The art of arguing is called Mask the true purpose of your questions

The article presents an intonational and contextual analysis of a set of English utterances with the link-verb "to be" extracted from a number of monologues and dialogues pronounced by native speakers of British English. The analysis reveals four basic models of their intonation organization and offers some explanation to account for the choice of a particular model under certain contextual conditions.

The key words: intonation, the organizing function of intonation, the link-verb "to be".

Bibliography

1. Sokolova M.A., Tikhonova I.S., Freidina E.L., Tikhonova R.M. Theoretical phonetics of the English language: A textbook for students of higher educational institutions. Dubna, Phoenix+, 2010. 192 p.

2. Buraya E.A., Galochkina I.E., Shevchenko T.I. Phonetics of modern English: a theoretical course. M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2006. 272 p.

3. Shevchenko T.I. Phonetics and phonology of the English language: A course in theoretical phonetics of the English language for bachelors. Dubna, Phoenix+, 2011. 256 p.

4. Mitrofanova E.N. Intonation and syntax as levels of structuring a readable monologue text (on the material of the English language) // Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin, St. Petersburg, 2012. V.1, No. 1. P. 100-107.

5. Aukhadieva F.S. Transpositional potencies of the German verb sein (on the problem of naming the semantic category of beingness) // Bulletin of the Udmurt University. 2011. Issue. 2. S. 36-45.

6. Funtova I.L. Cases of use and meaning of intonation endings in emphatic speech of modern British English (in comparison with the Russian language) // Bulletin of the Bryansk State University. Bryansk: RIO BGU, 2011. No. 2. S. 354-361.

7. Cruttenden A. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 214p.

8. Hancock M. English pronunciation in use: Intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 200p.

9. Terry M., Wilson J. IELTS practice tests plus 2. CDs 1-3. Pearson Education Limited, 2009.

10. Bradford B. Intonation in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 62 p.

11. Brazil D., Coulthard M., Johns C. Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching. London: Longman, 1980. 205p.

Mitrofanova E. N. - candidate of philological sciences, associate professor of Kursk State University, [email protected]

THE ART OF THE DISPUTE

V.D. Neklyudov

The article deals with one of the central problems of modern Russian rhetoric: the art of arguing. The author of the article emphasizes the great importance of the dispute in life, science, state and social activities. Truth is born in a dispute if the speaker owns the culture of debatable-polemical speech, knows the methods of defense in a verbal duel, knows how to put various questions and logically answer them. Keywords: dispute, discussion, controversy, culture of arguing, defense techniques, the art of asking questions.

With the development of democracy in our country, the focus is not on the speech of an individual speaker, but on controversy, discussion, when different opinions collide and as a result of discussing problems important to society, it becomes possible to develop the right solutions. Therefore, for modern Russian rhetoric, the art of argument comes to the fore.

In a dispute, truth is born. This aphorism emphasizes the great importance of the dispute in life, science, state and social activities. In Russia, which entered the 90s of the XX century. on the democratic path of development, the art of argument has acquired a special significance. The people realized the harmful consequences of the absolute domination of one ideology. “Woe to a country where everyone agrees,” said the Decembrist Nikita Muravyov. With a free people, persuasion takes the place of despotic coercion. And this is especially evident in disputes, discussions, polemics.

What is a dispute? In the Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language we read: “A dispute is a verbal competition when discussing something, in which each side defends its opinion, its rightness”G21. In Russian, there are synonyms for the word dispute - discussion, dispute, polemic, debate, debate. Discussion (from Latin discussio - research, consideration, analysis) is such a public dispute, the purpose of which is to clarify and compare different points of view, to find the right solution to the issue under discussion. Participants in the discussion themselves come to one or another conclusion. In a discussion confrontation, everyone can defend their point of view. The clash of opinions makes it possible to find a way out of the current situation, to reject established dogmas.

In the discussion, non-standard approaches to solving complex problems are born, specific proposals are accepted, and the initiative of the speakers is appreciated.

In the United States, about 50,000 discussions are held annually. Most of the business meetings of political and social groups are held in the form of discussions. They increase the interest of society in economic and social problems, cause a desire for positive changes in work, in the life of the country.

The discussions reveal the political and social positions of the speakers, their strong-willed qualities are revealed. It should be noted that there are no winners in the discussion, everyone wins, because all the participants in the discussion are interested in the urgent solution of topical issues. Discussions in business, political, scientific activities are needed by the new Russia like air.

In school and university practice, discussion is used as an effective method of consolidating and deepening knowledge, developing creative thinking. The topic of discussion can be problematic issues of historical science, ecology, economics, innovative technologies, etc. The objectives of the discussion are determined by the facilitator. This may be bringing the parties to the dispute to a common agreement or identifying different points of view. The task of the discussion leader is to give each participant the opportunity to speak on the topic under discussion.

The term dispute deserves special attention. This word came from the Latin language (from Latin disputar - to argue) and meant the public defense of scientific work, which gave the right to receive a degree. In our time, the dispute is considered as a public dispute on a scientific and social topic.

The topic of the dispute can be a new book, a movie or a play, etc. Undoubtedly, a dispute is such a public dialogue, during which different points of view collide. Sometimes the leader of the dispute, wanting to avoid "surprises", puts questions in such a way that they contain the answer. For example, in the youth debate “What does it mean to be a modern young person?” questions were posed: Is a modern young man enterprising and sociable?; Is the young man pragmatic and self-confident?

Dispute and discussion are united by the following goals: to reveal the essence of the controversial issue, to clearly identify all points of view, to lead to agreement, to convince.

Controversy has a different character (from the Greek polemikos - militant, hostile). Controversy is a dispute in which there is a confrontation, confrontation of parties, ideas and speeches. This type of dispute differs from discussion and debate in its target orientation. If the participants in the discussion, comparing contradictory judgments, try to find common solutions, establish the truth, then the goal of the controversy is to defeat the opponent, to assert their own position.

The term "controversy" is used when the dispute is in the press and is of a lengthy nature, characterized by a sharp discrepancy between points of view (for example, literary controversy, scientific controversy). Scientific controversy usually carries a positive beginning. Let us refer to the description of one such controversy.

A heated discussion of the problem of how to make a landing gear for a lunar rover unfolded in the design bureau of S.P. Queen. Half of the employees were convinced that the surface of the Moon was rock and the landing gear should be made like airplanes that land on concrete. Other scientists, relying on studies of the reflected light of the moon, began to prove that the moon is covered with dust. Consequently, if a lunar rover lands on such a surface, it will instantly sink into it. The solution is to make a large inflatable bag. In a word, two positions arose, sharply different from each other. Long discussions did not lead to any agreement. And then the chief designer put an end to this dispute. Korolev confidently said: “So, the ground near the Moon is solid.” One of the supporters of the "dusty" theory sharply objected: "No serious scientist would sign such a statement!" S.P. Korolev was surprised: “Will he sign? Now". And he signed: “The moon is solid. Korolev "G41.

Both points of view complemented one another. Korolev understood this: the Moon is a solid planet, but covered with the thinnest layer of dust. The opposing sides did not want to give in to each other. The further they delved into the controversy, the stronger and more stubbornly they defended their positions. Intellect, intuition and volitional decision of S.P. The Queen saved the situation. The decision of the team leader prevented the development of confrontation.

The word debate (from the French debat - dispute) is synonymous with the term debate - a Russian word that has been used in our country since the 17th century. In explanatory dictionaries, these terms are given as synonyms: debate - debate, exchange of views on any issues. A debate is also called a public discussion of a socially important topic, taking into account different points of view on it.

Interestingly, in America, debating is a subject of study in schools, colleges, and universities. Local, cable, and state television often show debates on topical issues. Participants in the debate go through a serious rhetorical school: they use techniques to win the attention of the audience, practice the ability to express their thoughts concisely and accurately. Preparing for the debate, their participants collect material on a specific topic, read, take notes, select arguments, think over their speech. Each team has a support group to discuss problems together. Competitions are held between different faculties, universities.

Such an experience deserves attention: young people who know how to think and defend their opinion are the pride of any nation, its stronghold and hope.

The culture of arguing obliges an experienced polemicist to represent his opponent well. A person about whom we know nothing tends to become a difficult conversationalist, and we run the risk of encountering a strong and unpredictable defense and attack.

It is very important to respect other people's principles, opinions, judgments. Unfortunately, there are people who consider themselves always right, and the interlocutor - an incompetent person. Various arguments do not work on them, they simply do not hear them. Like Grushnitsky from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "The Hero of Our Time", they are able to hear and take only themselves seriously. Here is how it is written about it:

Grushnitsky's passion was to recite: he bombarded you with words, as soon as the conversation left the circle of ordinary concepts; I could never argue with him. He does not answer your objections, he does not listen to you. As soon as you stop, he starts a long tirade, apparently having some connection with what you said, but which is really only a continuation of his own speech.

