enemy, etc. We are also advised to use “defrauding objections” if you are very confused, nervous, you suddenly have lost all thoughts, confusion in your head . In order not to show the enemy your condition, you can start talking about something else with a firm, confident voice. Sometimes the argument of the enemy seems to be correct, but do not rush to agree with him.

This situation may also arise: in the process of discussing a controversial problem, one of the polemists notes that he made a mistake. If it is detected, it discredits the position of the speaker. If the error goes unnoticed, the polemicist will become the conductor of the wrong thought, inaccurate information. To openly admit an error for various reasons, the polemicist does not want and resorts to speech turns, which allow to soften and correct the situation : “I didn’t want to say that”; “These words express my thought incorrectly”; “Let me clarify my position” and others. All these methods are considered permissive, they are quite acceptable in a public dispute. Their use does not prevent the clarification of the truth, does not compromise the opponent. However, it should be borne in mind that unscrupulous polemicists in disputes often resort to various kinds of dishonest means.

S. I. Povarnin believes that the wrong way out of the dispute, the disruption of the dispute, the “city's” argument, and the “stick” arguments are the rudest, inadmissible tricks .

Out of the dispute. One of the participants feels that the argument is not in his favor, that he does not have sufficient arguments, and is trying to stop the argument (“sneak out of the argument”, “put out the argument”, “finish the argument”).

Breaking the dispute. Sometimes the enemy is interested in thwarting the dispute, because he is not able to afford it, is unprofitable for any reason. In such cases, they resort to rude "mechanical" tricks: they interrupt the enemy, do not allow him to speak, they clearly show a reluctance to listen to the opponent - they pinch their ears, hum, whistle, laugh, stomp their feet, etc. Sometimes the actions are performed by the audience, wishing to support their peer. and hurt his rival. This technique is called "obstruction" (intentional disruption of the dispute) .

"The argument to the city." The opponent's thesis is declared dangerous to the state or society. The enemy is essentially “clamped down on the mouth”, the dispute stops, the victory on the side of the one who applied the trick.

"Stick arguments". They give such an argument, which the opponent must accept for fear of something unpleasant, often dangerous, or which he cannot answer for the same reason and must either be silent or come up with some kind of “workaround”.

A kind of "argument to the town" and "stick arguments" is considered a trick called "reading in the hearts."

Its essence lies in the fact that the opponent does not so much analyze the words of the enemy, but refers to the motives that made them speak out (“You speak out of pity for him”; “You are forced to speak in the interests of this organization”; ”“ You pursue personal interests ” etc.).

This kind of trick applies insinuation. The word insinuation (lat.) Means “a slanderous fabrication intended to defame someone; malicious fiction, slander " . The essence of the reception is that the participant in the dispute, wanting to defame his opponent, undermine his confidence, and consequently, to his arguments, uses irresponsible hints and statements, for example, "It is clear what you did during this visit ..." “We will see where you got the funds to build a new summer house”, “Yes, we know how you spend your free time.”

A fairly large group of dishonest means are psychological tricks . They are diverse in nature, many are based on a good knowledge of the characteristics of the psychology of people, the weaknesses of human nature. As a rule, these tricks contain elements of cunning and direct deception. They manifest a rude, disrespectful attitude towards the opponent.

Consider some of them.

Removing the enemy off balance. For this, coarse antics, insults, obviously unjust, mocking accusations, etc. are used. If the adversary “has boiled over” -. case won. He lost his chance of success.   dispute.

Here is what A. Schopenhauer wrote about this trick: “Try to annoy the enemy, because under the influence of anger, he is not able to look after himself and give the right opinions, or even to notice his case. Anger can also be caused by constant cavils and obvious unfair attitude. ”

In another place, he advises:

“If at any given argument successfully, the enemy begins to get angry, you must use this argument intensively and even abuse it, not only because it annoys and teases the opponent, but also because we can safely conclude that inadvertently attacked the weak side and, therefore, can easily catch him on something. "

Bet on false shame. It is known that people often want to seem better than they really are, afraid to “drop themselves” in the eyes of others.

It is on this desire to look a little better and some experienced polemicists play. For example, by citing an unproved or even a false conclusion, the adversary accompanies him with phrases: “You, of course, know that science has long established it”; “Do you still not know?”; "It is a well-known fact" and under., I.e. it relies on false shame. If a person does not admit that he does not know this, he is “on the hook” of the enemy and is forced to agree with his arguments.

"Putting up an argument." Another related ploy based on ego is called smearing an argument. A weak argument that can be easily challenged is accompanied by a compliment to the enemy. For example: "You, as an intelligent person, will not deny"; “Your honesty and adherence to principles are well known to everyone, therefore you ...”; “A person who is not sufficiently educated will not appreciate, will not understand the argument given, but you ...” Sometimes an adversary is given to the adversary that he is personally treated with special respect, his mind is highly valued, his dignity is recognized.

