How to resolve a dispute peacefully and not kill your interlocutor? 10 unexpected tips

Participation in disputes and discussions is an integral part of everyday communication. Even the most non-conflict person who avoids confrontation from time to time gets drawn into an intense emotional struggle and wants to win. Business people have to argue constantly, openly defending a point of view or quietly tipping the scales in their favor. Therefore, it is important to know how to win with words, logic, psychology and non-verbal methods, maintaining your own reputation and not descending to aggression.

A person who can win a fight and gain a new ally who shares his position is a truly strong person. Having mastered the art of impressive and unconditional victory in an argument (it is called eristics), you will be able to “extract” important information from your interlocutors. For those who work with people, the ability to argue is especially useful. It helps to avoid many unpleasant situations.

Let's look at how to win any dispute, whether this can be done in principle and how to act correctly to increase the chances of success.

Psychological tricks in dispute

Tricks in an argument are not always a “private trick,” but you need to know about them. If winning a debate is important, your counterpart uses too harsh methods, puts aggressive pressure on you, or you can resort to psychological tricks. However, before you learn to argue not entirely “purely”, remember - your counterpart can also know about such techniques and identify them. Even if you manage to gain the upper hand, you will be remembered as a person who plays “closet” and does not disdain anything for the sake of victory.

Here are some techniques to help you argue:

• the use of the connective “or” in a dispute - imposing an alternative on the opponent, reducing his room for maneuver, helped many to win;
• accelerating the pace of speaking - this prevents the opponent from concentrating, finding the correct answer, and helps to “skip” dangerous moments;
• “increasing expectation” technique – slow presentation of information, giving out facts, pauses, forcing the opponent to rush and make mistakes;
• appealing to a feeling of fear or shame for an action, ignorance of some facts, behavior - talking and arguing should be done carefully, “presenting” the trick in the form of slight surprise;
• the “human factor” technique – the ability to argue, turning to psychology, any important moments for the opponent (convenience, pleasant emotions);
• using the opinions of authorities, going into excessive detail, deliberate resentment, indignation and other non-obvious ways to win.

Getting personal

• Example: “Only a hillbilly like you would make an argument like that.”
• Purpose of use: change the topic.

People on the second stage of the pyramid in disputes turn to the personal characteristics of the person with whom they are arguing: his social status, gender, appearance, and so on. Unfortunately, this way of conducting dialogue has become especially dangerous with the advent of social networks, where it is easy to find information about the interlocutor and make it the object of discussion.

The reason for the transition to personalities is similar to the previous point. The person has no other arguments, and he tries to move the topic to another plane, pointing out your characteristics as shortcomings. Experienced speakers simply acknowledge the imperfections of their personality and continue the dialogue without allowing themselves to be confused. However, it is better for a novice debater to immediately stop the conversation and leave the opponent alone with his words.

Keep calm

The one who manages to maintain calm and a “cool head” wins the dispute. You need to learn to restrain your emotions, behave correctly, and benevolently - this will create a winning impression of you and compare you favorably with your opponent.

Before arguing in a loud voice or losing control of the situation, try to quietly build an “impenetrable wall” inside.
It can bring you victory if the other person uses dirty tricks and deliberately tries to throw you off balance. Do not give in to the provocateur, do not raise your tone, but remain calm and smile. You can not only win, but also hear your interlocutor, receiving a lot of useful information. Confidence is the key to the ability to argue
Confidence, the ability to stick to your original positions and not allow yourself to be led away from the path you want is an invaluable asset. To achieve victory in disputes, you need to develop these qualities in yourself, especially if your opponent wants to gain a moral advantage over you. The attitude of no doubt that one was right helped many to achieve success, confusing less prepared counterparts.

To demonstrate confidence, you need to clearly and firmly pronounce each of the formulations. Learning rhetoric and the ability to speak beautifully will help with this. Oratory skill allows you to win only due to internal resilience, even if the logical justifications are not in your favor.

Counter argument

• Example: “But my mother (boss, friend, famous actor) says something completely different! I didn’t do everything as you say, and I succeeded!”
• Purpose of use: attempt at constructive dialogue.

