BASES OF POLEMIC EXPERIENCE dispute, types, strategy tactics and techniques

Plan

1. The dispute and its types.

2. Purpose of the dispute.

3. Specificity of the dispute depending on the participants of the dispute the number of participants

4. Form of the dispute

5. Organized dispute

6. Polemic techniques

1. Dispute and its types

In modern scientific, methodical, reference literature, the word controversy serves to denote the process of exchanging opposing opinions. A dispute is a special kind of verbal communication. A dispute is understood as any collision of opinions, disagreement in the points of view on any issue, subject, struggle, in which each of the parties defends its correctness.

There are other words in the Russian language for this phenomenon: discussion, debate, controversy, debate, debate . Quite often they are used as synonyms for the word dispute. This is indicated by the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian literary language and dictionaries of synonyms. In scientific research, in publicistic and artistic works, these words often serve as names for certain varieties of the dispute.

For example, a discussion (lat. Discussio - research, consideration, analysis) calls such a public dispute, the purpose of which is to clarify and compare different points of view, search, identify the true opinion, find the right solution to a disputed issue. Discussion is considered an effective way of persuasion, since its participants themselves come to this or that conclusion.

The word dispute also came to us from the Latin language (disputar - to reason, disputatio - debate) and initially meant the public defense of a scientific essay written for a degree. Today in this sense the word dispute is not used. This word is a public dispute on a scientific and socially important topic.

Another character is controversy. This is evidenced by the etymology (ie, origin) of this term. The ancient Greek word polemikos means "warlike, hostile." Controversy is not just a dispute, but one in which there is confrontation, opposition, confrontation between parties, ideas and speeches. Based on this, controversy can be defined as a struggle of fundamentally opposing opinions on a particular issue, a public dispute with the aim of defending, defending one's point of view and disproving the opinion of the opponent.

From this definition, it follows that the controversy differs from the discussion, the dispute, namely its focus on directionality. Participants in the discussion, dispute, comparing conflicting judgments, try

- come to a common opinion,

- find a common solution

- to establish the truth.

The purpose of the controversy is different: we must defeat the enemy, defend and adopt our own position.

However, it should be borne in mind that a truly scientific debate is not just for the sake of victory per se. Based on principled positions, polemists solve socially significant issues, their performances are directed against everything that hinders effective social development.

Controversy is a science to convince. It teaches to reinforce thoughts with persuasive and undeniable arguments, scientific arguments. The controversy is especially necessary when new views are developed, universal human values, human rights, public opinion is upheld. It serves to foster active citizenship.

The word is a debate of French origin (debat - dispute, debate). Debate is a Russian word, recorded in the lexicon of the XVII century. The explanatory dictionary defines these words as follows: debates - debates, exchange of opinions on any issues, disputes; debate - discussion of any issue, a public dispute on any issues.

The words debates, debates, as a rule, refer to disputes that arise when discussing reports, communications, speeches at meetings, meetings, conferences, etc.

Any dispute consists of the following structure: on the one hand, this is the nomination and defense of the thesis by the first opponent, and on the other, the refutation of the thesis put forward and its argument by the second opponent.

In the scientific and methodological literature attempts are being made to systematize various types of dispute. The grounds are taken a variety of signs. The main factors affecting the nature of the dispute and its features include:

- the purpose of the dispute,

- number of participants,

- form of

- organization of the dispute.

Consider what types of disputes can be identified depending on these factors.

2. Purpose of the dispute

It is known that people, entering into a dispute, pursue far from the same goals, are guided by different motives. By purpose, the following types are distinguished:

- a dispute over the truth,

- to convince anyone,

- to win

- a dispute for the sake of argument.

Briefly describe them.

A dispute can serve as a means to search for truth, to test any thought, idea, to justify it. To find the right solution, polemicists compare the most different points of view on this or that problem. They defend any thought from attacks, to find out what objections may be to this thought, or, on the contrary, attack the position expressed by the opponent in order to find out what are the arguments in his favor. In such a dispute, arguments are carefully selected and analyzed, the positions and views of the opposite side are weighed, i.e., essentially, a joint investigation of the truth is conducted. Of course, such a dispute is possible only between competent people who know this problem, are interested in solving it.

