11 LOGICAL TACT AND MANNER TO DISPUTE

In relation to the arguments of the opponent, people who wish to succeed in disputes should avoid two extremes: 1) should not persist, when either the argument of the opponent is obvious, or is obviously correctly proved; 2) it should not be too easy to agree with the argument of the enemy, if this argument seems to him to be correct.

To persist, if the argument of the opponent is immediately obvious or proven with undoubted obviousness, it is stupid and harmful for the disputant. This only leads to the path of sophisms - if it is impossible to get out of a difficult situation honestly and with dignity, then try to use dishonest tricks for this. Sometimes for the listener or for the reader they pass unnoticed, especially if the disputant enjoys authority. But in the eyes of the opponent and those who understand the essence of the matter, this does not give respect to the person who is trying to resort to such tricks. It is clear that a person does not have enough courage and honesty, as well as a love of truth, to admit to a mistake. Unfortunately, such persistence is found even in scientific disputes. In public, political and similar disputes, where it is necessary to reckon with the psychology of the popular masses and dishonest methods of some opponents, it is sometimes necessary to not openly admit their mistakes, at least until a certain time has elapsed when the severity of the issue will fall. Sometimes, even from the point of view of tactics, it is advantageous to immediately, openly, and honestly admit one's mistake: this can raise respect and trust in doing so. The courageous and open, made with dignity consciousness of a mistake involuntarily inspires respect. It must be remembered that, once a mistake was noticed, you can’t hide it: the opponent will most likely be able to use it in its entirety and in its own interests.

Quite often we have to observe cases of excessive perseverance in private ordinary disputes. It sometimes comes here to the point that it goes into the so-called “donkey stubbornness” and becomes simply ridiculous. The defender of her mistake begins to pile up in her favor such incredible arguments, such sophisms, that the listener of an argument sometimes just waving his hand away. This is especially the case with young, arrogant debaters.

However, if the dispute is important and serious, it is wrong to accept the arguments of the opponent without the most vigilant caution. Here, as in many other serious cases, it is necessary, as one old Russian saying goes, “try on seven times and cut one off”. It often happens that the argument of the enemy seems to us very convincing and irrefutable from the first, but then, after thinking it over properly, we are convinced that he is arbitrary or even false.

Sometimes the realization of this comes even in dispute. But the argument has already been adopted, and it is necessary, as they say, “to take consent to it back” - which always makes an unfavorable impression on the audience and can be used to the detriment of us, especially a dishonest and impudent opponent. If we are convinced that we have taken the "fake piece of paper for the present," when it is absolutely impossible to correct the error, it remains only to remember this and put it into the form of experience, which is sometimes "more precious than money." But in advance, we will be more careful in accepting other people's arguments. And the more important, more serious the dispute, the higher should be our caution and exactingness for agreement with the arguments of the enemy (all other things being equal).

The measure of this exactingness and caution for every single case is common sense and a special logical tact. They help to decide whether this argument is obvious and reliable and does not require further verification, or it is better to wait with agreement on it; whether it is sufficient in this dispute or insufficient. If the argument seems convincing to us, we cannot find objections against it, but caution still requires postponing agreement with it and thinking about it better before, then we usually resort to three ways to get out of the difficulty. The most direct and honest is the conditional acceptance of the argument. “I accept your argument conditionally. Let us assume for now that it is true. How does your thesis follow from it? ” Or “what other arguments do you want to give?”, Etc. With such a conditional argument, the thesis can only be proved conditionally: if this argument is true, then the thesis is true. But the most common technique is another: declaring an argument arbitrary. We demand proof of it from the adversary, despite the fact that the argument seems reliable to us.

Finally, very often various tricks are used, starting with permissive, like the usual ottyagivaniya answer to the argument (in the hope that it comes to mind an objection to it or we finally make sure of its truth), ending with various unacceptable tricks, which will be farther.