The use of counterarguments is the first sign that your interlocutor wants to reach an agreement. The problem is that people often don't take the other person's views and experiences into account.

A person gets a positive result in one situation and takes this as a standard. It just may turn out that his experience is not applicable in this discussion.

The main rule when it comes to counterarguments is to let the person talk. Firstly, there may be a grain of truth in his words. Secondly, this way you will establish contact with him and be able to convey your ideas.

Distraction to win

If you feel that your opponent is overwhelming you and victory is slipping away, you can use a little trick and switch his attention. To distract your opponent, any small object will do - a fountain pen, a pencil, glasses. They are needed:

• demonstrate to your interlocutor, diverting his attention from the selection of arguments;
• transfer from hand to hand, move on the table so that your counterpart begins to fascinatedly follow the object with his eyes;
• Holding it in front of you like a shield helps you calm down and argue more effectively.

A person’s attention will naturally shift. He will be distracted, lose the thread of the argument, and allow you to take the initiative.

Common enemy

At this stage, you have already won: you have enriched your picture of the world and, most likely, turned your opponent into an ally. Here's the icing on the cake: point out the power in whose interests your discord may be. You don’t even have to point it out, but simply ask the question out loud: “If you and I want the same thing, in whose interests is it to sow discord between us? Who will benefit from you and I quarreling over...?”

Partially agree, but continue to argue

Socrates knew how to argue, giving in a little ground, but then effectively winning back much more. According to his contemporaries, he widely used the method of partial agreement and “step back,” feigning the rightness of his opponent. When his counterpart relaxed and stopped arguing furiously, Socrates left no stone unturned from his position.

This is a constructive, rather gentle way to defeat and neutralize the opponent’s negative attitude. He will stop thinking about how to argue with you, after which you can either win him over to your side, or continue the discussion in a calmer tone. When choosing wording for partial agreement, emphasize the competence, authority of the interlocutor, your goodwill, and you will be able to win “bloodlessly.”

Refutation in essence

• Example: “You say this is x and this is y. And that's why…"
• Purpose of use: search for truth, exchange of knowledge and experience.

The main difference from the counterargument strategy is that here you and your interlocutor are on the same wavelength. The arguments that you both make relate to the same topic, and through them you mutually enrich each other's knowledge.

If you're using a substantive rebuttal, don't be afraid to admit that you agree with some of the other person's arguments. He will definitely do the same if there are all signs of a healthy discussion. As a result of such a dialogue, you can also remain unconvinced. In doing so, both of you will be heard and learn something new about the subject of discussion.

Argumentation with facts

One of the main ways to win an argument is to use evidence-based logical arguments. To do this, you need to prepare for a discussion, look for information that supports your position. A good way to win an argument is:

• statistics - before arguing, study the numbers and highlight those that will help you;
• facts from practice - it is desirable that they are close to the opponent;
• formal logic – the ability to build an unbroken chain of evidence is important;
• mistakes of the interlocutor in a dispute - imperfect logic, partial evidence, the identification of which helps to win.

Altercation

• Example: “What nonsense? You didn't understand anything at all! So, what is next?"
• Purpose of use: trying to end a dispute in a draw.

The bickering strategy is used by those who understand that their battle is already lost, but if they confuse their opponent, then they can offer a draw.

To do this, they use empty arguments that may not be related to the topic of conversation at all. They simply ignore your arguments. The well-known phrase “conversation between a deaf person and a dumb person” is suitable to describe such a situation.

If you want to win an argument at the bickering stage, regularly return to the topic of discussion and persuade your opponent to argue for his conclusions.

Nonverbal ways to win arguments

The word is the main, but not the only tool for winning a dispute. Nonverbal techniques are equally important. They give you the impression of a person who knows how to argue, calm in a tense environment. The interlocutor, without noticing it, loses, even if his argument is stronger.

To resolve the dispute in your favor, you can use the “get taller” technique – literally. You need to think in advance about what place you will take. Try to argue by standing up on a step, or stand up if your counterpart is sitting. This will give you emotional control over the situation. You can use a small object for protection. Hold it in your hands, as if fencing yourself off from your opponent. He becomes shy and will argue less confidently.