Dispute for the sake of truth acquires the character of special beauty, it can bring real pleasure and satisfaction to the participants of the dispute, become for them a truly "mental feast." Yes, this is understandable. Expanding knowledge about the subject of the dispute, there is self-confidence, strengthened faith in their own intellectual abilities. As a result of such a mental struggle, man feels more elevated and better. And even if you have to retreat, surrender positions, abandon protected thoughts, the unpleasant sensation of defeat recedes into the background.

The challenge of the dispute may not be to verify the truth, but to convince the opponent. In this case, two important points are highlighted. Arguing convinces the opponent of what he is deeply convinced. But sometimes he assures, because he is so “necessary” by duty, due to some circumstances, etc. He himself does not believe at all in the truth of what he is protecting, or in the falsehood of what he is attacking. The goal for which he convinces may be good or deeply selfish, but in any case “outsider”.

The purpose of a dispute is not research, not conviction, but victory. Moreover, the polemists seek it for different reasons. Some believe that they are upholding a just cause, protecting public interests. They are convinced that they are right and to the end remain on positions of principle. Others need a victory for self-affirmation. Therefore, they are very important success in the dispute, the high appreciation of others, the recognition of their intellectual abilities, oratorical data, the glory of the invincible polemist. Still others just love to win. They want to win poeffektnoe. They are not shy in receptions and means for winning a victory.

Quite often there is a dispute for the sake of argument. This is a kind of "art for art", "sport". For such debaters, it makes no difference what to argue about, with whom to argue, why argue. It is important for them to shine with eloquence, to prove that white is black and black is white. If you deny any position, they will definitely begin to defend it. Such polemicists can often be found among young people.

3. The specifics of the dispute, depending on the number of participants in the dispute

The specifics of the dispute are influenced by the number of persons participating in the discussion of problematic issues. On this basis, there are three main groups:

- dispute-monologue (a person is arguing with himself, this is the so-called internal dispute);

- dispute-dialogue (two persons argue);

- dispute-polylogue (conducted by several or many persons).

In turn, the dispute-polylogue can be massive (all present participate in the dispute) and group (the disputed issue is resolved by a selected group of persons in the presence of all participants). It is certainly difficult to dispute the polylogue. Meanwhile, it can be of great importance in solving important issues of the socio-political, spiritual, and scientific life. The more knowledgeable people take part in such a dispute, the more effective it will be.

Disputes can occur with and without listeners. The presence of listeners, even if they do not express their attitude to the dispute, acts on the disputants. Victory with listeners brings more satisfaction, flatters vanity, and defeat becomes more annoying and unpleasant. Therefore, participants in a dispute with listeners must take into account those present, their reaction, carefully select the necessary arguments, more often show persistence in opinions, and sometimes excessive vehemence.

In public life it is often necessary to meet with the dispute for the audience. The dispute is not in order to find out the truth, to convince each other, but to draw attention to the problem, make a definite impression on the listeners, and influence it as necessary.

4. Form of the dispute

On the process of the dispute leaves its mark and form of the struggle of opinions. Disputes can be oral and written (printed). The oral form involves direct communication of specific individuals with each other, the written (printed) form - indirect communication. Oral disputes are usually limited in time and confined in space: they are conducted in classes, conferences, meetings, various kinds of events, etc. Written (printed) forms are longer in time than oral ones, because the connection between by the parties mediated.

In an oral dispute, especially if it is conducted with the listeners, external and psychological moments play an important role. Of great importance is the manner of staying confidently, quickness of reaction, quickness of thinking, wit. The timid, shy person usually loses in comparison with the self-confident opponent. Therefore, a written dispute is more suitable for finding out the truth than an oral one. However, it has its drawbacks. He sometimes lasts too long for several years. Readers, and the participants of the dispute themselves, manage to forget certain provisions and conclusions; they have no opportunity to restore them in their memory. Sometimes a dispute takes place on the pages of several different publications, making it difficult to follow its course.

5. Organized dispute

Disputes are organized and unorganized.

Organized disputes are planned, prepared, conducted under the guidance of specialists. The polemists have the opportunity to get acquainted in advance with the subject of the dispute, determine their position, select the necessary arguments, think over the answers to possible objections of opponents. But the dispute may arise spontaneously. This often happens in the educational process, at meetings and meetings, in everyday communication. Unorganized, natural disputes, as a rule, are less productive. In such disputes, the speeches of the participants are not sufficiently reasoned, sometimes occasional arguments are made, not quite mature statements are heard.

The success of the dispute, its constructive nature, and its fruitfulness in resolving issues largely depend on the composition of the polemists. The level of their culture, erudition, competence, life experience, possession of polemical skills and abilities, knowledge of the rules of public dispute are important.

