Rules for conducting a dispute: concept and types, principles, ethical foundations

Author of the material:

Svetlana Smyshlyak

philologist, writer, lyric poet

Why does an argument between some people resemble an elegant dance with blades, while for others it resembles a market booth? There is a huge gulf between idle talk and the high style of polemic. To get from the shores of ignorance to the edge of skillful verbal combat requires knowledge of the rules. But which ones exactly? And is it enough to know universal principles to be a debating genius? This is made worse by the fact that there are different types of disputes. Does this affect the course of the dialogue? More on this, as well as on the nuances of polemical skill, later in the article.

A little theory

Before studying the rules of dispute, you need to familiarize yourself with the theory. Thus, a dispute is a verbal confrontation between two or more persons, in which each defends his or her point of view. In other words, this is a battle of opinions. The following types of disputes are distinguished:

Discussion is a public dispute that involves comparing different points of view in order to identify the true one.
Dispute - in the original version means a public speech to defend scientific work. Nowadays this term means a public debate on scientific or social issues.
Controversy is a dispute that involves a serious confrontation of ideas. That is, this is a struggle between fundamentally opposing points of view.
Debate or debate - discussion of reports, messages, speeches, and so on.

Introduction

The world in which modern man lives is woven from contradictions. For this reason, he is more polemical than ever before. And the future of a person largely depends on whether a person will be able to organize and make fruitful and effective communication a vital value in various spheres of human life. Today, most of humanity has realized a very simple and obvious fact that only a few statements about the world are true and do not require proof. But the lion's share of our judgments presupposes active mental activity taking place in the mode of argument (discussion, polemics).

A dispute is one of the main forms of human communication, within which the positions of the opposing sides are clarified, an optimal solution to the problem is developed, and “the truth is born.” Every person, no matter what activity he is a specialist in, must be able to competently and fruitfully discuss vital problems, prove and convince, argue his point of view and refute the opinions of his opponent, master all genres of polemical skill.

Now, in our time of conflict, without the ability to stand up for oneself, to emerge victorious from a conflict situation, an argument, it is simply impossible for a person to withstand and survive in this world. Nowadays, it is necessary to be able to prove your point of view culturally, especially in business communication. In view of this, the relevance of this work is undeniable.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the issue of the culture of the dispute. In accordance with the goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: characterize the dispute, consider the varieties and types of dispute, rules of conduct and polemical techniques. The work consists of an introduction, main part, conclusion and bibliography.

Types of disputes by purpose

The rules for conducting disputes remain the same, regardless of the goals. And the goals could be the following:

Dispute for the sake of truth - testing an idea and justifying its correctness. A comparison of different points of view occurs in order to identify the most correct one or form a fundamentally new statement.
Argument for the sake of persuasion - the arguer tries to convey his opinion to his opponent, present weighty arguments in order to convince him of its correctness.
A dispute for the sake of victory occurs when each of the participants is sincerely convinced that he is right. Moreover, victory is of fundamental importance and important for self-affirmation.
Argument for the sake of argument is one of the most common formats when opponents don’t care what they argue about. They are fascinated by the process itself.

Use a third party

The rules of conduct in a dispute recommend using the help of strangers if the controversy is approaching a skirmish.

The situation of the dispute itself is an initially unfriendly atmosphere. The interlocutors do not perceive the polar position and are skeptical about it. This means that they perceive opposing opinions worse and will not listen to positions that differ from their views. But the arguments of a third party who is not involved in the conflict will carry much more weight. Because of the lack of hostility, these arguments will be better accepted and understood.

Also, using a third party will be useful in maintaining the opponent's self-esteem. Your thoughts and ideas will be voiced and conveyed to your interlocutor, without him being harmed. If the third party is an authority for your opponent, then this greatly simplifies the task. An effective communicator can use his own person as a third party, who will convey the necessary thoughts to the opponent, while the connection between the communicator and the third party will not be visible.

Constructive and destructive goals

In short, the rules for conducting a dispute can be boiled down to the fact that it must take place in a constructive manner. Thus, it is possible to distinguish constructive and destructive goals of verbal confrontation. Let's take a closer look at them.

