14.1 The Art of Dispute How not to argue Example of a stupid dispute Analysis of a dispute

How not to argue

In the novel F. Rabelais “Gargantua and Pantagruel” colorfully describes the litigation between the two nobles. Rabelais exaggerates and brings to caricature the features inherent in some ordinary disputes. This parody expressively shows how the dispute should not be.

An example of a stupid dispute

The plaintiff was called Lizizad, the defendant was Peyvino, Pantagruel was to deliver the verdict.

Lizizad began as follows:

"- Your Majesty! That one of my maidservants went to the market to sell eggs is the absolute truth ... She had to go the distance between the tropics to the zenith of six silver coins and several coppers, the Riphean Mountains discovered perfect infertility this year and did not give a single fake stone because of the indignation of the jokers because of the feuds between the nonsense and the millers about the Swiss rebellion ... "

Peivino said this:

“- Gracious sovereign and gracious sovereigns! If untruth could be just as easily discerned and make a categorical judgment about it, as it is easy to see in the milk of flies, then the world is four bulls! - would not have been ravaged to such an extent as it is in our time, and everyone would have put their ear on the ground in the most cunning manner, for although everything that the opposing party says about the form and content of the act, has the plumage of truth, gracious sovereigns, under a pot of roses lurk cunning, tomfoolery, dirty tricks ... "

After such statements by the claimant and the defendant, the sentence was, of course, clear, and Pantagruel read it out:

"- Considering the shivering bat, bravely deviating from the summer solstice, in order to care for tales, which with the help of a pawn managed to make a check and checkmate ... be friends again, without paying costs, and this court session is closed."

After the announcement of the verdict, both the claimant and the defendant left, both of them being quite satisfied with the decision. Thus ended this dispute, and its end was as ridiculous as he himself.

Dispute Analysis

Each of us has participated in a wide variety of disputes and discussions, so that the general principles of the conduct of the dispute are known to us and without any theory. You can easily call the usual rules of the dispute, which are violated - and, moreover, unequivocally and roughly - in the case of two characters Rabelais.

First of all, they do not have a subject of dispute, there is no single topic about which different points of view could be expressed. And to be strict, one can say that there is no dispute as such, for there is nothing but relatively unclear mutual insults and claims. It is not surprising that a person from the outside would not have been able to intervene in the course of the controversy, which remains completely dark for him. Everyone understands that it is unwise to immediately get involved in a dispute, say, about the Danish language, having first heard about it.

In this dispute, without a single and clear topic, the disputants do not find it necessary to listen to each other. One does not delve into the arguments of the other; each leads his own party, which is in no way connected with the opponent’s party. Such a dispute reminds the musicians to test their instruments before the beginning of the concert: everyone plays what he pleases, not music, but cacophony is heard.

It is difficult to tell about the majority of statements of the disputants whether they are true or false. Most likely, a fair amount of fiction and malevolence are mixed with the faithful. And, of course, there is no internal logic in the dispute. The statements of the disputants do not communicate with each other, some of them do not follow from others. But there are words hinting at logical connections and creating the impression of a certain sequence of reasoning. This is a fraudulent trick: giving the appearance of consistency to that which is devoid of internal logic.

All these errors and tricks are easy, of course, to detect. But primarily because they are very prominently filed. Exactly the same in nature errors can occur in ordinary disputes unnoticed.

This suggests that the practice of handling disputes, no matter how extensive it may be, is in itself far from always sufficient for skillful handling of a dispute. Here, as elsewhere, a good theory can give a lot.