So, we have considered what a dispute is and got acquainted with the kinds of public dispute that we often encounter in different life circumstances. The proposed classification allows you to more accurately determine which type of dispute you have to deal with in a particular situation, and helps to choose a more correct behavior tactic.

6. The main rules of the dispute

Polemists need to know the basic rules of the dispute, the observance of which increases its efficiency and fruitfulness, contributes to success in the debate and controversy. They are developed by the centuries-old practice of public dispute, formulated in old and new rhetoric, are given in books on the art of dispute and numerous methodological literature. Briefly describe them.

• Be able to correctly identify the subject of the dispute and highlight points of disagreement.

Any dispute will be successful only if its subject is clearly defined. This is the most important requirement of a culture of dispute.

The subject of the dispute is those provisions, judgments that are subject to discussion by exchanging different points of view, comparing opinions.

The subject of the dispute are issues that reflect common human interests. These include, in particular, the problems of ecology, the survival of mankind, the preservation of peace on Earth, etc.

In the course of a dispute, national interests, interests of certain social sectors of society may be affected.

It is often necessary to defend group interests, for example, people of a certain profession, groups of individual enterprises, institutions, departments, representatives of informal associations, etc.

Family and personal interests of polemists are protected in the dispute.

In a specific public dispute, these interests are usually interrelated and interdependent, closely intertwined. It is important to understand the social significance of the subject matter of the dispute, so that during the discussion not to burn the guns on the sparrows, not to waste our strength and energy on solving the questions of minor, of secondary, third importance.

The subject of the dispute should immediately be indicated by the polemic parties. Often it is clarified during the discussion itself, and sometimes it may appear during the discussion of a problem. During a conversation, a dispute may move from one subject to another.

It is important that the polemicists each time clearly understand what is the subject of their dispute.

• Do not lose sight of the main provisions, because of which there is a dispute.

Polemists need to observe an important rule - not to lose sight of the main provisions that are causing the dispute, not to lose the subject of the dispute in the heat of polemical reasoning.

It must not be forgotten that sometimes one of the parties involved in the controversy, consciously, for certain purposes, leads its opponents away from the problem under discussion. This method is resorted to when they want to mislead the participants in the dispute, to distract from the solution of urgent problems, to influence the formation of public opinion. Often this method is used by ideological opponents.

In order not to lose the subject of the dispute, not to give the opportunity to divert yourself away from solving the main issue, so that the discussion of the controversial problem would be fruitful and productive, so that the dispute would not turn into an empty talker, polemists should be well aware of the subject of the dispute, be erudite and competent.

• Clearly define your position in a dispute.

A necessary condition for the effectiveness of the dispute is the certainty of the positions and views of its participants. If during the discussion of a controversial problem, the opponent's point of view is not clearly expressed, it is difficult to argue with him. Imagine that you are arguing with a person who, while considering a question, at the same time speaks out for and against the same provision. How to refute it? The type of such a polemicist is wittily ridiculed in one of the issues of the magazine "Crocodile":

“- I personally, comrades,” he said at the beginning of the speech, “have an independent opinion on the issue raised. Do we need additional allocations for construction? The answer can be only one: definitely needed ...

But, noting the dissatisfaction of the boss on the left, he continued:

- Appropriations are definitely needed! So would a frivolous person, a supervisor, an employee who could not save public funds ... but I adhere to the opposite point of view on this score ...

But, seeing at that time the dissatisfaction of the higher commander on the right, he already said:

- I adhere to a different point of view, comrades, I will not call a person who says that allocations are necessary as a supervisor. Only people lacking scope and perspective can speak like that. We must be principled! And I personally, expressing my personal opinion, affirm that the appropriations are necessary! ”

The dispute becomes more fruitful if the participants in the controversy, the discussion has a common initial position, initial understanding, a single platform for discussing unresolved issues. This is not about a single point of view on the issues discussed. Opinions of the parties to the dispute may be different, but there should be a common goal, the desire to find the right solution, the desire to understand the controversial issue and achieve the truth.

• Use the concepts correctly in a dispute. When discussing a particular issue, one has to use various concepts and terms necessary for revealing the essence of the problem in question.

Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to identify the basic, supporting concepts related to the subject of the dispute and the terms denoting them.