The inability to listen is a manifestation of egocentrism (when all attention is concentrated on oneself). Egocentrism, like selfishness (“one’s own shirt is closer to the body”), creates a psychological barrier in communication. If we add to this other human vices (indiscipline, dishonesty, rudeness, irascibility), then it becomes clear why it is so important in a dispute to “predict” your opponent and “read” communication situations. The desire to achieve the truth requires a thorough readiness for a verbal duel.

Defending one's own position consists not so much in the ability to defend one's ideas from the criticism of opponents, but in the readiness to strike back at the weak points in their reasoning. In polemics, one must be able to use the technique of constructive criticism. But only by carefully listening to the interlocutor, you can find vulnerabilities in his speech for a counterattack. These may be unfortunate analogies, preconceived notions, sophistical tricks, and so on. In the arguments of the opponent, the speaker must discover these flaws and move from defense to attack. (We use military terminology not by chance: in the symbol of ancient rhetoric there was a muse holding a sword and shield - the armor of a real orator. Cicero compared oratory with military art.) Successfully defending your position does not mean that you need to go "into battle with an open visor" . Here it is important to comply with the conditions developed in the centuries-old practice of the dispute. Let's name some of them.

It is necessary to give the opponent the opportunity to speak to the end, without interfering with the course of reasoning.

It is important to understand the point of view of the interlocutor in order to compare it with your own. Everything is known in comparison, and in a dispute - in particular. You should not compliment the interlocutor and then immediately criticize him.

To admit one's mistakes, defeat in a dispute is perhaps the most difficult thing for a debater. And you need to do it coolly, quickly, without hesitation.

The golden quality in argument, as in life, is patience. Sometimes our thoughts are ahead of words and phrases. The interlocutor should not be rushed, adjusted. Some disputes are conducted "in a gentleman's way", others on the principle "in war as in war", others - directly "boorishly!". Undoubtedly, the priority belongs to the gentleman's dispute. It does not allow any impermissible tricks. Here the debater treats the opponent with respect, does not stoop to ridicule, dismissive tone, ridicule, rudeness or inappropriate witticisms. He attaches great importance to arguments. Under no circumstances should you use the "Chichikov" manner, which creates the appearance of a dispute. Chichikov, if he argued, then “somehow extremely skillfully ... In order to even more agree on something with his opponents, he each time brought them all his silver snuffbox with enamel, at the bottom of which, we note, were two violets placed there for smell.

Sometimes in a dispute they resort to various tricks. A trick in a dispute is any method by which they want to facilitate the dispute for themselves and make it more difficult for the opponent. It is necessary to distinguish between permissible and impermissible methods. Permissible include "deferring an objection." To this end, the argument given is clarified, questions are asked as if to clarify the truth, although in fact there is no need for this. And the answer starts from afar: it is important to buy time for the thought to work in the right mode. And when the desired objection comes, you are back on alert. All this must be done deftly and unnoticed by the enemy. If the enemy notices the trick, he will prevent you from focusing. This trick is not only permissible, but often necessary if you are tired or worried.

An argument is a difficult psychological test, some people cannot do it, and then they resort to incorrect methods. One of them is the wrong "out of the dispute." The wrangler tries

in every possible way "slip away from the dispute", "stub out" it, "finish it off". Such an opponent is not shy about means. Reception, when the opponent is not given the opportunity to speak, is the most rude. The disputant constantly interrupts the opponent, seeks to outshout him, emphatically defiantly shows disdain for the opponent: he sings, whistles, covers his ears. Listeners can sometimes do the same: a “support group” takes over. These listeners behave like football fans. Often a kind of "chorus" of "half-listeners - half-participants" of the dispute is organized, who praise the arguments of one side and demonstrate an openly negative attitude towards the arguments of the other. “Definitely right”, “Excellent!”, “Here is a witty remark!” - such exclamations are generously poured into the address of that side of the dispute, which is supported by a specially trained group of listeners. "Bad arguments", "All these are just empty words", "Weak answer", "Pathetic arguments" - all this goes to the side that the group of listeners intends to "refute".

Violence, physical coercion or even torture are unacceptable methods. They are used in a dispute in order to force the opponent to accept the thesis, i.e. "come to an agreement"; operate on the principle that the end justifies the means.

The impermissible tricks include "argument to the policeman." Its essence is as follows: as soon as the dispute develops not in favor of the opponent, it indicates the danger of the thesis for the state or society, i.e. appeals to power. In this case, it is not so important what kind of power it is - the old regime or the new one, "police" or "comrades", but they must shut the mouth of the enemy. Opponents who have lost their conscience, or completely unprincipled people, can resort to such a trick.

All incorrect psychological techniques have one goal: to unbalance the opponent, to deprive him of the opportunity to think clearly and think. One such technique involves the use of false and unproven arguments. The calculation is made on the fact that the enemy will not notice this. The opponent categorically declares: "It has long been established ..."; "No one will deny"; "Absolutely obvious"; "Everyone knows". The opponent can only reproach himself that he is not familiar with what everyone has long known.

Another trick is often used, calculated on the excessive pride of a person. The sophist understands that the argument itself is not conclusive and the opponent can easily refute it. Then the objection is accompanied by a compliment to the opponent. Experienced debaters know how to masterfully play on pride. Tell me who can resist such compliments: “You, as a smart person, will not deny that ...”; “It is, of course, perfectly clear to you and me that ...”; “A person who is not sufficiently educated will not appreciate and understand the argument, but you will not object.” An experienced sophist subtly makes it clear to the opponent that he treats him with special respect. What can you do? This technique softens the opponent. Krylov also remarked: “And in the heart the flatterer will always find a corner.”

One of the strongest psychological tricks in a dispute is suggestion. This is a permissible trick, its role is especially great in an oral dispute. More M.V. Lomonosov in his rhetoric emphasized that stately, portly people inspire confidence. In a verbal dispute, an opponent with a loud, impressive voice, able to calmly reason, attracts. He has a huge advantage over his opponent. If a person is firmly convinced of his idea and knows how to show his "steadfastness", he impresses even the enemy, especially if he does not have such conviction.

Unacceptable psychological techniques include a trick to bring the enemy out of balance. If the opponent "boiled", then he has little chance of success in the dispute: he is already knocked out of the saddle. Emotions are not an ally where strict work of thought, memory and the ability not to miss the opponent's objections are needed. Sometimes the artists, wanting to "cut" the opponent, give him unpleasant news, insult or upset him before the performance. The calculation is made on the fact that a person will not be able to master himself and “fail” his number.

In the story of V.M. Doroshevich's "Chaliapin in Mephistopheles" tells how a group of bribed screamers prepared a real theatrical "execution" of Chaliapin. The hooligans "thirst for blood", but the level of talent was such that the audience enthusiastically accepted the great singer. Recall this episode:

The conductor shows the introduction for the third time. And in the wonderful theater "The Rock" - with its only, divine resonance - a soft, velvety mighty note of a handsome bass is spreading.

Ah-ah-ah! - amazement sweeps through the theater.

Mephistopheles finished the prologue. Toscanini goes further. But the thunderous chords of the orchestra were drowned in a roar:

Schialapino!

Chaliapin, stunned by this hurricane, not yet understanding what is being done, what kind of roar, what kind of screams, they are being pushed onto the stage.

Go! Go! Bow!

The director throws up his hands in bewilderment:

Interrupted the symphony? This has never happened before in The Rock.

The theater is roaring. Waving posters, posters.

Schialapino! Bravo, Schialapino!

This technique is also practiced: the opponent speaks very quickly, expresses his thoughts in an inaccessible form. Such a trick is used against an inexperienced debater or a person who thinks slowly. And while an honest opponent tries to understand the meaning of what was said, his opponent ends the argument with a triumphant look. He won without letting his opponent recover. Of course, such a dispute makes a heavy impression.

Are there countermeasures against sophistical methods of arguing? There is no panacea for all cases, but you can use "preventive" measures, which come down to compliance with a number of requirements.

1. You can only argue about what you know well.

2. Without a reason, never enter into an argument with the "virtuosos" (swindlers) of the word.

3. It is necessary to learn to keep the dispute in mind, to quickly find answers, to follow the thesis of the opponent, to prevent his substitution, avoidance of the topic.

4. Keep calm and complete self-control in the dispute.

In a dispute, each side strives to win. What kind of protection methods are used in this case? Let us turn to the theory developed by the ancient rhetors.

The method of effective comparison is popular. Let's give an example:

The French bacteriologist Louis Pasteur studied smallpox bacteria in his laboratory. Suddenly, a stranger appeared to him and introduced himself as the second of a nobleman, who thought that the scientist had insulted him, and he demanded a duel. Pasteur calmly listened to the messenger and suggested: “Since they call me, I have the right to choose a weapon. Here are two flasks: one contains smallpox bacteria, the other contains pure water. If the person who sent you agrees to drink one of them, I will drink another.

Pasteur's opponent found himself in a dilemma: on the one hand, a duel with pistols, where there are as many chances to stay alive as to die. On the other hand, the duel is "unconventional", threatening with a dangerous and incurable disease. It can be said that the unexpected weapon proposed by the scientist turned out to be so intimidating that the desperate duelist folded, and the duel did not take place. It should be noted the resourcefulness of the scientist, who suggested that the nobleman mentally compare the two types of weapons offered for the duel. At the same time, Pasteur did not even begin to analyze the accusation itself as a reason for a duel.