Polemical techniques

The following techniques are used in polemics.
1. Clarification of the opponent’s principled position on a controversial issue. This makes it easier to find the arguments needed to convince your opponent, and sometimes makes further polemics pointless.

2. Using psychological arguments:

• argument to a person: an appeal to the personal qualities or actions of the person whose idea or proposal is being discussed;
• argument to the public: an appeal to the feelings of witnesses to a dispute in order to win them over to the side of the speaker;
• reference to authority: the utterance or actions of a person in influence.

Arguments to a person and to the public can have a strong psychological impact.
In the story by A.P. Chekhov’s “Case from Judicial Practice” describes a curious situation when the use of these techniques led not only to strong, but also unexpected results: after the lawyer’s speech, not only the jury and the public became emotional, but also the defendant himself, who, to the amazement of the defense lawyer, admitted his guilt. 3. Comparison of the opponent’s statements with his actions. This technique puts a lot of pressure and, according to S.I. Povarnina is one of the types of “clamping the mouth.” Therefore, it is not relevant in a dispute over truth. So, for example, in the novel by I.L. Goncharov “Oblomov” describes the dispute between Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts. Oblomov criticizes St. Petersburg residents for their empty lives and doing nothing. He asserts: “We must follow our own path, work...” The dispute ends with Stolz’s question, “And you?...”

4. Turning the opponent’s arguments against himself - a technique called a “return strike.”

In the mentioned discussion A.V. Lunacharsky with A.I. Vvedensky, both speakers used various polemical techniques, including this one. So, in response to the argument of A.I. Vvedensky: “Religion is a certain value, at least from the order of opiates, for how many tears it has dried up, how many wounds it has healed...” A.V. Lunacharsky stated: “Yes, this is true, but we do not want to alleviate suffering, but to treat the disease.”

5. Use of humor, irony, sarcasm. So, for example, in the same discussion A.I. Vvedensky said: “I noticed that in the vast majority of cases the best anti-religionists create their own understanding of religion and then victoriously destroy it. Such a struggle with the windmills of one’s imagination about the religion of Christ has long been described in the immortal work of Cervantes.”

6. Seizing the initiative from the opponent, attacking with questions.

How to lose an argument but come out a winner

If you understand that you will not be able to win the argument, you need to at least finish with honor. You can directly admit that your counterpart has convinced you - this will create an opinion of you as a negotiable interlocutor. If you need at least an indirect victory, avoiding the topic of the argument or referring to your own beliefs, which do not allow you to bow to the position of your interlocutor, will do. You cannot laugh at your counterpart or belittle his success.

In order to quickly find arguments to win an argument, clearly and competently formulate your position and appear confident that you are right, you need to hone your communication skills with the audience. Anton Dukhovsky's school of public speaking will help you emerge victorious from discussions and achieve success even in obviously losing situations.

Complaints about the tone of dialogue

• Example: “Don’t raise your voice at me! How are you talking to me!”
• Purpose of use: trying to end an argument so as not to lose.

Tone awareness refers to paying close attention to the way you speak or write, your terminology, and turns of phrase. And since this perception is subjective, it will be difficult to continue a dialogue with such a person. Which is exactly what he is counting on.

This technique suggests that the person has been driven into a corner, but he does not want to admit that he was wrong. Unlike the two previous stages, at this one you have a chance to win the argument or, at least, reduce it to a compromise. To do this, accept subjective claims and present your arguments consistently. In the face of facts, the opponent will have nowhere to run.

Incorrect methods of dispute management

Sophistry is essentially a trick, a cunning invention. Such tricks are based on logically incorrect or erroneous statements. The term logical errors is also often used.

Ad hominem - argument to a person

Or argumentum ad hominem. The essence of the technique is to “attack” not the argument of the interlocutor, but himself. For example, direct criticism, insults, arguments like “you don’t do it yourself,” etc.

Ad hominem is a favorite technique of manipulators, Internet trolls and other unpleasant counterparts. Favorite tactics are insulting opponents, pointing out personal qualities, etc.