So that all participants in the discussion, the controversies equally understand the words used, it is advisable at the beginning of the dispute to clarify the meaning of the basic concepts and terms, or at least to specify a different meaning that each of the participants puts into the same words denoting the concepts.

If the disputants have not agreed on the definition of initial concepts, then it is simply useless to lead the discussion. The importance of complying with this indispensable condition becomes especially obvious when you consider that many words in a language are ambiguous.

The polysemy of words harbors the potential possibility of its different understandings. The inability to distinguish between individual meanings of a word, select the most appropriate for a given concrete situation, makes the statement inaccurate, leading to speech errors. Therefore, it is necessary in individual cases to indicate in which of the meanings this or that word is used.

Thus, inaccurate use of terms by participants in a dispute, especially multi-valued ones, can lead to an undesirable result, impede communication, prevent discussion of a controversial problem, and cause serious misconceptions.

• Treat your opponent with respect.

This is one of the most important requirements of the culture of the dispute. In the book of S. I. Povarnin “Dispute. On the theory and practice of the dispute "read:

“An important condition for a real, good and honest argument (to convince him or to win, etc. is all the same) is respect for the beliefs and beliefs of the opponent, if we see that they are sincere ... Usually, people ... tend to think a person who adheres to other convictions, or an idiot, or a bastard, and in any case a real “enemy” ... You can refute in the most decisive way, but without insulting others' beliefs with ridicule, harsh words, mockery; especially - without mocking them in front of the crowd sympathizing with us. “Respect for other people's beliefs is not only a sign of respect for someone else’s personality, but also a sign of a wide and developed mind.”

Unfortunately, this rule is often violated. Often the participants in the discussion, the controversy intolerantly refer to people who hold different views, are in different positions.

In this regard, let us turn to the history of one of the widely known disputes. In the history of culture, the discussion of the famous physicists Bohr and Einstein is considered unique . This extraordinary debate continued for several decades. She took something dramatic, then humorous. The argument was sometimes conducted in an academically calm manner, then suddenly there was an explosion, as if in a duel. It was necessary to polemize both at a distance and when meeting each other, orally and in writing.

The reason for the controversy was the creation of quantum mechanics and the associated revolutionary revolution in the views on the world around us. This discussion aroused great interest in the scientific world. Behind her attentively, well-known researchers took part in it, the closest associates of Bohr and Einstein, including major scientists of our country.

In this great controversy in accordance with the traditional form of public dispute, there was even a second — the eminent Dutch physicist Paul Ehrenfest. He helped organize meetings between both scientists, corresponded with them, stimulated them to be active, which played a big role in shaping the relationship between Bohr and Einstein.

There were no winners in this discussion. No one has persuaded anyone. Everyone stayed in their position. Bohr, who survived his opponent for 7 years, until the end of his days continued to argue mentally with Einstein. This is evidenced by one curious detail from his biography. The last drawing, made by Bohr on the board in his office one day before his death, depicted the Einstein “box with a photon,” which Bohr apparently still continued to reflect on. However, this discussion was extremely fruitful. It was not limited to fixing different points of view. Scientists mutually enriched each other. Disagreements encouraged them to clarify their positions, sometimes correcting their own formulations. This discussion has determined the development of physics for many decades. The key to the fruitfulness of the discussion, its enormous influence on the processes of scientific research, of course,was the deep mutual respect of scientists. They admired each other. In one letter, Einstein writes: “Dear, if not to say, beloved Bor!” In a private conversation in Moscow, Bor said: “Einstein was not only a genius, but he was also a wonderful, very kind person. His smile still stands before me. ”

Таким образом, уважительное отношение оппонентов друг к другу, стремление понять взгляды и убеждения противника, вникнуть в суть его позиции — необходимые условия продуктивности публичного спора, плодотворного обсуждения проблем.

• Сохраняйте выдержку и самообладание в споре.

Психологи установили, что если делается попытка навязать оппоненту мнение, резко отличающееся от его взглядов, то он по контрасту воспринимает предлагаемую ему противоположную точку зрения как неприемлемую. Поэтому не рекомендуется обязательно во всем противоречить противнику. Иногда полезно согласиться с предлагаемыми доводами оппонента, прежде чем сказать нет, произнести да. Это продемонстрирует всем присутствующим ваше беспристрастие, стремление к объективному рассмотрению вопроса. Но, согласившись с доводами, надо уметь показать, что они не имеют прямого отношения к предмету спора и не доказывают правоты оппонента. Другими словами, надо найти удачное сочетание понимающей и атакующей интонаций.