Suggestion. AT   In a public dispute, suggestion has a great influence on both opponents and listeners. Therefore, one should not give in to such a common ploy as a self-confident, categorical, resolute tone. A person speaking with aplomb, an impressive voice, psychologically presses on those present. Indeed, when the enemy behaves very confidently, having no reason to do so, we, even if we feel right, begin to doubt our position. And if we have not understood the problem enough, then we generally give up on it. In such a situation, internal concentration, endurance, business tone, the ability to transfer the conversation from general phrases to consideration of the substance of the case are required.

In addition to the corresponding tone, there are many other various tricks designed for suggestion and psychological impact on the participants in the dispute. This is a mockery, and the desire to tear off the enemy, to cause distrust of his words, a sharply negative assessment of the opinions expressed, a hurtful remark, etc.

Reference to age, education, position. Often in disputes, references to their age, education, and position are used as arguments. Quite often we come up with such arguments: “Well, live to see my age, then judge”; "First, get a diploma, and then we'll talk"; “You will take my place, then you will argue,” and others. However, it is known that a person who is older in age, who has a higher education and holds a certain position, is not always right. Therefore, you should not immediately take positions and retreat; it is necessary to demand that the opponent gave more weighty and convincing arguments.

The French humanist philosopher M. Montaigne has an interesting observation in the book “Experiments”:

“The same is true in our debates: the important appearance, vestment and high position of the speaker often make you believe the words empty and ridiculous. No one would ever think that a person so respected and revered has no soul for anything but this respect of the crowd, and that a person who is entrusted with so many deeds and positions, so arrogant and arrogant, is no more skilled than any other From afar, bowing low to him and not entrusted with any trust. ”

"Double-entry bookkeeping". This trick is based on the tendency of people to duality of assessments: one measure for themselves and for what is beneficial and pleasant for us, the other for other people and for what we do not like. In a dispute, the same argument can be true when it suits us, and erroneous if it does not. When we refute someone with the help of this argument - he is true, and when we refute them - he is false.

Logical tricks, so-called sophisms, or deliberate mistakes in evidence are quite common in disputes. It should be remembered that sophistry and error differ only in that sophism is intended, and error is not intentional. Therefore, as many as there are logical errors, so many sophisms. Let us dwell on some tricks of a sophistic nature.

Take the conversation away. Often one has to observe such situations when participants in the discussion of a controversial problem find it difficult to select the necessary arguments. To get away from defeat, to make it not so noticeable, they in every possible way divert the conversation to the side, distract the attention of opponents with secondary issues, stories on abstract topics.

Translation of the dispute on the contradictions between word and deed. To get away from the subject of discussion, to put aside the thesis put forward, it is possible with the help of such a trick - to translate the dispute into contradictions between word and deed, the views of the opponent and his actions, way of life. Having shown the discrepancy of the thesis put forward to the actions of the opponent, they put the enemy in an awkward position, reduce the dispute to No.

This trick affects not only the enemy, but also the witnesses of the dispute. Usually the listeners have no time to get into the essence of the matter, and they don’t want to do it. Even if there is no contradiction between the principle put forward and the behavior, no one will understand anything, the trick achieves the goal. As for this type of trick, S. I. Povarnin writes: “This is one of the types of“ pinching the mouth ”to the enemy and   has nothing to do with honest struggle in the dispute for truth. - As a method of conviction, it may be required and often necessary. But reproof and an honest argument for truth, like the struggle between thought and thought, are two incompatible things. ”

- Transfer the question to the point of view of benefit or harm. This is one of the common tricks in a public dispute. Instead of proving the truth of a situation, it turns out whether it is beneficial for us or not. And it is clear that when we feel that this proposal benefits us, although it has harmful consequences for others, we rather agree with it. This is the weakness of human nature and use unscrupulous debaters. They begin to press on the opponent, emphasizing the advantages of their position for the opponent. Such arguments are often called "pocket", i.e., convenient, advantageous. And they sometimes have just a hypnotic effect.

Time offset action. Sometimes the debaters use this trick:   the process of reasoning, they shift the time of action, replace what is true for the past and present with what happens in   the future. The director Comrade Kirchev, refuting the performance of his colleague Simeonov, applied the trick to this trick, the author of the satirist “Saving the Honest Name” said with humor:

“Noticing how gloomily he stood up, everyone understood that Simeonov decided to criticize the director himself.

“I think it's enough to be silent,” said Simeonov, his voice vibrating with excitement, and there was a grave silence in the hall. - Everyone knows that our director is a despot. He pinches criticism! No one dares to object to him, knowing full well what will follow next ...