The reception of a contrasting comparison of assessments is a kind of spectacular comparison. The event appears as if on a film - visibly and volumetrically - and a problem that has not been noticed before is revealed in relief.

Comparing Khrushchev with Brezhnev, Nixon focuses on the details. Poorly tailored suit of the first, elegantly tailored - the second. Khrushchev loved duck hunting and took an active part in it. Brezhnev preferred to hunt big game, but the huntsmen did all the "dirty work" for him. He only fired a rifle with a telescopic sight

The reception of the author's commentary serves to expose demagogic statements, fraud, false analogies, sophisms and other tricks of the opponent. The technique for using this technique is as follows: first, a statement from the opponent's speech or a quotation from his publication is given. The disputant found very dubious arguments in them and analyzes the course of the author's reasoning, reveals the reasons for speculative fraud, shows the illogical conclusions, and sometimes the absurdity of the statements. At the same time, it is important to show the dishonesty of the opponent and his like-minded people, for whom personal interests are more important than state ones.

Let's take a very instructive example.

The article by the writer Valentin Rasputin "What we have..." is devoted to the problem of saving Baikal.

In February 1987, a state commission was established to prepare proposals for the protection of the "glorious sea". V. Rasputin writes:

Chairman of the Commission, Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR N.V. Talyzin, when discussing the Baikal problem in Irkutsk, said without excessive diplomacy: "Now it is clear even to a fool that a pulp mill could not be built on Baikal." Meanwhile, the main and constant defender is not Baikal, as one would expect from a scientist, but the plant - Academician N.M. Zhavoronkov was sitting in front of N.V. Talyzin at the meeting of the last commission and again decided the fate of Baikal... It turns out that pulping will only ennoble Baikal water, since in its natural form it is weakly mineralized and it is harmful to drink it. The “resourcefulness” of scientists is truly admirable. P. Katsuba, a former party worker in Irkutsk, accused the defenders of Baikal of complicity with imperialism from the rostrum. Like this: no more and no less... Whoever is against the pulp mill is the enemy of the Buryat people.

But nature itself intervened in the dispute, and it stopped the “high” discussion ... Here is the work of the plant: “the death of epishura, the main biological purifier of Baikal water, and other endemic species. The famous omul lost twice in weight and height. Tens of thousands of hectares of mustache forest

suffers from airborne emissions and hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests have been damaged.”

As a result of this dispute, common sense prevailed, thanks to the skillful use of rhetorical devices that helped to convince opponents of their failure.

As a spectacular method of neutralizing the enemy and at the same time trying to get away from the dispute, there is a counter question. This is a technique of intellectuals who know how to exclude the possibility of criticism and stop the development of dialogue.

There is a famous legend:

Once, a certain inventor came to the outstanding French mathematician and philosopher Jean D "Alembert (1717-1783), holding a machine in his hands, which, according to him, could set itself in motion without any reliance on other bodies.

So you are saying that your machine will move in the direction you choose even in a world devoid of all other bodies that it simply does not need? - clarified D "Alamber. And, having received an affirmative answer, he asked:

And how will your car guess where is “forward” and where is “back”, if there is nothing else in the world besides it?

The inventor could not answer the counter-question, and D "Alamber immediately wrote in his famous treatise "Dynamics": "The body cannot set itself in motion, because there is no reason for it to move in one direction rather than the other »G91.

The technique of catching on the word looks like a “knockout” blow at the climax of the controversy. Populist orators and demagogues especially get it. Let us show how one such speaker is "taken at his word".

At one of the meetings of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the speaker, the leader of the party, began to assert that it was necessary to drastically change the course of the current government, since this path would lead nowhere. Communists offer the most realistic way to save the country: reforms are needed in education, medicine, and industry. The speaker cited convincing figures and facts. It looked like he was reveling in his own speech. But during the pause, someone asked permission to ask a question.

We do not deprive anyone of the word, and are ready to answer any question, - the speaker majestically allowed.

Here I am a student, I want to ask who you, the Communists, interfered with the implementation of your plans for seventy years. Who will follow those who legalized mass executions in the country, who looked for enemies and traitors among their own people, who sowed animal fear and bred scammers? Don't you realize that your song has been sung?

The speaker broke out in perspiration, blood rushing to his face. For several seconds he did not find what to answer. Then he shouted angrily into the microphone. It was a cry of despair, the answer of a defeated speaker.

One of the most effective techniques is a return blow (boomerang). Its meaning is that you turn what is said against you against your opponent. It requires quick reaction and resourcefulness of the polemicist. A well-known oriental parable.

Isharli Khan liked to mock the courtiers. One day he saw that the sage Ke-mine had a very swollen ear. Khan immediately quipped: “Kemine, did you take an ear from a donkey?”

Yes, my khan, - answered the sage. - After all, you took his mind, and that's all I got.

Reception An angry rebuff is a sharp, sometimes aggressive objection

opponent. In political debates, in diplomatic conversations, sometimes it becomes necessary to punish an overconfident adversary. So, in the notes of Ekaterina Dashkova, a fragment of her conversation with the Austrian chancellor is given (it was about the role of Peter I in the history of Russia).

Don't you think, princess, that he brought Russia closer to Europe and that it was recognized only from the time of Peter I?

The great empire, the prince, which has such inexhaustible sources of wealth and power as Russia, does not need to get closer to anyone. Such a formidable mass as Russia, properly managed, attracts whoever it wants to. If Russia remained unknown until the time you are talking about, Your Grace, this proves - forgive me, prince - only the ignorance or frivolity of the European countries, ignoring such a powerful state.

The interlocutor's question is sometimes answered with a counterexample. This is justified if you do not want to answer your opponent, trying to hide this or that information. At the same time, they often resort to a joke, referring to an event known to all participants in the dispute. This is not only a tactful avoidance of the question, but also a demonstration of the flexibility of thinking. This is where associations come into play. Here is how our witty orator used this technique.

In a conversation with cosmonaut A.A. Leonov at a meeting in the United States, one of the reporters remarked: “Isn’t space exploration too expensive?”

“Of course it's expensive. Probably, the Spanish queen felt sorry for the money for the expedition of Columbus. But she gave them. And who knows when America would have been discovered if the queen had been greedy.”

Everyone laughs and applauds. And the loudest reporter.

Irony is a hidden, subtle mockery that is also used as a polemical device. Sometimes it hurts the enemy more than the most convincing arguments. Ironic word usage implies not the literal and direct meaning of words, but clearly the opposite. The story of K. Minkov is called “Kind Soul”, after reading it, we understand that it is impossible to call the hero “kind”.

With each visitor, he is polite, tactful. He listens to the complaint, immediately writes down the "terms for the implementation of the request" in the desk calendar. Specify days, hours and due dates. If grateful applicants knew that at the end of the working day, a “kind soul” tears out a sheet with the names of applicants from the calendar, rolls a paper ball out of it and throws it into a basket under the table.

In skillful hands, irony is a destructive weapon.

Knowledge of defense techniques in a dispute is not a guarantee of success. It is necessary to take into account the situation of communication, follow the arguments of the opponent, see the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent. Resourcefulness, quick thinking, self-control are the main qualities of a polemicist in defending his position.

The path to knowing the truth begins with questions. The ability to pose a variety of questions and logically answer them is an undoubted sign of the flexibility of the human mind. In a dispute, with the help of questions, one can achieve the solution of essential tasks: a) to exchange views; b) find out the position of the opponent, forcing him to fully open up; c) take the initiative in their own hands and keep it during the dispute, etc. However, the questions in the dispute do not always have a constructive orientation. They can also have a destructive force if the disputants pursue speculative goals: to discredit the enemy's idea, to create a deadlock by blocking the discussion of proposals and openly imposing confrontation. Pursuing personal, sometimes selfish interests, they go to victory in direct and roundabout ways.

In the theory of dispute, there are various classifications of questions, let's consider the most famous one.

Questioning is put with a provocative purpose on the basis that the opponent will lose his temper and look confused. The best remedy for such questions is irony, humor. Let's take an illustrative example.

Once, at a television press conference by the famous film director N.S. Mikhalkov was asked: “How did the authority of your father, the author of the USSR anthem, help you achieve success in life and in your professional field? Isn't it true that the road to glory was open to you from childhood? Mikhalkov Jr. calmly retorted: “You know, the Volga flows at all times, under any circumstances. I want to note to you that one of my great-grandfathers is the great Russian artist Vasily Ivanovich Surikov "G12].

Experience shows that in a dispute one must always be circumspect, not to allow oneself to be drawn into a conversation from which the opponent benefits. A reliable means of avoiding questions-traps is an anecdote, irony, a return blow (boomerang).

A counter-question helps to neutralize the opponent's opinion. Journalist Melor Sturua shares his memories.