Constructive goals:

discuss possible solutions to the problem;
come to a common compromise opinion on a certain issue;
attract the attention of a wide range of people to the problematic situation;
refute false rumors and expose an incompetent approach to solving the problem;
establish contacts with people ready for dialogue and cooperation;
evaluate the allies and enemies with whom you will have to deal in the future.

Destructive goals:

sow discord between the parties to the dispute and divide them into irreconcilable groups;
bring the dispute to a dead end;
distort and discredit the original topic of the dialogue;
turn an orderly argument into a disorderly swearing;
lead the dispute in the wrong direction;
discredit those who think differently.

How not to argue?

A verbal competition of any format can take a lot of physical and moral strength. Argument must be avoided at all costs. For this there are simple tips from a psychologist:

If there is a threat of a controversial situation, you should try to reduce the conversation to dialogue or exchange of opinions.
It is recommended to accept the internal attitude of consciousness that everyone can make mistakes. This will allow you, while remaining unconvinced, to allow someone with different views on things around you.
If possible, it is better not to object.
You can choose the manner of presenting information without becoming in opposition to your opponent, or move on to dialogue.

Principles of dispute

Anyone who aims to succeed must know the rules of dispute and the principles on which this process is based. Namely:

Objectivity. The dispute must have a specific topic, and specific points on which there is disagreement must be highlighted.
Preparedness. Participants in a dispute must first collect as much information as possible on the issue under consideration and outline an argumentation scheme for themselves.
Alternative. As a rule, any problem has several solutions. Disputants must be open to considering alternatives.
Reasonedness of criticism. You can refute your interlocutor’s arguments only through objective facts.
Correctness. Regardless of the direction in which the dispute develops, it is important to behave with dignity.
Subsequence. Present your arguments according to a predetermined logical sequence.

Behave with restraint and choose precise definitions

The rules for conducting disputes and polemics require that the communicator be calm and reasonable.

Arguments may not always be complete and sufficient. To consolidate a position in a dispute, a person can deliberately exaggerate their significance and force the interlocutor to listen to his own opinion. To do this, in the midst of a dispute, we can raise our voices, interrupt our opponents, and become rude. Naturally, such measures will cause irreparable harm to effective further communication or completely eliminate its possibility.

Raising your voice and making threats will not bring the desired result. A calm tone and humility, on the contrary, can make you listen to yourself and pay attention to the opposite point of view.

Basic rules for conducting a dispute

Arguing is a science and an art. Verbal dueling is a powerful tool for determining the truth and self-affirmation. The main thing is to follow the rules of dispute. Namely:

In a dispute, you need to take a clear position. It is important to stick to your original position throughout the entire confrontation, and not “jump” from one idea to another.
The use of terms must be appropriate. First, you must clearly understand what they mean. Secondly, you must be sure that the other parties to the dispute also understand the specific terminology.
Respect your opponent. Even if you fundamentally disagree with his position, you should try to understand it.
Show interest in your opponent's point of view. Don't just listen to him, but ask clarifying questions.
Know how to lose. If you understand that your opponent is right, openly admit it.
Maintain restraint and composure. Aggression and elevated tone should not be present in the dispute. Don't let your opponent get you down.
Ignore your opponent's attacks. If he showed disrespect or aggression, do not be like him, maintain a calm tone. If your opponent's behavior is outrageous, it is better to end the conversation.

The interlocutor must understand that you value his ideas and position

A good communicator knows how to turn any dispute into normal, productive communication. To do this, you need to show that you listen to the opinion of your interlocutor, that his position is important to you. Once your opponent has fully explained his ideas, don't rush to express your thoughts.

First, you need to ask clarifying questions so that the opposing opinion becomes more understandable and transparent.
Then you should make it clear that you not only respect your opponent’s position, but also reflect on it. If you demonstrate your interest, you can convince your opponent of the value of his ideas. If you are hesitating, it means he definitely said something meaningful and interesting. Conversely, responding too quickly can be seen as disrespectful and lack of interest in opposing opinions.