Simeonov continued in the same vein for another ten minutes. After him, Comrade Kirchev, our director, spoke with a refutation.

“Comrades,” he began, “you have listened with great attention to the speech of the previous speaker.” He spoke quite interestingly, but with his accusations he put himself and me in embarrassing situations. Think for yourself: if, after all said, I do not punish him, what will happen? But it will turn out that I am not at all the malicious clapper of criticism and that Simeonov publicly slandered me! That's what happens, comrades! It turns out that Simeonov is a slanderer and a liar! The honest name of comrade Simeonov, who so passionately criticized me, will be seriously tarnished. And this, in turn, can cast a shadow over our entire glorious team. Therefore, I believe that the honest name of comrade Simeonov should be saved. And I think it’s best to do this by punishing him, for example, by transferring to a lower paid position and depriving him of a quarterly bonus ...

The hall burst into applause. ”

It is obvious that director Kirchev does not care about saving Simeonov’s reputation, as he claims, but about cracking down on him for criticism. After all, Simeonov said what the director’s behavior was until now, and not what it would be, therefore, the change in the director’s behavior could not refute Simeonov’s statements and discredit his name.

Often polemists resort to tricks related to the unfair use of questions and answers. These include, for example, the so-called “error of many questions ”. Opponent immediately asked several different questions under the guise of one and require an immediate answer, yes or no. But the fact is that the prisoners in a given question are directly opposed to each other, one of them requires an answer, yes, and the other does not. The respondent, without noticing this, answers only one of the questions. The questioner takes advantage of this, arbitrarily applies the answer to another question and confuses the opponent. This was used in the ancient world. Here is a typical question of this kind. The student was asked: “Have you stopped beating your father? Yes or no? ”If the respondent says“ yes ”, then it turns out that he beat his father, if he says“ no ”, then it turns out that he continues to beat his father. It is obvious that such a question cannot be answered in the form of "yes" or "no." The pupil should have said something like this: “I cannot even think about beating my father, because there can be no shame for my son”.

In disputes, there are often situations where polemicists, for various reasons, try to evade the questions posed . Sometimes they just skip the question, as they say, past their ears, as if they do not notice it. So, for example, comes Pigasov in a dispute with Rudin:

“- So what's the trouble? I ask: where is the truth? Even philosophers do not know what it is. Kant says, here it is, they say that; and Hegel - no, you're lying, that's what it is.

“Do you know what Hegel says about her?” - asked, not raising voices, Rudin.

“I repeat,” continued Pigasov, flushed, “I cannot understand what truth is.” In my opinion, it is not at all in the world, that is, there is a word, but there is no thing itself. ”

Some polemicists begin to make fun of their opponent's questions : “You ask such“ profound ”questions”; "And you consider your question serious?"; “What a frivolous question”; “You ask such a difficult question that I pass before him” and under. Often given a negative assessment of the question itself: "This is a naive question"; “This question sounds apolitical”; "This is gedogmatism"; "This is an immature question."Such phrases do not help clarify the truth, constructive solution to the problem. They psychologically act on the opponent, since they show disrespectful attitude towards him. This allows a person who utters such phrases to escape from the questions posed, to leave them unanswered.

The most common in the dispute is considered "the answer to the question." Not wanting to answer the question posed or experiencing difficulties in finding an answer, the polematist raises a counter question to the opponent's question. If the enemy begins to respond, then he fell for this trick.

The polemicists resort to such a peculiar trick as “credit response”. Having difficulty in discussing a problem, they postpone the answer to "later", citing the complexity of the question.

Thus, it is necessary to be psychologically prepared for various kinds of attacks and tricks by the opponent. It is important to maintain self-control and composure. It should be remembered that dishonest practices are in one way or another connected with deviation from the laws of correct thinking, with violation of the basic rules by which the dispute obeys, with the desire to divert conversation from the subject of discussion.

These are some dishonest tricks with which to face disputes. With the rest of the tricks you can get acquainted yourself by reading the literature on the art of the dispute.

2. Reaction of the opponent to tricks in the dispute

Researchers are developing special methods of protection against incorrect methods of conducting a dispute. For example, if an opponent transfers the discussion of a controversial problem to another, no less important topic, it is recommended to first agree that the new topic certainly deserves attention, and then offer to return to the previous one. It is advisable to ignore small injections from the opponent, and in case of obvious insults it is necessary to stop the dispute for a while.

Useful guidelines for resolving difficult situations when making management decisions are contained in the book by Otto Ernst "The word is given to you: practical recommendations for conducting business conversations and negotiations . " The author describes the actions of the partner during the dispute and possible reactions to these actions. We give this table in full.

3. The rules of the dispute

There are many techniques and rules for the conduct of the dispute, which are successfully used in their speech practice by experienced speakers, it is useful to analyze some of them.