Petitio principii - anticipation of the foundation

The essence of this technique is the use of an unprovable, unsupported argument as truth. For example, they put forward any thesis, a priori considering it true and starting from it:

Everyone knows that

It has long been proven that

Any attempt to clarify where such information comes from, whether there are links or proofs, etc., will be blocked with the comments “Googled” or “there is no desire to talk to such people.”

Reductio/argumentum ad Hitlerum/Nazium - reduction/appeal to Hitler/Nazism

This is a relatively new technique. Although it sounds Latin, it appeared in the mid-20th century. The essence is clear in the title - the interlocutor or his actions are compared to Nazism or Hitler. Also, other objects or events that evoke negative emotions (genocide, political repression, etc.) may be an unacceptable argument.

Ignoratio elenchi - substitution of the thesis

The opposite party is credited with a statement to which he is not involved. Or they distort the true theses of their counterparts as much as possible. Moreover, the substituted thesis is obviously stupid and absurd. After which it is difficult to “destroy” such a statement. This technique is also known as the “Straw Man” - counterparts attribute goals, words or arguments that have nothing to do with it, but which are easy to refute (destroy like a straw man). For example:

Sometimes it's worth indulging in something sweet

Sweets are harmful

So why do you need to starve now?

In this example, a statement is attributed to the counterpart (a tar effigy) that one should starve. Although he was not talking about all food, but only about sweets.

How to argue effectively

Ask for ideas

Try to understand what your opponents' proposals are based on and whether they are actually useful. Clarifying questions will help you with this:

• What brought you to this idea?
• How confident are you about this?
• What facts support your position?
• Is the information on which you base your beliefs current?
• What will happen if we implement this idea?
• Is there a way to know in advance if this will work?
• What could go wrong?
• Is it possible to solve the problem differently?
• What are other people's opinions on this?
• Why do you disagree with their point of view?

“Simply making arguments is ineffective in most cases: it only leads to a waste of resources on both sides. It is better to try to avoid confrontation and work together to figure out the problem. Ask questions using this simplified framework and listen a lot. All participants in the dispute will achieve success if it is really possible to check the reliability of their beliefs,” says Alesya Sokolova, author of articles and leader of meetings on street epistemology.

Reference:

Street epistemology is an approach to conducting conflict-free dialogue. The point is to study the interlocutor's methods of cognition: it is not the beliefs that are being challenged, but the chain of reasoning that led to them.

Don't confuse facts with interpretations

Shane Snow, author of books on entrepreneurship, in his article for Harvard Business Review recommends forgetting the difference between specific facts and their interpretation. He advises always checking claims for accuracy. You shouldn’t blindly trust messages on forums and articles in online encyclopedias, but authoritative publications and scientific journals most likely won’t lie to you.

“Disputes often end in nothing: people tend to get defensive when they argue, and to do this, they unconsciously hold on to false conclusions, evade questions, manipulate facts, sometimes outright deceive or change the topic in order to strengthen their positions and distract those arguing with them from bringing counter-arguments. Analyze the evidence, don’t be satisfied with the mere presence of it,” writes Snow.

Stick to logic

Yulia Gultyaeva from the debate club of REU named after. G. V. Plekhanova has been involved in discussions for more than 10 years. To make the argument productive, she advises writing down all the main points before the meeting. Build a logical tree from your arguments and check it at each step. This can be done by asking the questions “why is this so?”, “so what?”. If the answers line up in a chain, you are doing everything right. Keep the outline handy during the discussion and try to follow it. Testing ideas for relevance will also help.

“To test whether your argument is relevant, reverse cause and effect. A striking example from the business environment is asking for a raise for personal reasons. “Pay me more because I have a mortgage” is irrelevant for the employer. From his point of view, paying more because you don’t have enough for personal expenses is a mediocre idea,” says Yulia.

