9 CONDITIONS TO BEGIN DISPUTE

Everything we say (or write) in a dispute should serve mainly for three purposes: 1) for awareness; 2) justify their thoughts and 3) to refute the thoughts of the enemy.

Awareness - a very important part in the dispute and in the right hands can be an indispensable tool. It is a pity that they use too little or do not know how to use at all. Awareness of the dispute could be compared with intelligence in military operations. Without it, you can not confidently attack or defend.

Applied awareness in various cases. For example, without it, as a rule, it is impossible to clarify the thesis, or rather, how our opponent understands the thesis, it is impossible to clarify the arguments of the enemy, etc. It often serves as a preparation for an attack and in another sense: we try to find out the views of the enemy on one or another subject, then to refute his thesis or justify his own, based on his own views. You can be informed in various ways. Most often in the oral dispute for this use questions and answers. But one can resort (in a written dispute even more often) to other ways of informing: to look through, for example, other writings or words of the author, to compare his thoughts expressed at different times, etc.

The first task of informing the dispute and the dispute itself is to find out how our opponent understands the controversial thesis if we do not quite know that. You should never forget this task and do not skimp on information.

This form of awareness is suitable only for exercises in a dispute and in scientific disputes. In general, it is necessary to use “awareness by questions” in an easy, natural, conversational, as inconspicuous manner as possible. This greatly helps practice.

A particularly difficult point of reference is the meaning of a word, as understood by its adversary. Very often he has an extremely vague idea of ​​the meaning of a given word, although sometimes he himself is sure that he understands it perfectly. Then you have to somehow force him to "define" a word at least approximately. Sometimes the enemy understands the word like this, and we otherwise. In these and similar cases, there is often a debate about the definitions of a word, usually more or less difficult, often indecisive. In the end, participants in a dispute may not get to a dispute about a thesis or about proving a thesis and spend all the time and energy on a dispute about the definitions of a word from a thesis.

Such “disputes about definitions,” if conducted by intelligent people, are often very useful for both parties. Sometimes they unexpectedly reveal our ignorance in matters in which we were unaware of him. They dispel the nebula of thinking and usually introduce some order and accuracy in thinking. But as far as the dispute about the thesis or its evidence is important and interesting for us, it is as necessary to reduce the dispute about definitions as much as possible, demanding from determining only such a degree of accuracy without which this dispute cannot be conducted. It must be remembered that to give a completely accurate and indisputable definition of a word as far as possible for all words. In science itself, there are many words, the meaning of which is determined differently, and for them there is no such definition on which everyone would agree. So, if we demand in the usual dispute an “impeccable” definition, then we can argue ad infinitum. You only need sufficient definition for the dispute. When is it enough? Only common sense and logical tact can answer this.

If the participants understand the meaning of the word clearly, but differently, then it is often best for someone to “sacrifice” their definition or completely discard the controversial word, replacing it with another, more appropriate word or expression. For example, I want to refute the thesis: "logic is practically useless." When clarifying it, it turns out that the enemy understands the word “logic” quite differently than I do. He calls logic the theory of knowledge, and in my opinion logic is the science of evidence, their types, rules, mistakes, etc. When this difference in understanding became clear, four outcomes opened up before us: a) you can start a debate about definitions. But this case is hopeless in this case. There are many scientific definitions of logic, but there is not one that can be considered generally accepted. So, you can argue about them without end; b) you can simply refuse the dispute. “You understand the tasks of logic in this way, and I understand it differently. So we should not argue. All the same, we can not disagree with anything ”; c) I can sacrifice my definition. “OK, we’ll accept your definition. But even then, it is necessary to recognize the logic as practically useful ”; d) I can completely drop the word “logic” and replace it with another expression that corresponds to my thought. It's not about the names. For me here it does not matter how we call the doctrine of evidence logic or in some other way. I put the question differently: do you acknowledge that the doctrine of evidence is practically useful, and if the adversary accepts such a question, there can be a dispute on the merits.

When the thesis is clarified, the participants in the dispute are once again given the occasion to decide whether to enter into a dispute over this thesis with the adversary or whether it is better to abandon the dispute. This case should not be neglected if the dispute is not necessary and does not have for us the nature of sports. Whether we argue for the study of truth, or for persuasion, or for victory, each of these types of dispute has its own specific requirements for the thesis and the adversary, and if the thesis and the adversary do not correspond to them, it is better to give up the dispute. If it is important for us to highlight any issue in a dispute, we will not waste time arguing with an ignorant adversary in this matter or arguing over an “uninteresting” or obviously credible or obviously absurd thesis. When we propose to convince someone, we must first ask ourselves whether there is a “common ground” for a dispute with the enemy, that is, such common thoughts for both of us, which can be relied upon to prove this thesis.

