14.3 Correct and incorrect methods in dispute

Tactical techniques that help win the dispute can be divided into correct and incorrect, or loyal and disloyal.

The first ones are mostly technical in nature, they have an element of cunning, but there is no direct deception. Techniques of the second kind are various deceptive actions.

It is necessary to study, of course, those tactics and other tactics. Correct - to know how you can, using permissible means, to defend their point of view. Incorrect - to anticipate what can be expected from an unscrupulous enemy in the means, and to be able to bring him to clean water.

Correct methods of dispute

A dispute is a struggle, and common methods of successful struggle are also applicable in a dispute.

In any struggle, initiative is very valuable. In a dispute, it is important who sets his topic, how exactly it is determined. You need to be able to lead the course of the dispute according to your own scenario.

It is recommended, further, not to defend, but to advance. Even defense is better led by an offensive. Instead of responding to the objections of the enemy, we must make him defend himself and respond to the objections raised against him. Anticipating his arguments, you can advance, without waiting for him to express them, to push them yourself and refute.

It is also recommended to concentrate actions aimed at the central link of the opponent's argument system or at its weakest link.

You can use in the dispute the method of refutation of the arguments of the enemy with his own weapon. From the assumptions taken by him, one should always try to deduce the consequences supporting the thesis you are defending. Of particular interest in this case are unexpected for the enemy investigation, which he does not even suspect.

The effect of surprise can be used in many other ways. For example, hold the most unexpected and important information by the end of the dispute.

Often, especially when the subject of the dispute is not sufficiently defined, it may be useful not to take a tough stance from the very beginning, not to rush to determine it firmly and unequivocally. Otherwise, in the changing circumstances of a dispute, it will be difficult to modify it and, all the more, to give up something.

It is believed that there is nothing unwarranted and in this technique, how to take the floor at the very end of the dispute, knowing all the arguments of the speakers and depriving them of the possibility of a detailed answer. However, this method is hardly democratic: it is not available to everyone involved in the dispute.

Incorrect methods of dispute

Frequent, but obviously incorrect reception in the dispute - the so-called swept thesis. Instead of justifying the proposition being put forward, arguments are made in favor of another statement put forward instead of the one that was required to be proved.

For example, we must show that apples cannot grow on aspen; instead, it is proved that they usually grow on apple trees and are not found on pears or cherries.

The substitution of the thesis may be complete or partial. Feeling that it is impossible to prove or justify the position that has been put forward, the debater may try to shift his attention to a discussion of another, perhaps important, statement, but not directly related to the original position. Sometimes, instead of a thesis, some weaker assertion is proved which follows from it.

Many of the techniques indicated below are just modifications of this thesis substitution by some other position that takes the dispute to a different direction.

Another incorrect technique is the use of false and unproved arguments in the hope that the opposing side will not notice.

The use of false, unproved or unverified arguments is often accompanied by revolutions: “we all know,” “it has long been established,” “it is completely obvious,” “no one will deny,” etc. The listener is left with one thing: reproaching oneself for not knowing what has long been known to everyone.

One form of lie is sometimes practiced deliberate obfuscation or confusion. In the speech of the one who resorts to such a reception, it is possible that some information is contained, but it is extremely difficult to catch.

Some incorrect methods of conducting dispute, which are used quite often, got their own names.

Argument to the public - instead of justifying the truth or falsity of the thesis with objective arguments, they try to rely on the opinions, feelings and moods of the listeners. The person who took advantage of this argument does not appeal to his partner in the dispute, but to other participants or even casual listeners and seeks to attract them to his side, appealing mainly to their feelings, and not to reason.

So, in one of the discussions about the theory of the origin of Charles Darwin’s species, Bishop Vilberforce asked the audience if their ancestors were monkeys. The biologist T. Huxley, who defended this theory, responded that he was ashamed not for his monkey ancestors, but for people who lacked intelligence and who are not able to take seriously the conclusions of Darwin.

The argument of the bishop is a typical argument to the public. It seemed to those who were present at this discussion, which took place at the end of the 19th century, not quite decent to have even distant ancestors of apes as their own.

The argument to the person - the enemy is credited with such flaws, real or only imaginary, which present him in a ridiculous light, cast a shadow on his mental abilities, and undermine the credibility of his reasoning.