In June 1979, at the Vienna summit, L.I. Brezhnev, in fact, could not walk. He was deftly, almost imperceptibly to the prying eye, worn, just worn, and not supported, by the brave fellows from the bodyguards. The atmosphere was filled with questions about the General Secretary's health. American correspondents literally pressed on. We were dumb as fish. When the last question was asked, I could not stand it. Of course, it was about the personality of Brezhnev, but it hit our state like a rebound, it was humanly unpleasant. Addressing the representative of the Austrian Foreign Ministry, who was sitting between Powell and Zamyatin, I demanded the right to an additional question in order to “restore the broken parity,” because the lion's share of the questions fell on our American colleagues. The Austrian diplomat gave his favorable approval, and, holding back my excitement, as before an attacking throw, blurted out:

My question is to Mr. Powell. How is President Carter's political health?

There was laughter in the hall. The meaning of my question was clear to the initiates, and only they were sitting in the hall. The political future of President Carter looked very gloomy ... John Powell, to his credit, did not lose his head:

Carter's political health is the same as Brezhnev's, he replied, smiling slightly: they say, understand as you know.

This ended the press conference. The Americans slapped me on the shoulder and praised my resourcefulness G13].

A blocking question is asked in order to achieve answers that do not correspond to the position of the interlocutor. In order for the opponent's thought to work in the direction we need, it is necessary to skillfully formulate questions. At the same time, possible alternatives and deviations from the “planned course” are blocked. The blocking question was asked by the captain of the “experts” during the spring series of games “What? Where? When?":

Will we refuse to help the club when the decisive stage of the game has come?

Socrates liked to ask tricky questions. During his trial, he explained why he constantly asked them to people. The philosopher was driven by the desire to awaken in his interlocutors a sense of justice and a desire to turn them away from bad deeds. He compared himself to a gadfly that does not allow cattle to get fat from drowsiness. Socrates explained his stinging injections in disputes as follows: he,

like a gadfly, called to buzz and bite, so that statesmen honestly serve society.

Tricky questions to opponents are usually caused by their amateurish approach to business, as well as attempts to mislead the interlocutor with dishonest methods in a dispute. To avoid tricky questions, you need to be open, sincere in your judgments and actions.

Clarifying questions are posed to clarify the truth or falsity of the expressed judgment. For example: “In the first or in the second half of the day will the graduation project be defended?”; "Can only school educators be considered guilty of juvenile delinquency?" Clarifying questions allow you to get additional information about the position of the speaker: "What counterarguments do your opponents bring?"; "What, in your opinion, is the way out of this situation?"

Complementary questions are those that are associated with obtaining new information about objects, events, phenomena. These questions include the words: what, where, when, how, why, etc. For example: “When did the meeting of the academic council of the university take place?”, “In what month of this year do the “fun starts” of schoolchildren begin?”. In a discussion, polemics, it is recommended to ask simple questions. Both clarifying and supplementing questions on the composition can be simple and complex, they can reveal the competence of the speaker, his level of intelligence, erudition. For example: “Could you give facts proving that writing in Ancient Russia was accessible to many ordinary people?”; "What arguments could you give in favor of the relevance of the reform of Russian spelling?". These are difficult questions that only a trained speaker can answer.

According to the content, questions from the audience to the speaker are divided into two types: explanatory and additional. The former are asked to clarify one or another incomprehensible place in the speech, the latter are associated with problems related to the topic, but not touched upon by the speaker. The more logical and convincing the report or lecture, the less explanatory questions are required. The more interesting and original the speech of the speaker, the more additional questions it raises.

In a dispute, a witty answer is greatly appreciated. The resourcefulness of the polemicist, his ability to orient himself in the situation, to find the most accurate words for an answer, the speed of reaction help the speaker to get out of a difficult situation. It is important to remember that an argument is not only an intellectual competition, but also a duel that requires the tension of all the spiritual forces of a person. Therefore, endurance, composure are the best allies of those who argue. It is important to respect the opponent and not to enter into polemics with the opponent who seeks to win at any cost.

The article deals with one of the most urgent problems of modern Russian rhetoric: the art of discourse. The author of the article highlights the great significance of discourse in our life, science, political and social spheres. The truth emerges as a result of discourse, if the speaker has mastered discourse and polemic speech; knows the methods of winning an argument and has the ability of asking different questions and answering them logically. The key words: discussion, discourse, polemics, the art of discourse, methods of winning an argument, the art of asking questions.

Bibliography

1. Science and life. 1987. No. 10. C.10.

2. Big explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / Ch. ed. S.A. Kuznetsov. St. Petersburg. : "Norint", 2002. S. 1251.

3. Soper P. Fundamentals of the art of speech: Per. from English. 3rd ed., rev. M., 1995. S. 336.

4. Steshov A.V. How to Win an Argument: On the Culture of Controversy. L., 1991. P.3.

5. Povarnin S.I. Dispute. On the theory and practice of the dispute. M., 2002. S. 42.

6. Doroshevich V.M. Featured Pages. M., 1986. S. 290 - 291.

7. Sturua Melor. Two photographs for one portrait // Week. 1988. No. 34. S. 16.

8. Rasputin V. "What we have ..." // Dali fathers, boundless. M., 1998. S. 279 - 281.

9. Taranov P.S. The art of rhetoric. M., 2002. S. 254.

10. Dashkova Ekaterina. Notes. L., 1985. S. 126 -127.

11. Nozhin E.A. Fundamentals of Soviet oratory. M., 1981. S. 313.

13. Sturua Melor. Two photographs for one portrait // Week. 1988. No. 43. S. 17.

15. Spirkin A.F. Philosophy: textbook. M., 1999. S. 49.

Neklyudov V.D. - Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor of Bryansk State University named after Academician I.G. Petrovsky, [email protected]

Don't lose. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.

Every person by nature wants to always be right

We argue all the time. We decide how to act in this or that situation, we defend and criticize ideas, we challenge them. Argument is an integral part of our life. How to come out of any discussion as a winner? How to resist the opponent's attempts to cheat us? Eristica will teach you not to succumb to other people's tricks and win the argument, attack your opponent and defend yourself from his verbal attacks.

In the article we will consider the concept of eristics, ways to refute the thesis and a couple of common tricks, their application and defense against them.

What is eristic?

Eristic(translated from Greek - "the art of arguing") - this is the art of arguing and debating, which was developed. Aristotle defined eristic as "the art of arguing in dishonest ways". She teaches you to prove your case in any dispute, even if you are far from the truth. This is the difference between eristics and.

Eristic - the desire of a person to show that he is always right. It finds application everywhere: in family disputes, discussions at work, in scientific disputes, in debates, and in all other places where people argue.

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote in detail about eristics and eristic tricks. The German philosopher collected many of the techniques of eristic in his book The Art of Winning Disputes. The book was written in the 19th century, based on the inventions of the sophists who lived before our era, but does not lose its relevance to this day, remaining a useful textbook for conducting discussions and disputes, though not in the most honest ways.

Arthur Schopenhauer gives specific recommendations on how to end disputes with victory. He shows how to win arguments step by step, no matter how weak and erroneous your position may be. According to Schopenhauer, in order to win, it is not necessary to be actually right - you just need to use the right techniques.

“Our brain is very irritable in everything that concerns intellectual powers, and does not want to agree that what we said at the beginning was wrong, and what the enemy said was right.”

How to attack and how to defend?

Now we will look at some tricks. You will learn to resist them and, if necessary, use them. But before talking about tricks, we should talk about argumentation and its ways.

The essence of the dispute can be reduced to the fact that you need to put forward and defend your thesis and refute the thesis of your opponent. How can the thesis be refuted? There are two ways:

Essentially. That is a rebuttal. In this case, you are criticizing the absolute or objective truth of the thesis. In this way, the fundamental principle of the thesis is attacked.
To the opponent or what he said. In this case, you are criticizing the relative truth of the thesis. You point out the inconsistency of the thesis with the arguments of the opponent, his judgments or views. Absolute and objective truth is not discussed. In this way, the results of the thesis are attacked.

These two ways can be called respectively direct and indirect. Directly, we prove that the thesis is false and unjust, and indirectly, that it cannot be true and true.

To summarize:

The direct way (essentially) is an attack on the foundations of the thesis.

Indirect path (to the opponent) - an attack on the thesis through its consequences, based on the inaccuracy of which we conclude that the thesis itself is false. The law “false cause leads to false effect” works here.

Schopenhauer offers two ways of moving along an indirect path: instance and apagogy.

Instance- giving an example that refutes the thesis, showing objects or phenomena related to the thesis and arising from it, but to which it cannot be applied, and therefore cannot be true.

Apagogue- a logical device that proves the inconsistency of an opinion in such a way that either in itself, or in the consequences arising from it, a contradiction is revealed. Therefore, an apagogic proof is an indirect proof: here the prover first turns to the opposite proposition in order to show its inconsistency, and then, according to the law of elimination of the third, concludes that what was required to be proved is correct. This kind of proof is also called reduction to absurdity, reduction to absurdity.