Skills of a successful polemicist

In addition to knowing and following the general rules of disputes, it is important to develop certain skills:

The ability to assess the mood, temperament and actions of an opponent. This will help you build a winning line of behavior.
The ability to find the right arguments and accurate refutations. They must be formulated taking into account an individual approach to the opponent.
The ability to keep the key points of an argument in mind. This will help you get the discussion back on track at the right time if your opponent begins to wander off topic.
Ability to overcome psychological barriers. We are talking about internal complexes and fears that can prevent you from effectively defending your point of view.
The ability to detach. It is important to be able to look at the course of the discussion from the outside in order to objectively evaluate the actions and arguments of each participant in the dispute (including your own).
Stress resistance. No matter how your opponent behaves, no matter where the argument goes, you must always maintain objectivity and composure.

Approaches to dispute management

In addition to the rules for conducting dialogues, conversations and disputes, it is also important to become familiar with the basic polemical approaches. Among them:

Heuristic. The participant in the dispute does not insist on his opinion, but gradually convinces his opponents, using logic and common sense.
Logical. Each argument is subjected to rigorous analysis and argumentation from the point of view of formal logic.
Pragmatic. In proving that they are right, opponents pursue mercantile goals.
Sophistic. The disputant tries to defeat his opponent in any way, using both logical and completely absurd arguments.
Authoritarian. One of the parties to the dispute is trying to put pressure on the opponent with its power, trying to impose its own opinion.
Criticizing. The participant in the dispute does not prove that he is right, but focuses only on the weak points of the opposing point of view.
Demagogic. The participant does not aim to find the truth in the dispute, but constantly moves away from the topic, pursuing goals known only to him.

Only the first three approaches can be considered acceptable and constructive.

You cannot strive for the complete defeat of your opponent.

Losing a dispute is a serious blow to one’s reputation, which can subsequently negatively affect the productivity of communication. You shouldn’t wish your opponent complete collapse, let him “save face.”

A dispute can be compared to a battering ram, a collision. But this clash should not look like a conflict. A competent debater does not give a reason for hostility, does not show that he intends to completely defeat his interlocutor in a dispute, to crush him. Otherwise, you will lose the opportunity to establish contact in the future. Either you choose to win a single dispute, or you prefer to continue to productively communicate and cooperate with your opponent. It is impossible to get everything at once.

Each participant in the dispute has arguments and positions that are irrelevant. A good communicator knows how to sacrifice these arguments to please his opponent. It is better to lose ground on minor issues, but strengthen in more important aspects. It is worth recognizing that your interlocutor is right in small things. Without these concessions, even the most constructive dispute turns into a massacre, into a desire to completely destroy the opposing opinion. There will definitely not be a positive result from such a skirmish. Effective communication does not share this categorical attitude.

Effective Argumentation Techniques

The goal of each participant in the dispute is the victory of his point of view. This can be achieved through effective argumentation techniques:

"Re-facing". Convincing your opponent that you are right by step-by-step illustrating the way to solve the problem.
"Salami". The technique involves preliminary posing several questions to which the opponent is guaranteed to answer positively. Further, by inertia, the opponent will react in the same way to questions of principle.
"Dismemberment." Highlighting erroneous arguments in the interlocutor’s argumentation that discredit the entire position.
"Classical Rhetoric". You listen to your opponent’s position and agree with it, after which you present a sharp, irrefutable argument that proves that you are right.
"Two-sided argumentation." The disputant points out not only the strengths, but also the weaknesses of his position, which wins over his opponent.

Find out more about the opinion of the interlocutor, about his views on the problem

You should never hurt your opponent’s pride or lower his self-esteem. This can lead to negative consequences. Your thoughts should not be imposed, you should not interrupt your opponent and forcefully promote your own opinion to him.

The advantage of “reconnaissance actions” is not only the ability to assess the situation. The opponent, expressing his thoughts, gradually calms down, his aggressiveness and excessive emotionality disappear. The interlocutor ceases to perceive the communicator as an enemy. And if you also ask additional questions to clarify the situation, you will be able to better understand all the claims that are made against your position on the issue.