Не рекомендуется горячиться в споре. Наблюдения показывают, что из двух полемистов, равных друг другу во всех прочих отношениях, победителем оказывается тот, у кого больше выдержки и самообладания. Да это и понятно. У хладнокровного человека явные преимущества: его мысль работает ясно и спокойно. В возбужденном состоянии трудно анализировать позицию оппонента, подбирать веские доводы, не нарушать логической последовательности в изложении материала.

Умение сохранить спокойствие — важное качество полемиста. Нельзя допустить, чтобы спор превращался в перепалку, в беспорядочную свару. Философ М. Монтень считал, что воздействие такого неистового советчика, какраздражение, губительно не только для разума нашего, но и для совести. А брань во время споров должна запрещаться и караться, как другие словесные преступления. Порождаемая злобным раздражением, она приносит полемистам огромный вред.

• Обращайте внимание на поведение оппонента, научи тесь верно оценивать его действия.

Действительно, существует множество разновидностей и оттенков манеры спорить, большое количество, если можно так сказать, промежуточных вариантов. Понаблюдайте за своими оппонентами во время диспута, дискуссии, полемики и вы тоже убедитесь, что ведут они себя по-разному. Одни, например, держатся достойно, уважительно по отношению друг к другу, не прибегают к нечестным приемам и уловкам, не допускают резкого тона. Они внимательно анализируют доводы оппонента, основательно аргументируют свою позицию. Во время такого спора стороны испытывают глубокое удовлетворение, желание разобраться в обсуждаемых проблемах. Другие, напротив, вступив в спор, начинают себя чувствовать как на войне. Поэтому они считают вполне оправданным применение различного рода уловок, в том числе и непозволительных. Главное — разбить противника, поставить его в невыгодное положение. Значит, нужно быть настороже, находиться в боевой готовности. И, наконец, есть спорщики, которые ведут себя самым непозволительным образом. Они могут в грубой форме оборвать оппонента, унизить его оскорбительными выпадами, говорят в пренебрежительном или презрительном тоне, насмешливо переглядываются со слушателями и т. п.

The behavior of polemicists, their manner of debate are of great importance and, of course, influence the success of the discussion. This can not be ignored in the dispute. Conducting polemicists is largely determined by the goals and objectives that they pursue in the dispute, personal interests.

Conduct in a dispute depends on the adversary you have to deal with. If we are a strong adversary, that is, a competent person who knows the subject of the dispute, is confident, respected and respected, reasonably thinks, has polemical skills and abilities, then we are more collected, tense, trying to free him from unnecessary explanations, we try they themselves understand the essence of his statements, are more ready for defense. With a weak adversary who is not deeply versed in the subject under discussion, indecisive, shy, and not experienced in disputes, we behave differently. Often we require explanations and additional arguments to make sure that it is not by chance that he turned out to be right, we question his remarks. We feel more confidence, independence, decisiveness.

It is interesting to argue with an opponent who is equal to you in intelligence, knowledge, education. In one of the books on oratory, published before the revolution, the author makes such a comparison. As in fencing art, in tournaments, only equivalent opponents are allowed to fight, so in a verbal dispute a scientist should not argue with an ignoramus, since he cannot use his best arguments against him, because he simply does not understand or appreciate them. for lack of knowledge.

And how not to recall here the words of the great Saadi, an Eastern sage and thinker:

A fool with a scientist enters into a dispute

And even wins sometimes.

Priceless pearl, it happens

Cobblestone breaks easily.

The behavior of polemicists is largely determined by their individual characteristics, temperament properties, and character traits.

The national customs and cultural traditions of the people and the country also influence the behavior of the polemicists .

For example, ceremoniality, the rules of verbal communication do not allow the Japanese to argue fervently. It is considered indecent and rude.

D. Ya. Tsvetov in the book “The Fifteenth Stone of the Garden of Ryoandzi” notes that courtesy understood in Japanese forces us to avoid clear, well-reasoned statements. Instead of them, the Japanese use first of all their views. In addition to the views, fragments of phrases, gestures, indirect ambiguous statements help the Japanese not to convey his thoughts to the Japanese. The ability to be investigated through such a conversation about other people's intentions, in order to cope with them or, on the contrary, to resist them, without dropping the merits of the opposite side, is considered an important quality among the Japanese. Therefore, Japan is called a country where people do not argue. Japanese physicist X. Yukawa believes that being a polemicist is not for the Japanese, because the heated debate of the Western sample is not their custom. Too hot a dispute can lead to a quarrel, inadvertently offend the interlocutor, and of course, the Japanese avoid such disputes. In the West, these problems do not arise, on the contrary, constant disputes there bring people together, make them friends, an old tradition of controversy is cultivated there - a kind of art that needs to be learned. Debater in Japan is difficult.