2 eristic tricks

First Trick: Spread or Generalize

How to use: it is necessary to take the judgment beyond its natural boundaries, to expand it as much as possible. The more you generalize the expression, the more room for attack you will have. An extended thesis is open to attack and chicanery and is harder to defend.

Reaction: As soon as the opponent starts pushing the boundaries of what you said, point it out. Reiterate your original thesis and don't let it be generalized. You need to set clear boundaries.

Example:

— I did not like the concert of this group. I think that they performed poorly, and I regret the time spent.

- Why do you think that this group performs badly at concerts? Last year, thousands of people walked away happy with their performance! You are clearly wrong.

The first participant in the dialogue says that he did not like specific concert, and his interlocutor expanded the thesis to the fact that this group performs poorly always. Then he gives an argument that convinces that this group had good performances, and therefore in this time she performed well. This is how you can neutralize this trick:

- Yes, I do not argue that last year this group could perform well. But I'm not talking about her performances in general, but about their performance last week. Other performances may have been good, but definitely not this one.

Advice: An extended thesis is easy to attack, but a narrow one is difficult. Try to formulate your thesis as narrowly, clearly and specifically as possible. Say not “I understand literature”, but “I understand Russian literature of the nineteenth century”, not “I have a lot of knowledge in psychology”, but “I have a lot of knowledge in cognitive psychology”. Concretize and keep the thesis within the boundaries you set.

The second trick: a statement made in a relative sense is accepted in an absolute sense.

How to use it: For example, a person is talking about oratory and those who have succeeded in it. In the context of this conversation, he can say that Hitler was very good. You can skillfully catch him on the fact that he considers the leader of the Nazis a good person, although in fact it was only about his oratorical abilities.

Counteraction: Express your thoughts clearly and specifically. If the opponent resorted to this eristic ploy, explain what relative meaning you had in mind and do not allow your words to be reversed.

Here is an example from Arthur Schopenhauer:

“In one philosophical conversation, I admitted that my system defends and praises the Quietists; shortly thereafter, the discussion turned to Hegel, and I argued that he mostly wrote nonsense, or that the author wrote the words, and the reader must now make sense of them. The opponent did not refute this on the merits, but limited himself to presenting an argument to the opponent: "You just praised the Quietists, but they also wrote a lot of nonsense." I agreed with this, but made an amendment in the sense that I praise the Quietists not as philosophers and writers, and therefore not for their theoretical works, but as people, for their practical actions. As far as Hegel is concerned, we are talking about theoretical works. Thus the attack was repulsed.

Moral and ethical side of eristics

As you can see, eristic is far from the most honest way to argue. Limit yourself to repel attacks or attack yourself - it's up to you. But if your interlocutor or the public, if the argument is not face-to-face, notices that you are resorting to various tricks, your credibility may fall. Use these techniques only when absolutely necessary, only when it is really necessary, only if it is justified. Use eristics only for peaceful and constructive purposes.

Arthur Schopenhauer writes: “It goes without saying that the best way[to be right always and in all disputes - approx. ed.] is to really be right in essence.

In future publications, I will consider individual eristic tricks in more detail.

Eristic

The words "logic" and "dialectics" were already used and considered synonymous in antiquity, although the verbs λογιζεσεθαι (discuss, think, think) and διαλεγεσθαι (talk) reflect two completely different concepts.

A similar use of these expressions existed in the Middle Ages and even occurs sometimes to this day. In recent times the word "dialectics" has been used by some scholars, especially Kant, in a negative sense; they called it "the sophistical way of debating," and for this reason put the word "logic" higher, as a more innocent expression of this concept. As a matter of fact, these two words have exactly the same meaning, so in recent years they have again often been looked at as synonymous expressions.

This state of affairs somewhat confuses me and does not give me the opportunity, as I would like, to shade and separate these two sciences: logic and dialectics. In my opinion, logic can be given the following definition: “the science of the laws of thinking or the ways of the mind’s activity” (from the verb to ponder, discuss, which in turn comes from the word intelligence or word); dialectics, using this expression in the modern sense, is "the art of debating and arguing or talking." Every conversation is based on the presentation of facts or views, that is, once it is historical, another time it analyzes or considers something. Hence it is obvious that the subject of logic is given in its entirety. a priori without any admixture of anything historical or that the general laws of thought enter into the field of this science, to which every mind obeys at the moment when it is left to itself, when nothing interferes with it, therefore, during the period of solitary thinking of a rational being, which nothing confuse. Dialectics, on the contrary, considers the simultaneous activity of two rational beings who think at the same time, from which, of course, a dispute arises, that is, a spiritual struggle. Both beings have pure reason, and therefore they should agree with each other; in fact, there is no such agreement, and this disagreement depends on the various personalities inherent in the subjects, and therefore must be considered an empirical element. Thus, logic, as the science of thinking, that is, the activity of pure reason, could be built completely a priori; dialectics, for the most part - only a posteriori, after a practical understanding of the changes that pure thought undergoes as a result of individual differences in the simultaneous thinking of two rational beings, and also after familiarization with the means that each of them uses in order to present his individual thoughts pure and objective. And this happens for the reason that the following is characteristic of every person in joint thinking: as soon as he learns in a mutual exchange of views (except for historical conversations) that someone else's thoughts on a given subject differ from his own, then he, instead of first of all to check his own thought, he always prefers to make a mistake in someone else's thought. In other words, every person by nature wants to always be right; precisely what arises from this peculiarity of people is taught to us by one branch of science, which I would like to call "dialectics" or, to eliminate a possible misunderstanding, "eristic dialectics."

Thus, it is the science of man's desire to show that he is always right. "Eristic" is just a harsher name for this subject.

“Eristic dialectics”, therefore, is the art of arguing, but in such a way as to always remain right, that is, by all truths and lies. After all, one can be objectively right, but not seem so to another, and even very often to oneself; this happens when the opponent refutes our arguments and when this passes for the refutation of the entire controversial thesis, in proof of which there may be many other arguments that we have not given at the moment. In such cases, the enemy surrounds himself with a false light, it seems like a person who has a reason, but in fact he is all wrong. So, the truth of a controversial issue, taken objectively, and the power of rightness or reason in the eyes of the disputants and listeners are completely different things; eristic dialectics is entirely based on the latter. If evil did not exist in the nature of people, if we were perfectly honest in every exchange of thoughts, then, of course, we would only try to achieve the truth and not pay attention to whose view is right: whether originally expressed by ourselves, or ours. adversary. We would treat this last view with complete indifference, or at least we would not attach such importance to it. In fact, it is, on the contrary, a thing of paramount importance. Our brain is very irritable in everything that concerns intellectual powers, and does not want to agree that what we said at first was wrong, and what the opponent said was right. With this circumstance in mind, every person should express only correct opinions, and therefore first think and then speak. But in addition to innate thinking, most people are still characterized by talkativeness and innate dishonesty. We talk about something without thinking at all, and then, even if we soon notice that our opinion is false and without foundation, we still strive to prove, by all means, the completely opposite. Love for truth, which in most cases was the only motive for setting up a thesis that seems true, completely gives way to love for one's own opinion; so that the truth thus begins to appear to be a lie, and a lie to be the truth.

« One of the essential obstacles to the success of the human race should be considered that people obey not the one who speaks smartest of all, but the one who speaks loudest»

Arthur Schopenhauer

1788–1860

Philosopher of pessimism

Arthur Schopenhauer is a German irrationalist philosopher. Schopenhauer's teaching, the main provisions of which are set forth in The World as Will and Representation and other works, is often called "pessimistic philosophy." He considered human life meaningless, and the existing world - "the worst of all possible worlds."

1788 - Arthur Schopenhauer was born in the Prussian city of Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland). His parents were educated people, his father was engaged in trade, his mother kept a literary salon.

1799 - He entered the elite private gymnasium Runge.

1805 - At the insistence of his father, he began to work in a large Hamburg trading company.

1809 - After the death of his father and two years of training, he entered the medical faculty of the University of Göttingen. Later he moved to the Faculty of Philosophy.

1812 - The University of Jena awarded Schopenhauer in absentia the title of Doctor of Philosophy.

1820 - Began teaching at the University of Berlin with the rank of assistant professor. At the same time, Hegel worked there, and disagreements arose between the two philosophers.

1831 - Schopenhauer, fleeing from cholera, left Berlin and settled in Frankfurt am Main.

1840s - Became a member of one of the first animal rights organizations.

1860 - The philosopher died suddenly of pneumonia.

Foreword

The Art of Winning Disputes (Eristische Dialektik, oder Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten) is a disputation manual written in the 19th century and still relevant in the 21st century. In this work, Schopenhauer sets the goal of winning the dispute and gives specific recommendations for its consistent achievement. According to the author, in order to win the argument, it is not necessary to be factually right - you just need to use the right techniques. He cites over 30 so-called tricks, including substitution of the thesis, avoiding the subject of discussion in other areas, driving the enemy out of himself, preventing correct arguments if they can lead to unfavorable conclusions, and so on.