1. Do not prove the obvious. The listener waits from the speaker for something new, unfamiliar. The less he finds such, the sooner he loses interest in the presentation of the content. A particular danger arises when the listener does not feel the new content hidden in famous phrases.

2. First, a controversial argument should be made , not so categorical, but still convincing, and in conclusion - the final weighty indisputable argument is pronounced .

3. Avoid unreliable arguments. Only the most convincing evidence should enter speech. Quality is important, not quantity. One should not fear that speech seems weak from a small amount of evidence. In order not to be mistaken, one should not allow oneself unreliable arguments. Every weak argument, drawing attention, undermines the credibility of all others.

4. In the course of the proof, do not overlook the main idea ; on the contrary, use any occasion to recall it.

5. Give weighty arguments separately, developing each separately . If they are weak, they should be put together and used as one argument.

6. As often as possible Reinforce one proof of the other.

7. Do not explain what they themselves are not quite sure. Do not utter your doubts aloud , because they destroy the whole system of evidence.

In the course of the proof, objections may arise that can be neutralized using the following techniques:

- divide the generalized arguments of the opponent;

- do not show special diligence, objecting to the opponent. A strong objection can give weight to an opponent in the view of the listeners;

- Do not leave without objection strong arguments of the enemy. But, objecting to them, one should not develop them or repeat the considerations by which these arguments are supported. Repeating the objections concisely, we reinforce the impressions of them. Then impromptu turn to their refutation. It is usually not prepared, suffers from verbosity. We do not have time to develop our arguments to the end, cling to the first thoughts that came to mind and lose sight of the more important ones, set forth thoughts in an unclear, unsuccessful form;

- do not prove when to deny;

- answer facts with words;

- do not argue against undoubted evidence and correct thoughts;

- do not refute the incredible.

In oral presentations, demagogical tricks are often used , which should be avoided:

• substitution of deeds with high words and appeals;
• too frequent explanation of the difficulties of the day by the heritage of the past;
• sworn assurances on behalf of all;
• bathos;
• the use of a large number of figures, incredible facts without their analysis and comparison;
• labeling;
• shifting the blame to others;
• insults, tears, cry, instead of a calm discussion of the problem.

In the book of Professor S.I.Povarnin "The Art of Dispute" outlines some rules for handling a dispute :

1. “... the first duty and, in any case, one of the most important properties of a good debater is to be able to listen to them (the arguments of the opponent) , accurately understand and evaluate. Most debaters sin against it. But by itself it is clear that who does not know how to listen to the enemy and understand him clearly and fully, one can never cover the dispute, or own the dispute. The ability to listen is difficult, but there is nothing to deceive oneself: without it, a good arguer is unthinkable. This is the first and one of the inevitable skills of arguing. This is the foundation of the art of argument. Without it, no ability and knowledge will not give a real master of the dispute.

2. The second important condition of the present, good and honest dispute is respect for the beliefs and beliefs of the enemy, if we see that they are sincere .

3. The manner of arguing is of great, often enormous importance in a dispute .

A gentlemanly dispute is the highest form of dispute. In such a dispute, no inappropriate tricks are allowed.

Boorish dispute is primarily distinguished by open disrespect or disregard for the views of the enemy.

It is extremely important whether we argue calmly, coolly, or excitedly, excitedly, violently. Under conditions approximately equal, a more cold-blooded debater always invariably overcomes.

Memo party dispute.

(according to V.T. Lisovsky)

1. Before you argue, think about what you will be talking about.

2. Argue honestly and sincerely, do not distort the thoughts and words of your comrades.

3. Starting to argue, clearly and clearly state the provisions that you will defend, prove. These abstracts should remain unchanged throughout the entire dispute.

4. Remember that the best evidence or method of refutation are accurate and indisputable facts.

5. Proving and refuting, speak clearly, simply, clearly, precisely. Try to speak in your own words.

6. If the erroneousness of your opinion is proved, have the courage to recognize the correctness of your “opponent”.

7. Concluding your presentation, summarize, draw conclusions.

You can also use the humorous rules that People's Artist of the USSR N.P. Akimov recommended:

1. Do not be afraid to speak first. If you have something to tell humanity, the sooner it will know it. If you have absolutely nothing to say, try to get into the number of speakers who, after a late period of time, do not receive words.

2. Shelling their opponents, do not hide behind the monuments of famous people. They are not for that set.

3. Speaking on behalf of your team, remember that collective indiscretion is no better than being solely individual.

4. Never say, starting your speech: "Comrades, I am very worried." If your excitement helps you to perform brilliantly, do not disclose in advance the secret of success. If, on the contrary, it interferes, nothing will help.

5. When choosing smart quotes for a speech, make sure that your own thoughts do not sound too great a contrast to them.