The manner of arguing is of great, often enormous importance in a dispute. Here, too, there are many different varieties and shades. Some disputes are conducted in a gentlemanly, knightly manner; others - on the principle: "in war - as in war." Still others - just “rude”. Gentleman's argument is the highest form of argument. In such a dispute, no inappropriate tricks are allowed. The disputant treats the opponent and his opinions with respect, never going down to ridicule, disdainful tone, ridicule, rudeness or inappropriate jokes. He not only does not try to distort the arguments of the enemy or give them a weaker form, but, on the contrary, he tries to evaluate them in all their strength, to give due to the portion of truth that they may consist in, be fair to them and impartial. Sometimes even he himself from himself deepens the arguments of the enemy, if the enemy has missed some important advantageous side for them. All the more his attention may attract objections against these arguments. In higher forms of dispute - in a dispute for the study of truth and in some cases of a dispute for persuasion - this manner of arguing is extremely conducive to the achievement of the task of the dispute. It requires intelligence, tact and mental balance.

But in many “martial” disputes, disputes with sophists who are not shy in receptions, this manner of arguing is not always acceptable. It is not always acceptable to have “knighthood” in a war: sometimes you have to sacrifice it for self-defense, for higher interests, if the enemy, using our “knighthood,” is not ashamed of himself in any methods. Here, inevitably, it is necessary to apply to the requirements of the practice — aptly and deadly sharpness, as well as various tricks are permissible to avoid the tricks of the enemy, and the like. But here, too, there is a trait for which an honest person in an argument will never pass. Behind this feature, the “boorish” methods of the dispute begin.

The “boorish dispute”, first of all, is distinguished by open disrespect or disregard for the opinions of the opponent. If the disputant admits of rude tricks, such as “breaking off a dispute” or “cane arguments” (this will be discussed below), if he allows a dismissive or contemptuous tone, laughter, mockery of the arguments of the opponent; if he humiliates himself to harsh words close to battle, scoffs at each other with listeners, winks at them, etc., etc. - then these are all the features of that manner of arguing, which cannot be called “boorish”. And the more aplomb and arrogance is manifested in this, the element of “rudeness” is brighter and more disgusting. There is no need to argue with an opponent who adheres to this manner of argument.

Of other similar kinds of manners to argue, one should perhaps also note the undesirable "Chichikov" manner, in which only the appearance of a dispute is obtained; at least, a serious dispute in such a manner is impossible. Chichikov, as is known, “if he argued, it was somehow extremely clever, so everyone saw that he was arguing, and meanwhile he was pleasantly arguing.” “In order to even more agree with his opponents, he each time offered them his silver and enamel snuff box, at the bottom of which lay two violets laid there for the smell.” These disputes "with violets" - an amateur. They are to the place except in the living rooms, where more verbiage is welcomed, rather than a serious argument.

Of great importance for the manner of the dispute are the ability to control themselves and the characteristics of temperament. It is extremely important whether we argue calmly, coolly or excitedly, excitedly, violently. Here, in the form of a rule, one can say: with other conditions, approximately equal, a more cold-blooded debater always invariably overcomes. He has a huge advantage: his thought is calm, clear, works with ordinary force. If there is a relatively easy excitement of the struggle, some emotional uplifting that intensifies the work of thinking, the better, of course; they do not interfere with the coolness of the dispute. But a little agitation arises, here the person begins to get excited and excited. His mental work is now weakening, and the more excited he is, the worse its results, by and large. Such a person can not fully own either their own strength or their stock of knowledge.

Moreover, the peace of mind of the disputant, if it is not emphasized intentionally, often acts beneficially on the hot opponent, and the dispute can get a more correct look. On the contrary, vehemence and irritation also tend to be transferred to the opponent. Calm, confident and judicious arguments often act surprisingly convincingly. A prudent, calm-confident tone acts pleasantly on heated minds, like a cold shower on a heated body, and appeals to listeners. If a person is smart enough and can talk, his success is almost certain. Confident calm in such cases is a huge force. In general, a good argument requires, above all, calm and endurance. The hot debater, constantly falling into an excited state, will never be a master of oral dispute; whatever knowledge of the theory of dispute and logic is possessed, no matter how sharp his mind is.

But here, of course, it is necessary to avoid extremes. Tranquility should not turn into lethargy and into weakness. Should not apply and that exaggerated, exaggerated calm and composure, which many use when the enemy is particularly hot. The consciousness that this “underlined” composure only adds fuel to the fire sometimes makes it more underscore it. In a dispute for persuasion, it is an unforgivable mistake: to enter into irritation does not mean to contribute to persuasion.