One of the very first and perhaps the most famous translation of Schopenhauer's work was made by N. L. d "Andre in 1900. Baroness Elizaveta Arturovna Bila, a well-known translator, writer and playwright, member of the Union of Dramatic and Musical Writers, worked under this pseudonym.

Since the ability to make independent decisions is necessary for a skilled polemist, this edition includes the chapter "On independent thinking" from the book Parerga und Paralipomena, as well as another chapter of the same book, aphorisms and passages from other works of the philosopher, which will allow the reader to join the art of dressing one's own thought in a concise, precise and witty form, in which Arthur Schopenhauer had no equal.

The art of winning arguments

Eristic

Thus, it is the science of man's desire to show that he is always right. "Eristic" is just a harsher name for this subject.

“The life of every person as a whole is a tragedy, in particular a comedy»

However, even this dishonesty, this persistent defense of the thesis, a falsehood, which we ourselves are perfectly aware of, has a sufficient basis. Very often, at the beginning of a conversation, we are deeply convinced of the justice of our judgment, but then the opponent's arguments become so strong that they refute and break us; if we immediately give up our belief, it is quite possible that we will later be convinced that we were right, but that our proof was erroneous. To defend our thesis, perhaps, there were strong arguments and evidence, but just to our misfortune, such a deliverer-argument did not occur to us. Thus, we create for ourselves a rule for arguing with arguments that are solid and proving the subject and at the same time we admit that the opponent’s reasonableness is only apparent and that during the argument we may accidentally fall into such an argument that either completely breaks the opponent’s argument, or somehow or otherwise reveal the injustice of his opinion.

Thanks to this, if we are not necessarily forced to be unscrupulous in a dispute, then at least we can very easily accidentally become one. Thus mutually support each other the weakness of our judgment and the vicissitudes of our will. From this it follows that the leader of the dispute fights not for the truth, but for his thesis, as for the most precious handles the case by hook or by crook and, as I noted before, it is not easy to get rid of it. Everyone strives to gain the upper hand even when he is well aware that his opinion is false and erroneous or doubtful.

Machiavelli advises the sovereign to use every minute of his neighbor's weakness to attack him, because otherwise the same neighbor can take advantage of his momentary weakness. It would be quite a different matter if truth and sincerity prevailed; but there is no way to rely on them, nor be guided by these principles, because for such good qualities the reward is very bad. The same should be done in a dispute. It is highly doubtful that the enemy will repay you in kind if you deal with him fairly in a dispute, especially if this justice is only apparent; one can almost certainly say that he will not be magnanimous, but will conduct business, disregarding the rules; and hence the conclusion that you should do the same. I easily agree that one should always strive for the truth and that one should not be partial to one's own views; but how do we know if another person will be of the same opinion as we are.

To a certain extent, one's own dexterity and craftiness can serve as assistants in defending the thesis. This art is taught to man by daily experience, so that everyone has his own natural dialectic, as well as his own logic, with the only difference that the former is not as true as the latter. People rarely think and draw conclusions contrary to the laws of logic; false judgments are quite frequent, but false conclusions are very rare. That is why it is rare to find a person with a lack of his own natural logic and so often - with a lack of natural dialectics. Dialectic is a gift of nature, distributed unevenly, and therefore it is like the ability to judge things, a faculty that is very unevenly distributed, while sound reason, in fact, is distributed fairly evenly. It very often happens that apparent argumentation confuses and refutes what is in its essence completely fair and reasonable, and vice versa, the one who emerged victorious from the dispute very often owes not so much to the fairness of judgment in defending his opinion, but to art and dexterity. Inborn talent here, as in everything, plays the first role. However, the exercise and consideration of the various ways in which the opponent can be refuted, or which the opponent himself uses to prove his thoughts, serve as a good guide in this art. That is why logic has no practical significance, while dialectics, on the contrary, has it to a large extent. In my opinion, Aristotle built his logic, i.e., analytics, exclusively in such a way that it served as the basis and introduction to the dialectic. Logic deals only with the form of statements, while dialectics investigates their essence and matter; therefore the examination of the form as a general thing must precede the examination of the essence or details. Aristotle does not emphasize as strongly as I do the aims of dialectics; True, he points to the dispute as the main goal, but at the same time - as the desire to find the truth. Further, he says: “We must consider statements from a philosophical point of view, consistent with their truth, and from a dialectical point of view, consistent with their evidence and the thinking of other people.”

“Every person by nature wants to always be right»

True, Aristotle recognizes the independence and difference between the objective truth of the thesis and someone else's confirmation of this thesis, but he makes this recognition only in passing in order to attribute this meaning exclusively to dialectics. That is why his rules concerning dialectics are often confused with those rules whose purpose is to find the truth. Therefore, it seems to me that Aristotle did not quite fulfill his task, trying in his book “On Sophistic Refutations” to separate dialectics from sophistry and eristics, and the difference should have been that dialectical conclusions are true in relation to form and essence, and eristic or sophistic - no (the latter differ only in their goal: in eristic conclusions, this goal is determined by the desire to be right, in sophistic ones, by the desire to achieve honor or money in this way). The truth of opposing propositions is always so indeterminate that they need not be regarded as real opposites. And at least the disputant himself can be quite sure that even the outcome of the dispute will be uncertain.

According to a number of researchers, the success of a person in the field of constant business communication depends on 85% of his communicative competence and only 15% on his narrow professional training.

Seven out of ten dismissed employees leave their job not because they did not cope with their duties, but because of disagreements and conflicts with colleagues, on the basis of which we can conclude that it is the ability to communicate constructively with people around them that often becomes the determining factor for success.

In business or personal life, argumentation loses the form of a calm dialogue and turns into a clear, sometimes very heated argument that needs to be managed ...

WHAT IS A DISPUT

Dispute- this is a clash of opinions or positions, during which each of the parties reasonably defends its understanding of the issues under discussion and seeks to refute the arguments of the other side. The dispute is an important means of clarifying and resolving issues that cause controversy, a better understanding of what is not sufficiently clear and has not yet found a convincing justification. Even if the parties to the dispute do not eventually come to an agreement, in the course of the dispute they better understand both the positions of the other side and their own.

The art of arguing is called eristic .

Eristics became widespread in ancient Greece in connection with the flourishing of political, judicial and moral controversy. Initially, eristic was understood as a means of finding truth and goodness with the help of a dispute; it was supposed to teach the ability to convince others of the correctness of the views expressed and, accordingly, the ability to incline a person to the behavior that seems necessary and expedient.

Eristics is not a separate science or a section of some kind of spider. It is a kind of "practical art" like learning to walk or music.

TYPES OF DISPUTES

First of all, disputes are divided into those in which only the right way to deal with a dispute , and those that also use incorrect dispute methods.

It would be a great simplification to think that the goal of every dispute can only be the truth, or at least the achievement of a general agreement on the unresolved problems that turned out to be the source of the dispute. Man is not only a rational and cognizing, but also an acting being. Action is always success or failure, success or failure. It should not be presented in such a way that success is achieved only by those who are guided by the truth, and that failure is the inevitable fate of those who do not particularly consider it. Sometimes, and often, success is achieved by wrong means.

Action is impossible without evaluations: statements of goals, norms, models, ideals, etc. Truth is a property of descriptions, and a dispute about it is a dispute about the correspondence of the description to the real state of affairs. Arguments about judgments that direct action are not disputes about truth, since judgments are neither true nor false.

There are, therefore, disputes about descriptions and disputes about grades .

The ultimate goal of the former is truth, i.e. achieving a description that corresponds to reality. The purpose of disputes about assessments is the approval of some assessments and, accordingly, the adoption of a specific direction of future activity determined by them. The word "victory" directly refers only to disputes about assessments and the values they express. Victory is the assertion of one of the opposing value systems. In disputes about truth, the victory of one of the arguing parties can only be spoken of in a figurative sense: when the truth is revealed as a result of a dispute, it becomes the property of both arguing parties, and the "victory" of one of them has a purely psychological character.

Combining these two divisions of disputes, we get four of their varieties, which can be called discussion, polemic, eclecticism and sophistry.

Discussion- a dispute aimed at achieving the truth and using only the correct methods of arguing.

controversy- a dispute aimed at defeating the opposite side and using only correct techniques.

Eclecticism- a dispute that aims to achieve the truth, but uses incorrect methods for this.

Sophistry- a dispute aimed at achieving victory over the opposite side using both correct and incorrect methods.

In the most general sense eclecticism- this is a combination of heterogeneous, internally unrelated and possibly incompatible ideas, concepts, styles, etc. As a methodological principle, eclecticism appeared for the first time in ancient philosophy as an expression of the decline and intellectual impotence of the latter. Eclecticism was widely used in medieval scholasticism, when dozens and hundreds of heterogeneous, internally unrelated arguments "for" and "against" a certain position were given.

Eclectic disputes in which truth is supported by means alien to it exist, and they are not as rare as it might seem. They are encountered even in science, especially during the period of formation of new scientific theories, when new problems are being mastered and the synthesis of disparate facts, ideas and hypotheses into a single system is still unattainable.