V. Ovchinnikov, a publicist in the book Sakura and Oak, shares his observations on the behavior of the Japanese and the English in a dispute, their manner of expressing their point of view. For example, he tells how the Japanese are avoiding emerging disputes. It is noteworthy that at all levels they strive to avoid categorical judgments, try not to pronounce the words “yes”, “no”, “for”, “against”. As a rule, the participants in the discussion do not state their opinion at once and certainly do not propose anything concrete. Usually they initially express a small, most indisputable part of what they think about this issue. They kind of make a cautious step forward and immediately look back at the others.

The Japanese, whatever post they hold, are wary of opposing themselves to others, are afraid to be isolated, they try not to bring the matter to an open collision of opposing views.

Their discussions last a long time, as each participant sets out, step by step, his position, modifying it in the process, taking into account the statements of others. The purpose of the debate is to identify differences of opinion and gradually bring everyone to a common agreement.

The British, like the Japanese, also have a tendency to avoid categorical judgments or denials. The words “yes” and “no” and they try to express allegorically, as if these are some obscene concepts. The virtue of the British is their balanced, livable nature. In everyday life, they skillfully avoid painful collisions, adapt and adapt to each other, showing mutual forethought, restraint and tolerance. They are able to maintain self-control in a dispute, remain objective both to themselves and to others, recognizing that, since any truth has many sides, there can be various judgments about it.

Polemists are not indifferent to who is watching the dispute, who is witnessing their victory or defeat. Therefore, in the presence of some, they behave with restraint, correctly, with others they are relaxed and free, others simply do not pay attention. Often the behavior of the debaters varies depending on the reaction of those present.

Of course, a polemicist needs to measure his abilities, capabilities with the object of attack, with the forces of the enemy. It is important that during a dispute, an environment is created that would not allow individual debaters to behave arrogantly, with aplomb, and even cheeky. It is good when people are involved in the dispute, whose presence can hold back too hot and sometimes unscrupulous debaters.

So, during a dispute, pay attention to the behavior of your opponent. Try to understand the motives of his actions and statements, take into account the individual characteristics of his character, the manner of arguing.

• Pick up convincing arguments to justify your position and to refute the position of your opponent.

The practice of polemical speeches shows that a variety of situations arise in a dispute. A polemicist logically corrects the thesis advanced, but this does not convince opponents, since the evidence is difficult for them and is not perceived by them. On the contrary, reasoning is sometimes convincing, based not on evidence, but on prejudice, on the lack of awareness of people in various issues, belief in authorities, etc. The eloquence of the polemist, the pathos of his speech, confidence in his voice, impressive appearance, etc., have a great influence. In other words, it is possible to prove some position, but not to convince others about its truth and, conversely, to convince, but not to prove. However, the polemicist should keep in mind that in most cases the basis of persuasive speech is its evidence.

A polemicist should not forget that the point is not in the number of arguments, but in their quality. There are strong arguments and the weak. The argument against which it is easy to find an objection that is difficult to rebut is called weak. And if the opponent is forced to agree with the argument without any clarification, it means that a strong argument was used. Of course, the use of arguments is largely determined by the goals that a polemicist sets. In order to achieve his goal, a polemic should know well the person to whom his arguments are addressed, and give arguments taking into account the individual characteristics of the opponent.

Selecting these or other arguments, you need to take care that they affect not only the mind of the listeners, but also their feelings. If a speaker touches upon any feelings in his speech - a sense of duty and honor, a sense of responsibility for the work assigned, a sense of camaraderie, etc., then his speech affects listeners more, it is better remembered. Why is this happening? Psychologists have proven that the emotional state of the listener, his subjective attitude to the subject of speech, has a strong influence on the process of persuasion.