This kind of “criticism” of the enemy, attributing to it bad traits or discrediting motives lead to the fact that the NS is already the essence of what he says, and his very person becomes the subject of accusations. Even if the accusations against the adversary are fair, this technique is incorrect, since it changes the plane of the dispute. From the fact that a person made some mistakes, it does not at all follow that one should also treat with distrust the things he said. Juggling with the negative characteristics of the opponent’s personality, which have nothing to do with the substance of the issue in question, is unacceptable in a friendly dispute.

The argument to the person is especially offensive when one of the disputants ascribes his own negative traits or discrediting motives to the other. On the advice of one traitor to do just that, I. S. Turgenev recalled:

- If you are, for example, a renegade, - reproach the enemy with the fact that he has no convictions!

“If you are a lackey in your heart, speak with reproach that he is a lackey ... a lackey of civilization, Europe, socialism ...”

- You can even say: a lackey of lack of luck! - I noticed.

“And it can be done,” said the scoundrel.

Among the arguments to the person can be attributed the case when, in order to refute any accusations, the dignity of the defendant is protruded.

So does, for example, a lawyer who speaks in court:

- Gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Judge! My client confessed that he stole. This is a valuable and sincere confession. I would even say that it testifies to an unusually solid and deep nature, a brave and honest person. Is it possible, gentlemen, that a person possessing such rare qualities be a thief?

Argument to man - in support of his position, the reasons put forward by the opposing party to the dispute or arising from its provisions are given.

For example, students ask a botany teacher to go to a forest instead of a lesson. At the same time, they refer to the fact that, as he himself has repeatedly said, direct contact with nature is the best way to learn its secrets.

This kind of argument is dishonest only in the case when the person who resorts to it does not share this belief and only pretends to join the common platform.

The argument for vanity is the waste of unlimited praise to the enemy in a dispute in the hope that, touched by the compliments, he will become softer and more agreeable.

This argument can be considered a special case of the argument to the person. As soon as the discussion begins to meet the type of “there is no doubt about the deep erudition of the opponent”, “as a person of outstanding merits, opponent ...”, etc., a veiled argument to vanity can be assumed.

The argument for timidity, or authority, is an appeal in support of their views to the ideas and names of those with whom the adversary does not dare to argue, even if, in his opinion, they are wrong.

For example, in discussions on worldview issues, one side refers to the authority of great scientists: physicists, mathematicians, and chemists. The other side feels that these authorities in private areas are not always right in the most general issues, but do not risk to speak out against them.

The argument to physical strength (“to the stick”) is the threat of unpleasant consequences, in particular the threat of violence or the direct use of some means of coercion.

For example, by instructing a son who disagrees with him, the father threatens that he will punish him if he brings a troika from school.

The argument to ignorance - a reference to the ignorance, and even ignorance of the enemy in matters relating to the essence of the dispute; Mentioning of such facts or provisions that no one of the disputants knows and cannot verify.

Suppose a well-known principle is given, but formulated in Latin, so that the other side, who does not know this language, does not understand what is being said, and at the same time does not want to show it. Sometimes the opponent’s inability to refute a statement is presented as an argument in favor of this statement: “Can you prove that no one is able to read the thoughts of another? £ -“ No, I can't. ” - "So, I must agree that someone is able to do it."

The argument for pity is the excitement in the other side of pity and sympathy.

For example, a student who did not pass the exam asks the professor to deliver at least satisfactorily to him, otherwise he will be denied scholarships.

All these arguments are, of course, incorrect ways to protect their position. But it is easy to notice that the use of some is easier to understand and excuse than the use of others. Some cannot be justified by anything.

Such tricks as deliberate avoiding the topic, long talk about things that have nothing to do with the issues under discussion, attempts to confuse the main idea in more often details and details are inadmissible in the dispute, so that the dispute’s attention to what seems to be advantageous , etc.

It is known that our shortcomings are the essence of the continuation of our virtues. But if we indulge in even the best of weaknesses, he will destroy the best of our virtues.

Flexibility of mind is a wonderful trait of man. However, if she is sent to using tricks and deceptions to pass off the false for the true and the wrong for the fair, she becomes an obstacle to the way a person cognizes peace and life.