It is known that Galileo Galilei, defending the once heliocentric system of N. Copernicus, won thanks not least to his style and brilliant technique of persuasion: he wrote in Italian, and not in the rapidly outdated Latin, and addressed directly to people who ardently protested against old ideas and related teaching canons. For the truth itself, it does not matter in what language it is stated and what specific people support it. Nevertheless, Galileo's propaganda arguments also played a positive role in spreading and strengthening the Copernican hypothesis.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) − Italian physicist, mechanic and astronomer, one of the founders of natural science, poet, philologist and critic.

Truth is born in a dispute, and it is ultimately affirmed with the help of correct means. But science is made by living people, who are also affected by incorrect methods. It is not surprising, therefore, that in disputes about truth there is sometimes a temptation to use some kind of mild forms of such devices.

The attitude to eclecticism as a kind of dispute should be balanced and take into account the situation in which not quite correct means were used to protect the obvious truth, not yet for everyone.

What deserves unconditional condemnation is sophistry- a dispute in which any means are used to achieve victory over the enemy, including obviously incorrect ones. In a dispute, as in other matters, one cannot be indiscriminate in the means used. One should not enter into an argument with the sole purpose of winning it at any cost, regardless of anything, even truth and goodness.

Dispute is a complex phenomenon. It is not reduced to a collision of two incompatible statements. Always flowing in a certain context, it affects such traits of a person's character as dignity, pride, pride, etc. The manner of the dispute, its sharpness, the concessions of the disputing parties, the means used by them are determined not only by considerations related to the resolution of a particular problem, but also by the whole context in which it arose. You can achieve a formal victory in an argument, insist on the correctness or expediency of your approach and at the same time lose in something else, but no less important. You failed to change the position of the opponent in the dispute, did not achieve his understanding, offended him, pushed him away from interaction and mutual assistance in solving the problem that caused the dispute - these side effects of the dispute can significantly weaken or even nullify the effect of victory in it.

Dispute Resolution Stages:

Confrontation stage: between the participants in the dialogue, the fact of the dispute is established, and they formulate conflicting points of view.
Discussion start stage : the desire (or refusal to do so) to resolve the dispute with the help of correct and acceptable arguments is discussed. Both sides agree on the "rules of the game".
Argumentation stage : one of the participants in the dispute defends his position, and his opponent systematically criticizes it, seeking additional argumentation, while he still has objections or doubts. This is the decisive stage in the course of the dispute.
Summing up the dispute : determination of whose point of view turned out to be more reasoned and conditionally won in the end.

Tricks in the dispute

Logical tricks in the dispute:

Argumentation through an axiom (does not need proof): designed for uncritical perception, which eliminates the need to further substantiate the proposed opinion.
Dogma argument : suggests stereotyped thinking. A person justifies his position by the fact that “it is supposed to be so”, “it is so accepted”, “it is so necessary in such cases”, which often confuses the interlocutor.
Argument by analogy : comparing new information with what is already known, and highlighting in it the most significant for oneself. These may be deliberately logically incorrect conclusions, which in reality have nothing to do with it.
Argumentation by reference to authority : replaces logically correct reasoning. The authority invoked is not necessarily a specific person. It could be the Bible, a tradition, a social norm, etc.
Evasion of evidence due to the indisputability of the position : the expressed point of view is presented in such a way as if it does not need substantiation due to its obviousness. It is more difficult for the interlocutor in such a situation to express his doubts or defend the opposite position.
Evidence evasion due to entanglement of the position : the formulation of the position is extremely confusing and unclear in order to prevent the interlocutor from clearly understanding and expressing its controversial nature.
Distortion of individual elements of the partner's position : the real meaning of the partner's position is distorted when it is "innocently" paraphrased. The extreme option of reception is bringing it to the point of absurdity.
Nihilistic conformism : any conventional wisdom is rejected. A clear orientation to the point of view proposed by the interlocutor, but always with a minus sign, with a denial of everything that the other participant in the dispute expresses.
Criticism in particulars : the weakest arguments of the interlocutor's position are subjected to refutation and at the same time its strengths are ignored. This discourages the interlocutor and forces him to justify himself about this particular shortcoming. A variant of this technique is to criticize the partner not for what was said, but for what was not said.
Question and answer mismatch : the answer is given not to the question asked, but to a question close to it, imposing on the opponent a position with which, with more attention to the discussion procedure, he could not agree.
Conscious Connection : the combination in one statement of two parts - true and false, contradictory provisions, which allows you to confuse the interlocutor.
Double-entry bookkeeping" : the same argument in one case can be beneficial, true and suitable for the interlocutor, and in another - erroneous and rejected. This position, at any turn of events, eliminates the need to admit your mistakes.
Incorrect application of the laws of formal logic : if there are many options for answering a certain question, the option closest to the one who conducts the argument is selected. The interlocutor is faced with an artificially created dilemma, built on the need to choose from two extremes: “either - or”.
Violations of the Law of Identity : the concept is replaced by another content, with a much narrower scope - “just statements”. A separate element, a particular, something insignificant in the position of the interlocutor is refuted, but this should give the impression of a refutation of the entire position as a whole.
Substitution of the thesis of the dispute : shifting attention to the contradictions between the words and actions of the interlocutor, transferring the issue on which the controversy unfolds into the plane of profitability or disadvantage for him personally. Instead of justifying the truth or fallacy of his position, the partner is forced to explain why he needs to insist on accepting his point of view.
Substitution of a dispute over a thesis with a dispute over arguments : instead of a critical analysis of the thesis of the interlocutor, they refute the arguments proposed in its justification.
Arbitrary narrowing or expansion of the thesis: introduction (or, conversely, ignoring) of important limiting conditions.
Violation of the requirement for the truth of arguments: references to non-existent facts, distorted data or quotations are used as arguments, a position that has not yet been proven is used, etc.
Replacing argument with explanation : by expressing his point of view and explaining it, a person thereby says that it does not need to be confirmed by arguments and, accordingly, its acceptability is undoubted.
foundation anticipation: one of the interlocutors, referring to opinions, assumptions, tries to pass them off as arguments substantiating his own position or refuting the point of view of another interlocutor.
Violation of the law of sufficient reason: the interlocutor proves only part of the statement, after which he declares the conclusion that the truth of the entire statement has been proved.
Active offensive dispute tactics: shifting the "burden of proof" to the partner. One of the parties refers to the fact that her thesis follows from a generally recognized position, is initially sufficiently substantiated and therefore does not need additional argumentation. The interlocutor's thesis, on the contrary, is an exception to this provision, which obliges one to prove the legitimacy of such an exception or to look for other justifications for the truth of one's position.
False Generalization(errors of causation): based on statements about the presence of certain qualities in individual representatives of a class of objects or phenomena, a conclusion is made about the presence of these qualities in all representatives of this class.
Double entenders: decrease in the clarity and certainty of the message due to the use of the expressions “there is an opinion ...”, “according to the latest data ...” without specifying dates, sources, etc. Distortion of information due to hyperbolization and introducing a qualitatively different meaning because of this.
Use of sophisms: this is a subtle and veiled deception, an imaginary problem, which is a purely external obstacle in reasoning and takes it aside. Sophism is often a defensive reaction of a person who feels his ignorance or powerlessness, but does not want to give in to his interlocutor.
Use of paradox: an attempt to confound one's interlocutor with a statement that is sharply at odds with the generally accepted, established opinion, which denies what seems unconditionally correct.

Psychological tricks in the dispute:

The interlocutor is forced to be silent or interrupt the argument, questioning and criticizing his competence, intelligence, character traits, decency, etc. It is assumed that an insufficiently qualified or inconsistent person in a certain issue cannot have a correct, reasonable, competent position in another issue.
Motives are questioned, according to which the interlocutor expresses his point of view or questions the position of the interlocutor, his interest, predilections, bias, insincerity, etc. are noted.
Attempts are being made to find contradictions in the statements of the interlocutor and his actions, often associated with completely different circumstances, for example, in the past. This allows you to undermine the trust in the partner’s words, and then force him to admit defeat.
Ignoring the argument, skipping it or silence about any facts in the argument of the interlocutor.
Retraction of a true and important argument as false: when you use the same argument, this, according to the interlocutor, is a delusion, but when he uses it himself, this is an argument that is quite correct and worthy of attention.
Rebuttal or "proof on credit": Ignore a small element in the peer's message and return the message to him in a garbled form.
"Truncated Quote": the interlocutor pulls out individual phrases or parts of them from the statement, distorting the meaning of the entire statement beyond recognition, introducing the opposite meaning into it.

Argumentation violation options:

Defend with arguments that have no logical connection with the thesis under discussion.
Defend by other means, but not by arguments (play on feelings, inexperience in the logic of the interlocutors, in various ways translate the dispute into the direction that will achieve the desired result).

Types of silence in controversy:

"Silence of restraint": the interlocutor is trying to hide certain disadvantageous facts for himself.
"Silence of Stubbornness": in case the interlocutor does not want to agree and take any step towards the partner.
"Silence of Courage": the interlocutor makes it clear that he could easily and fully justify himself and defend his position, but does not do this out of noble motives, for example, so as not to harm others or “set up” someone else.
"Silence is a sign of consent": when a person is silent, he thereby wants to emphasize that his opinion coincides with the opinion of the interlocutor.