Do not forget that until the interlocutor speaks out completely, until he voices his thoughts entirely, he will not listen to you. He is not psychologically ready for this yet. For effective communication, you need to prepare the ground so that your own ideas are better rooted in the mind of your opponent.

Bad form, or What not to do in an argument

The ethical rules for conducting a business dispute impose some restrictions. Namely:

Don't get personal. Under no circumstances use facts from your opponent’s life, his shortcomings and weaknesses as an argument in a dispute.
Don't talk about what you don't know. It is much more worthy to admit that you do not understand the question than to drive yourself into a dead end with inappropriate answers.
Don't answer a question with a question. This doesn't make you look good.
Do not evaluate your opponent’s questions and arguments. Your task is to prove the validity of your opinion, and not to criticize someone else’s.
Don't try to throw your opponent off balance. Constructive conversation is possible only in a free environment.
Don't show your superiority. Even if you are more competent than your opponent or higher in status, you should not openly demonstrate this.
Don't cite authorities. You should not focus on the fact that some scientists and other famous people held the same opinion as yours. You must find convincing arguments yourself.
Do not respond with aggression to the rightness of your opponent. By doing this you demonstrate disrespect for your opponent and your own weakness.

Rhetoric: Workshop

“Polemical skill” - knowledge of the subject of the dispute, understanding of the essence of the public dispute and its varieties, compliance with the basic requirements of the culture of the dispute, the ability to prove the position advanced and refute the opinion of the opponent, the use of polemical techniques, the ability to resist the enemy’s tricks.

Dispute (“Dictionary of modern Russian literary language”):

1. Verbal competition, a discussion of something between two or more persons, in which each party defends its opinion, its rightness. The struggle of opinions (usually in the press) on various issues of science, literature, politics, etc.; controversy.

2. Mutual claim to ownership, possession of something, resolved by the court.

3. Duel, battle, single combat (mainly in poetic speech). Competition, rivalry.

Common to all meanings of the word dispute is the presence of disagreements, the absence of a common opinion.

Usually, a dispute is understood as any clash of opinions, disagreement in points of view on any issue or subject, a struggle in which each side defends its rightness.

In Russian there are other words to denote this phenomenon: discussion, debate, controversy, debate, debate. Quite often they are used as synonyms for the word dispute. In scientific research, in journalistic and artistic works, these words often serve as names for individual types of dispute.

Discussion (Latin discussio - research, consideration, analysis) is a public dispute, the purpose of which is to clarify and compare different points of view, search, identify the true opinion, find the correct solution to a controversial issue.

Discussion is considered an effective way of persuasion, since its participants themselves come to one or another conclusion.

Dispute (Latin disputer - to reason, disputatio - debate) - originally meant the public defense of a scientific essay written to obtain an academic degree. Currently, the word dispute is not used in this meaning. This word is used to describe a public debate on a scientific and socially important topic.

Controversy (Latin polemikos “belligerent, hostile”) is not just a dispute, but one in which there is confrontation, confrontation, opposition of sides, ideas and speeches. Based on this, polemics can be defined as a struggle of fundamentally opposing opinions on a particular issue, a public dispute with the aim of protecting, defending one’s point of view and refuting the opinion of the opponent.

Consequently, polemics differ from discussions and disputes precisely in their target orientation. Participants in a discussion or dispute, comparing conflicting judgments, strive to:

► come to a common opinion;

► find a general solution;

► establish the truth.

Polemics usually pursue a specific goal - to defeat the enemy, to defend and establish one’s own position.

Polemics are the science of persuasion. It teaches you to support your thoughts with convincing and undeniable arguments, scientific arguments. Controversy is especially necessary when new views are developed, universal human values and human rights are defended, and public opinion is formed. It serves to foster active citizenship.

Debate (from French debat) - dispute, debate.

Debate is a Russian word recorded in the lexicon of the 17th century. The explanatory dictionary defines these words as follows: debate - debate, exchange of opinions on any issues, disputes; debate - a discussion of any issue, a public dispute on any issues.