Don't get hung up on ultimatums

Categorical statements, especially those made at the very beginning of the discussion, often turn out to be erroneous. In the course of reasoning, it may turn out that it would be more profitable for all parties to abandon them and act differently. That's why Deepak Malhotra, who teaches management at Harvard Business School, advises ignoring them. If the ultimatum does become a stumbling block in the conversation, a simple technique will help you get out of the situation. Try to smooth out the corners: reformulate the other person’s words so that they don’t sound so categorical.

“For example, your interlocutor insists: “We will never implement this project.” I would suggest the following answer: “I understand perfectly well, given the current difficult times, that for you the implementation of this task would be extremely difficult...” Thus, I, in fact, give two ways out of this situation. This will be “extremely difficult,” but not impossible, and “these are not the easiest times” mean that sooner or later the crisis or temporary recession will end,” writes Professor Malhotra.

Don't use rhetorical tricks

“A productive discussion is not about proving your opponent wrong. It is needed to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all positions. To do this, you need to avoid toxic rhetoric,” says Aiza Privalova, ex-head of the St. Petersburg State University debate club, winner and finalist of parliamentary debate tournaments.

She shared some of the most common examples of poor argumentation:

• Distortion and radicalization of opponent's arguments.
  For example, you can say that sunny weather is good, and hear in response that you are mistaken. After all, if all the days were sunny, there would be no rain and we would die from drought. But the original statement did not say that only cloudless days are good. This error is called the "straw man".
• Justification of logic with examples and analogies.
  Because of this, the dispute risks escalating into an endless exchange of illustrations for arguments. Let's say you prove to a person that he should quit smoking. You make the argument that the poisons contained in tobacco smoke are harmful to health. The opponent gives a counterexample: there are also a lot of poisons in the air of a large city, but this does not mean that you need to go to live in the countryside. You will answer that living in a city has its advantages, such as accessible infrastructure. And your interlocutor will say that you can create comfortable conditions in the village. This meaningless dialogue can be continued indefinitely, moving further and further away from the original subject of the dispute.
• Identification of correlation and causation.
  Events that follow one another are not necessarily related. All people drink water, and they are all mortal. This does not mean that water is poison.
• Appeal to history and traditions.
  If the traditions of blood feud are strong somewhere, this does not mean that you need to adhere to this rule.
• Appeal to legality and legality.
  Slavery and piracy were both legal at one time, but that doesn't mean they can be practiced.
• Appeal to authority.
  Hitler was a fairly popular politician, but not all of his ideas can be called sound.
• Fitting a hypothesis to the available data.
  For example, you believe that a person is destined for you because you both love Tarantino films, you have the same zodiac sign, and your names begin with the same letter. The hypothesis quickly breaks down when you consider how many other people in the world fit this description. The mistake is called the "Texas shooter" - by analogy with a person drawing targets around ready-made bullet holes.

Respect each other

Try to keep your cool and don't get too personal. If emotions take over, the dispute will cease to be effective: its participants will not be able to adequately evaluate the proposals put forward. Respect other people's points of view and listen to them, even if you disagree. Don't take criticism of ideas personally. Be willing to change your mind when necessary. Reward people if they move the group forward.

“Psychologists call this intellectual humility, and it is one of the key skills of a good leader and productive debater. The key to effective problem solving is not that everyone agrees with each other. The secret is to disagree with each other, but to disagree with each other, but to do so correctly,” writes Shane Snow in his article on controversy for Harvard Business Review.

How to Avoid Conflict

At the beginning of each dispute, it is better to think carefully about whether it is necessary and whether the issue itself is worth your wrangling with a loved one or colleague. Sometimes it will be much wiser to avoid a dispute by agreeing to some concessions and accepting the opponent’s decision. True, the reasons for the dispute can be completely different. In a question like: “Today is your turn to take out the trash,” it is quite acceptable not to start a long discussion on the topic of whose turn it really is at this moment. And one day you can even make allowances for your opponent’s mood and condition by conceding on more important issues. At the same time, one must understand that disputes and conflicts can also arise at the state level, when the future of the country or the welfare of its citizens will depend on their resolution. In this case, you need to be ideally prepared to defend your point of view, be able to present convincing arguments based on statistics - do everything to prove that you are right, in which you are two hundred percent convinced.