Incorrect arguments:

"Reading in the Heart": if the position of the interlocutor was not clearly formulated from the very beginning, a fictitious point of view is attributed to him, different from what he said or could say, having the opportunity to do so. The effect of this trick is enhanced if it contains "bare truths", there are no examples or other arguments.
"Conclusion to the policeman": this statement is false, because agreeing to it can damage ... (be dangerous, disadvantageous, inappropriate). The specific content of such a "counterargument" may change, but the essence remains unchanged.
Transferring the assessment of the statement to the author of the statement: the attacks are not directed against the point of view itself or doubts about its correctness, but against the personality of its author.
"You too": the interlocutor's point of view is rejected on the grounds that in the past he had a different position, contrary to the current one. But this will not be considered as a trick if it is possible to prove the inconsistency of the points of view of their author in the course of the dispute itself.
"Ethical error" : the interlocutor flaunts certain qualities that he does not really have (experience, competence) and tries to use this as an argument. And the interlocutor believes in the authority of his partner and allows him to manipulate himself.
The use of additional arguments that reinforce the illusion of the legitimacy of the transition from premises to thesis: the self-imposed judgment that all decisions made in accordance with these interests are correct is used as an argument. Similarly, statements in argumentation can be used, containing ideas about the infallibility of one or another authority, ideological principles, etc.
"Stick Argument": used in situations where it is necessary not only to suppress the opponent, but also to force him to agree with the argument offered to him, if only out of a sense of fear, guilt or pity. Any attempt to exert pressure and thereby prevent the opponent from expressing his point of view is used. This may be the threat of any sanctions being applied to him if he continues to defend his position, including the assumption of quite probable and obviously undesirable consequences for the opponent.
Sticking labels: refutation of an idea by belittling its author without discussing and analyzing the arguments expressed by the interlocutor. It may contain offensive epithets, ridicule, caustic remarks, manifested in the form of an appeal to a partner.
Unaddressed address: unaddressed criticism is safe for the critic, because no one is specifically affected by it, therefore, no one will come up with a refutation. Such a trick is a variant of avoiding the obligation to prove one's position.
Use of humor, irony, ridicule, jokes: in this way it is possible to discourage the interlocutor, deprive the feeling of self-confidence, humiliate him and thereby emphasize his superiority.
Quotes: criticism and pressure are presented as simple information, to which the listener has the right to treat at his own discretion.
Psychological pressure : the predominance of the onslaught with a minimum of logical argumentation. The partner against whom this technique is used feels that he is being pushed against the wall. At the same time, he can neither adequately continue the dispute, defending his interests, nor calmly give in and withdraw from the dialogue, maintaining dignity.
"Multiple Question": in one interrogative statement, essentially, two questions are presented - one explicit, the other implied. At the same time, it seems that the answer to this second question is a premise shared by both participants in the dispute.
Rhetorical question: creates the illusion of reasoning, in which the listener seems to participate on an equal footing with the author of the statement and therefore comes to the desired result without feeling obvious violence over himself. For an audience more trained in logic, the use of such techniques can have the opposite effect, giving rise to a feeling of uncertainty about the strength of the author's argument, or even simply doubts about its existence.
"Back to the Wall": creating maximum inconvenience for the partner in the process of the dispute, pushing him to the need to finish negotiations faster or make concessions.
Remarks: regarding appearance, abilities masked by a demonstration of attention, care, etc.
"Oiling" the argument: distraction of the partner with the translation of the conversation into the sphere of emotions, combined with irony, demonstrated as a subtle flattery or compliment.
Indiscriminate disagreement: the dialogue is accompanied by bickering over trifles, in particular, nit-picking, increased attention to "procedural" issues.
formal consent: against the background of hasty, superficial conciliation, in reality, all the proposals and arguments of the partner are rejected, until, finally, he is at an impasse.
The illusion of choice: the preference for any option of the proposed alternatives will be followed by the accusation of rejecting others.
The cognitive dissonance: the emergence of new concepts, information, arguments that disagree with the information that the listener has, can cause a negative attitude to the perception of this new information for him.
Exaggerated "unasked question": "I could not ask you at all about ..." As a result, the interlocutor, who really does not want to open up, begins to speak, and with the illusion that he does it freely, without external pressure.

Moderator Types and Methods

1. "Podavism":

Suppresses the discussion, which becomes lively;
Creates an atmosphere of dullness and lethargy;
Pretends to be partially or completely deaf.

2. "Dormanism":

"Blinds" the meeting with his knowledge;
Quickly quotes facts and figures, illustrates what has been said with graphs, diagrams and diagrams, without giving those present an opportunity to carefully familiarize themselves with these materials;
Gives a lot of technical incomprehensible details to anyone.

3. "Ustrashism":

Asserts and imposes his opinion;
Acutely and painfully reacts to objections;
Presents information as true.

4. "Confusion":

Turns the meeting into chaos;
Illogical in his statements;
Passive in his position.

Effective means of countering tricks in a dispute:

An active desire to better understand yourself and your partner.
Ask to repeat or clarify the question, noting that it is not entirely clear.
Say the question out loud. This can force the interlocutor to make the correct corrections, and you will have additional time to think about the answer.
Do not rush to answer on the move, take a few seconds to think.
Seek support, help or advice from one of the other participants in the dialogue.
In situations of difficult, tense dispute caused by psychological pressure, avoid the questions of the interlocutor and do not analyze the intentions inherent in them.
Anticipate the questions that may be asked and not allow them to stray too far from the main subject (thesis) of the dispute.

Levels of mutual understanding of the participants in the dispute:

Virtually no understanding: the meanings that are attached to the same words by communication partners are different.
Partial understanding: meanings that are attached to the same words by communication partners - partially coincide, having common elements.
Unequal understanding: meanings that are attached to the same words by one interlocutor are fully included in the meanings of another interlocutor. A partner with a broader semantic context understands an interlocutor with a narrower semantic context; but not vice versa: the second does not always understand the first.
Full understanding: complete coincidence of meanings that are attached to the same words by communication partners.

Constructive positions in the dispute:

Let go of the initial negative attitude towards the controversial situation.
Separate people from problems. Question the very tactics of the conversation, and the non-personal qualities of the interlocutor.
Focus on mutually beneficial options.
Use the tactic “I would like to better understand your position. Let me tell you where I have difficulty in understanding your reasoning.
Let the interlocutor in the dispute from time to time "let off steam."
Insist on using objective criteria.

Criteria for the success of the outcome of the dispute:

The partners received new information for themselves, were able to better understand the position of the interlocutor, clarified something in their vision of the situation and ways to solve it.
The interlocutors were able to at least partially relieve or reduce tension in relations, eliminate manifestations of mutual hostility, distrust, resentment, irritation.
The partners came to a greater mutual understanding and convergence of their positions through specific, clear and open messages.
The interlocutors were able to resolve the disputable situation itself, eliminate the conflict, and reach an agreement.

Rules for "effective confrontation" or constructive argument:

Confrontation in a dispute should be based on an obligation to care for the interests and feelings of the interlocutor.
You should explain to your interlocutor your goals and expectations from his actions. These expectations should be formulated positively, in terms of achieving something important for both parties to the dispute, and not suppressing or blocking what seems unacceptable to you.
Communicate how you feel and how you hear and perceive what the other person has to say.
When describing how you see the interlocutor's actions or reasoning, avoid labels and criticism directed at him personally.
Carefully and thoughtfully choose the time for an argument that flows with emotional tension or confrontation.

Rules for correct feedback in a dispute:

Feedback should be descriptive, not evaluative, otherwise it increases the tension in the dialogue.
To have the character of an objective statement of facts and argumentation, and not advice, criticism, edification and teachings.
Be timely and comply with the principle of "here and now".
Be specific and relate to the specific statements of the interlocutor.
Consider the needs of the person to whom it is intended, and his readiness and ability to accept it.
Do not contain demands or coercion of another person to certain changes in the expressed position or behavior.
Focus on what can be really changed with its help in the behavior of another person in order to make it more constructive.
To be formulated, if possible, in "I-statements" and contain information about the feelings of the author of this statement.

In conclusion, we note that in life there are people who are ready to argue with or without reason, sometimes they are even proud of it. Such inveterate debaters, getting involved in a dispute for its own sake, most often only interfere with the clarification of the matter. It is useful to always remember that the dispute is not valuable in itself, but as a means to achieve certain goals. If there is no clear and important goal, or if it can be achieved without any dispute, there is no point in arguing. The constant focus on the dispute, on the opposition to any opinions that do not completely coincide with one's own opinion, unleashing petty disputes, etc. characterizes a person not from the best side.

Follow our publications and stay up to date with current issues.

You can always contact and find the information you are interested in or write to us, we are ONLINE.

Based on the materials of the book "Tricks in the dispute" 2012, as well as the Internet community "Personnel Management".