Sometimes it is necessary to “probe” the adversary on this account by means of awareness. Without common ground through an honest dispute is not convincing. When arguing “for victory,” an experienced “lover of laurels” carefully avoids the “ungrateful” theses for the dispute and the adversary, “dubious” in strength, whenever possible. Only an athlete of the dispute is ready to grapple with any opponent and because of any thesis. He "just to argue."

There are such theses that a serious lover of a dispute under normal conditions never argues. Such, for example, are unprovable theses. There are many. The enemy, for example, claims to have committed an act for such a motive. I am deeply convinced that he made it on a different motive. However, a dispute about this is usually impossible. The enemy can not justify his thesis, I can not refute it. Or, for example, the thesis: "this building is extremely beautiful." How to prove this thesis? "Beauty" is not proven, but felt, "revealed." In a word, “tastes differ.” A serious person will not usually argue about trivialities - “because of a damn,” as they say sometimes. Especially if there are issues of paramount importance, important and significant. When there are very important interests, and argue, omitting them, because of trifles, "because of nonsense", the dispute is called a Byzantine dispute. Every circle of circles is rich in such disputes, and shallowed science, like old scholasticism, falls into them, dropping important questions of theology to the end and sometimes seriously arguing about whether Adam had the navel or not, whether a chicken or an egg was created before.

As for the persons with whom it is necessary to enter into a dispute, then there is often a need to make an even stricter choice, if, of course, there is an opportunity to avoid the dispute. The wisdom of all ages and nations warns against arguing with fools. Countless sayings are devoted to this rule.

Such a dispute rarely benefits. One should not, of course, needlessly argue with a rude and impudent person. Such a dispute is the same as a fight with a sword against a shaft.

Among the undesirable debaters are obvious sophists, with whom it is possible to argue without need only when we know that we can “teach them a lesson” by giving them a verbal rattle. There are still many people with whom you should not argue (not to list them all). There are people who are positively incapable of correct dispute. Here are two types of such debaters: “I could never argue with him. He does not respond to your objections, he does not listen to you. Just now you stop, he begins a long tirade, apparently having some connection with what you said, but which in fact is only a continuation of his own speech ”(M.Y. Lermontov,“ Princess Mary ”, ch. i) (how similar is it to conversations with sectarians!). Even worse, though less often, is a “hysterical debater”. He constantly forgets the topic of the dispute, clutches at individual words, rushes from thought to thought, interrupts the opponent, does not literally say a word, but when trying to insert a word he shouts: “You don’t let me speak!”. He constantly throws rude but unsubstantiated accusations in the excitement: “you yourself do not understand what you say, you are inconsistent”, “you do not listen to me, but you say God knows what”, etc. At the same time, this “hysterics” can remain in full confidence that “he argues well and correctly”, and with a clear conscience to accuse the enemy, that it is he who does not know how to argue. In the end, a stunned, perplexed, sometimes offended opponent who had the misfortune to get involved in such an argument goes away, leaving the battlefield to the "triumphant winner."

It should be noted that sometimes a dispute is imposed, provoked, in order to bring it to a quarrel or to some even more bad goal.

And, finally, you need to remember the wise rule of the Gospel: “do not toss your beads before swine, do not trample it with your feet and, turning, don't tear you to pieces.” Of course, quite often an honest person is obliged to courageously go to an argument, even if he was awaited for being torn apart by pigs. But no one will do it without necessity. To be ready to sacrifice yourself should be wonderful, but to sacrifice for a broken penny is unwise. And if we had to enter into such a dispute, then we must remember that you are arguing with a pig, and that she does not particularly like pearls.

Sometimes the thesis itself is suitable, and the enemy itself is such that one can argue with him. Nevertheless, it is foolish to enter into an argument with him unnecessarily. This is when the thesis does not fit the enemy. Most often, when the thesis is such that its proof cannot be understood by the opponent or (if the dispute is for the listeners) by the listeners. The more ignorant or dumber a person is, the less he is able to understand and accept any complex thought or complex evidence. At the same time, such inability is usually accompanied by deep self-confidence and complacency. The more ignorant or stupid a person is, the more assuredly that, other things being equal, he is more confident that “the truth is in his pocket”, that “everything is very simple and he knows perfectly well”. He didn’t even think about an insulting thought to him that he was not “mature enough” to understand a complex thought or a complex proof; since they are not suitable for him, it means that they are guilty in them.

That is why an honest argument with such people about such issues is impossible. But for the sophist in such cases - an open field of action. Instead of a complex true thought, he will slip a false simple and quite understandable thought, on the shoulder of the interlocutor, and reinforce it with false, but simple and understandable proof, and you will be defeated, unless you also resort to tricks and sophisms.