Recall how Ostap Bender plays on the ambitious feelings of the Vasiuk residents of Vasiuk and draws tremendous prospects for the development of the Vasiukov in the event of an international chess tournament there. Vasyukinsky chess players heeded him "with filial love." Ostap, feeling a surge of new strength, said:

“- My project guarantees your city an unprecedented flowering of productive forces. Think about what will happen when the tournament ends and when all the guests leave. Residents of Moscow, constrained by the housing crisis, will rush to your magnificent city. The capital automatically goes to Vasyuki. Here comes the government. Vasyuki is renamed to New Moscow, Moscow - to Old Vasyuki. The people of Leningrad and Kharkiv gnash their teeth, but they can do nothing. New Moscow is becoming the most elegant center of Europe and the whole world.

-All over the world!!! - the stunned Vasuki people groaned.

-Yes! And subsequently the universe. Chess thought, which turned the county town into the capital of the globe, Turn into an applied science and invent ways of interplanetary communication. Signals will fly from Vasyukov to Mars, Jupiter and Neptune. Communication with Venus will be as easy as moving from Rybinsk to Yaroslavl. And there, who knows, maybe eight years later in Vasyuki the first interplanetary chess congress in the history of the universe will take place! ”

How does the statement of Helvetius approach this situation: “There are people who need to be stunned in order to convince”.

Finding strong and convincing arguments is far from simple. There are no special rules to memorize. Much depends on a good knowledge of the subject of the dispute, on the general erudition of the polemicist, his resourcefulness and ingenuity, on the speed of reaction, on self-control and self-control, on understanding the current situation, mastering the logical operations of proof and refutation. It is important to choose the only true words that will affect the audience in this particular situation.

6. Polemic techniques

To defend their point of view and to disprove the opinion of the opponent, the participants in the dispute use various polemical techniques.

Boomerang reception

Quite often in discussions and controversies, a “back kick”, or the so-called boomerang technique, is used. The English word boomerang means a throwing gun, with a skillful throw, returning to the place from which it was fired. The polemical reception is that the thesis or argument is turned against those who expressed them. At the same time, the impact force increases many times. The defeat of the enemy becomes obvious to all those present.

A kind of “return strike” is considered to be “pickup of the replica”. During the discussion of controversial issues polemists often throw remarks of a different nature. The ability to apply the opponent’s cue in order to strengthen one’s own argumentation, expose the views and position of the opponent, and exert psychological influence on those present is an effective device in polemics. “Replica pickup” is often used when speaking at congresses, conferences, and rallies.

Let us give one very curious example of the use of the methods of “return strike”, “pick-up of a replica”, described in S. Zvantsev's story “The Case of Valagano”.

The essence of the matter was as follows. In the eighties of the last century, Taganrog briskly traded with overseas countries. A young trading broker, i.e. an intermediary at the conclusion of trade transactions, unexpectedly became fabulously wealthy for everyone. For a long time no one could understand what the source of his wealth was. And when it became clear, Valiano was already so rich that he was not afraid of exposures. Valiano was a special kind of smuggler: he imported forbidden goods by whole steamers.

There was a customs rule: after the officials checked the cargo and calculated the duty, the cargo owner was entitled to either, having paid the duty, pick up the goods from the ship, or, refusing to pay, sink the cargo in the roadstead. The sinking act was filed to the case, and the steamer went on the return flight.

In reality, there was no drowning. Valyano had a whole flotilla of Turkish feluccas chartered - roomy boats, and the entire cargo from the ship, and not from the bottom of the Sea of ​​Azov, fell into the basements of Valiano's mansion.

A new prosecutor arrived in Taganrog, thirsty for a career. He opened a case against Valiano, which was moving with extraordinary speed. No attempt to bribe the prosecutor failed. Valiano was threatened with three months in prison, and most importantly - a fine for smuggling in the amount of 12 million rubles, i.e. all his fortune.

A. Ya. Passover, a specialist in civil suits, was invited as a defender.

And here is the court hearing. The prosecutor delivers a speech. It lasts three hours. Valyano wine proven. Compared to the prosecutor, the defender was unusually brief. He spoke no more than 5-6 minutes. He only stated that Valiano should be justified, since he imported cargo on Turkish feluccas. And in an explanation of the Senate Judicial Department with an exhaustive listing of all types of sea contraband: boats, barges, boats, rafts, even rescue belts and shipwrecks, even empty barrels of rum - flat-bottomed Turkish feluccas are not mentioned. And explanations of the governing senate are not subject to disseminative interpretation.

“The pale face of the prosecutor was flushed. He jumped up and almost shouted in a trembling voice:

“Valiano is a smuggler!” If he hadn’t been one, he couldn’t pay a million rubles to his defender for protection!