The words “debate” and “debate” usually refer to disputes that arise at meetings, sessions, conferences, etc.

In the scientific and methodological literature, attempts are made to systematize the types of disputes. A variety of characteristics are taken as grounds. However, there is no uniform classification of disputes.

The main factors influencing the nature of the dispute and its features include:

► the purpose of the dispute,

► number of participants,

► form of the dispute,

► organization of the dispute.

Let's consider what types of disputes can be distinguished depending on these factors (see Diagram 6).

Diagram 6. Types of dispute

Opponents, when entering into a dispute, pursue far from identical goals and are guided by different motives.

By purpose.

Dispute as a means to clarify the truth, to test any thought, to test its validity. This type of dispute in mixed forms occurs quite often. They begin to argue about what to listen to, what can be said against such and such an idea or in its favor. But in its pure form it is rarely aged to the end. Usually, in the heat of an argument, we begin to act not to find out the truth, but for self-defense, etc.

At the same time, sometimes people get so excited that it seems that they are the most ardent and fanatical adherents of the idea.

In its pure form, this type of dispute is rare, only between very intelligent and calm people. If two such people come together, and for both of them their thought does not seem to be the complete truth, and both of them look at the dispute as a means of verification, then the dispute sometimes takes on a special character. It delivers, in addition to undoubted benefits, true pleasure and satisfaction. Here is the consciousness of broadening one’s horizons on a given subject, and the consciousness that the clarification of the truth has moved forward, and a subtle, calm excitement of mental struggle, and some kind of special intellectual aesthetic pleasure. Such a dispute is essentially a joint exploration of the truth.

“Testing disputes,” especially mixed ones, were often used by scientific authors who, before putting an idea into print, consider it necessary to test it first in an oral exchange of thoughts. This is a completely reasonable approach.

Such disputes are usually complex.

Argument as a means of persuading an opponent.

This kind of dispute is already a comparatively lower form of dispute. In it, in turn, one can distinguish two most important shades, different in value:

► the arguer can convince the opponent of something of which he himself is deeply convinced;

► the arguer can convince not at all because he is confident in the truth of what he defends, or in the falsity of what he attacks.

He is convinced because “it is so necessary”, “so useful” for some purpose. Sometimes this goal is good, sometimes deeply selfish, but, in any case, “extraneous.”

Whatever the shade of a dispute for persuasion, this dispute always differs from a pure dispute of the first type. First of all, a reasonable person begins to argue here only when the thesis is such that one can convince his opponent of it. Otherwise, it’s not worth wasting your time. What is interesting for the persuader here is not the thesis, but the opponent, whether he will accept this thesis or not.

Argument as a means of victory. And here there are different types of seekers of victory. Some are looking for victories because laurels in verbal battles are dear to them. Others seek victories because they need to win an argument. "Winners are not judged." If only the victory was more effective. By the way, only in such disputes is such a technique as “reserving the last word” often necessary. Anyone who is a true lover of verbal battles sometimes looks for “worthy opponents.”

If someone must win “by position”, “by duty”, he most often rests his soul and is filled with cheerful vigor when meeting a weak opponent, in every possible way escaping the honor of meeting a strong opponent.

The arguments in this dispute are usually even less ceremonious. Often they don’t even consider it necessary to analyze the “subtleties”: it doesn’t matter how to influence an opponent - according to all the rules or without any rules. Disputes of this type are most often conducted in front of listeners.

It also goes without saying that in both of the latter types of dispute - both in disputes for persuasion and in disputes for victory - arguers often use not so much logic, not the arguments of reason, but rather the means of oratorical persuasiveness: impressive tone, sharp words, beauty of expression, etc. .P. countless means of oratory. Of course, they care less about truth and logic than they should.