In the hall gasped. One million rubles?! Unheard of figure! The prosecutor's remark immediately turned against him.

“Yes, I got a million,” the defender calmly replied. “So my words are so precious!” And now let's calculate how much the words of the prosecutor cost ...

“In the year, the prosecutor receives three thousand 600 rubles,” the “good-natured” lawyer calculated out loud, - a month - three hundred, therefore, a day, including today, - ten rubles. The prosecutor said his speech today for three hours, said 45 thousand words for his ten rubles. How much is the word of the prosecutor?

Stretched out, Passover shouted:

“A dumb price to the word of the prosecutor!”

The process was won. Valiano was acquitted.

"Reduction to the absurd"

A common method of denial is "bringing to the point of absurdity", "reduction to absurdity."

The essence of this technique is to show the falsity of a thesis or argument, since the consequences arising from it contradict reality.

Brilliantly used this technique in one of his speeches at the trial of F. N. Plevako, a remarkable Russian lawyer who had an amazing gift of speech.

“In Plevako,” wrote AF Koni, “through the external appearance of the defender, there was a tribune for which the case was only a pretext and which was obstructed by the fence of the particular case, which hampered the flapping of its wings with all its inherent strength.” The passionate and agitated voice of F. N. Plevako captured and conquered the audience, remained in their memory for a long time. According to the memoirs of V.V. Veresaev, he defended the old woman who stole a tin kettle worth 50 kopecks. In the accusatory speech, the prosecutor noted that the theft was insignificant, that the poor old woman had been pushed by a bitter need for a crime, that the defendant was causing not indignation, but only pity. But despite this, he stressed, the old woman must be condemned, since she has encroached on the property, and the property is sacred, all civil amenities are kept on property, and if you allow people to encroach on it, the country will die. After him made a defender Plevako. He said this:

“Russia had to endure many troubles and trials for its more than a thousand-year existence. Pechenegs tormented her, Polovtsy, Tatars, Poles. Twofold tongues collapsed on her, took Moscow. All suffered, Russia overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from testing. But now, now ... the old woman stole an old teapot at fifty kopeks. Russia, of course, cannot endure this, it will perish forever from this. ”

And the court acquitted the old woman.

Humor, irony, sarcasm

The use of humor, irony, sarcasm is considered an effective polemical means.

Humor is a kindly, mocking attitude to something; irony - subtle mockery, expressed in a latent form; sarcasm - stinging mockery, evil irony.

These techniques enhance the polemical tone of speech, its emotional impact on listeners, help defuse a tense situation, create a certain mood when discussing sensitive issues, help polemists to succeed in a dispute.

An ironic or humorous remark can confuse an opponent, put him in a difficult situation, and sometimes even destroy a carefully constructed evidence, although this remark in itself does not always have a direct relationship to the subject of the dispute. Therefore, do not get lost. It is best to behave in a natural way. If it is ridiculous, you can laugh with everyone, and then you must go back to discussing the substance of the problem.

В судебных прениях юмор чаще всего бывает неуместен, а вот ирония и сарказм, направленные на разрушение представленного доказательства, помогают создать образное представление о преступлении, оказать необходимое воздействие на судей и присяжных заседателей.

«Довод к человеку»

Иногда вместо обсуждения по существу того или иного положения начинают оценивать достоинства и недостатки человека, его выдвинувшего. Такой прием в полемике называют «довод к человеку». Он оказывает сильное психологическое воздействие.

«Довод к человеку» как полемический прием должен применяться в сочетании с другими достоверными и обоснованными аргументами. Как самостоятельное доказательство он считается логической ошибкой, состоящей в подмене самого тезиса ссылками на личные качества того, кто его выдвинул.

Разновидностью «довода к человеку» является прием, который называется «апелляция к публике». Цель приема — повлиять на чувства слушателей, их мнения, интересы, склонить аудиторию на сторону говорящего.

Атака вопросами

Атака вопросами — полемический прием, состоящий в том, что очередное высказывание полемист заканчивает вопросом оппоненту, заставляя его все время отвечать на вопросы. Цель этого приема состоит в том, чтобы сделатьположение оппонента затруднительным, заставить его защищаться, оправдываться, создать для себя наиболее благоприятные условия спора.

Таковы основные приемы, помогающие более эффективно вести дискуссию, полемику.

продолжение следует...

Продолжение:

Часть 1 BASES OF POLEMIC EXPERIENCE dispute, types, strategy tactics and techniques