Argument for the sake of argument. It's kind of art for art's sake. There are those who like to play cards, and there are those who like arguing, the process of arguing itself. They do not definitely and consciously strive to win, although, of course, they hope to do so. Such an opponent does not understand what is worth arguing about and what is not worth arguing about. I am ready to argue for everything and with everyone, and the more paradoxical, the more difficult the idea defended, the more attractive it is sometimes for him. For others, there is no paradox at all that they would not undertake to defend if you say: “no.” At the same time, they often find themselves in the most risky positions in a dispute.

Rarely found in its pure form is a dispute-game, an argument-exercise. The essence of this type is expressed in its name.

Each of these types has its own characteristics in relation to:

► to the choice of thesis and arguments;

► to the desirability of a particular opponent;

► to allow or prevent dubious methods of dispute.

Based on the number of participants in the dispute, three main groups can be distinguished:

1) dispute-monologue (a person argues with himself, this is the so-called internal dispute);

2) dispute-dialogue (two persons argue);

3) polylogue dispute (conducted by several or many persons).

A polylogue argument can be of great importance in resolving important issues of socio-political, spiritual, and scientific life. The more knowledgeable people who take part in such a dispute, the more effective it will be.

Disputes can take place with or without listeners. The presence of listeners, even if they do not express their attitude to the dispute, has an effect on the disputants. Victory in front of listeners brings greater satisfaction and flatters pride, while defeat becomes more annoying and unpleasant. Therefore, participants in a dispute in front of listeners must take into account those present, their reactions, carefully select the necessary arguments, and more often show persistence in their opinions, sometimes excessive vehemence.

In public life one often encounters disputes for listeners. The dispute is not conducted in order to find out the truth, to convince each other, but to draw attention to the problem, to make a certain impression on the listeners, to influence in the necessary way.

The form of its conduct also leaves its mark on the dispute process. Disputes can be oral and written (printed).

The oral form involves direct communication of specific individuals with each other, the written (printed) form - indirect communication. Oral disputes, as a rule, are limited in time and confined in space: they are conducted in classes, conferences, meetings, various kinds of events, etc. Written (printed) forms last longer than oral ones, since the connection between the polemicizing parties is indirect.

In an oral argument, especially if it is conducted in front of an audience, external and psychological aspects play an important role. Of great importance is the manner of confident behavior, speed of reaction, liveliness of thinking, and wit. A timid, shy person usually loses compared to a self-confident opponent. Therefore, a written dispute is more suitable for clarifying the truth than an oral one. However, it does have its drawbacks. It sometimes drags on for too long, for several years. Readers, and even the participants in the dispute, manage to forget certain provisions and conclusions and do not have the opportunity to recall them in memory. Sometimes a dispute takes place on the pages of several different publications, making it difficult to follow its progress.

Disputes are divided into organized and unorganized. Organized disputes are planned, prepared, and conducted under the guidance of specialists. Polemicists have the opportunity to get acquainted with the subject of the dispute in advance, determine their position, select the necessary arguments, and think through answers to possible objections of their opponents. But a dispute can also arise spontaneously. This often happens in the educational process, at meetings and sessions, in everyday communication.

Unorganized, spontaneous disputes are usually less productive. In such disputes, the speeches of the participants are not sufficiently reasoned, sometimes random arguments are given, and not entirely mature statements are made. In addition to the dispute over the thesis and over the evidence, there are various other types of dispute, distinguished from various other points of view [10].

To successfully conduct a dispute, it is also important to know the basic laws of argumentation and the rules of dispute.

Laws of argumentation and persuasion

1. Law of embedding (implementation).

Arguments should be built into the partner’s logic of reasoning, and not driven in (breaking it), not presented in parallel.

2. The law of the common language of thinking.

If you want to be heard, speak the language of your opponent's basic information and representation systems.

3. The law of minimizing arguments.

Remember the limitations of human perception (five to seven arguments), so limit the number of arguments. It is better if there are no more than three or four of them.

4. The law of objectivity and evidence.

Use as arguments only those that your opponent accepts. Don't confuse facts and opinions.

5. The law of dialecticity (unity of opposites).

Talk not only about the pros of your evidence or assumptions, but also about the cons. This gives your arguments more weight, since a two-sided view (pros and cons) deprives them of lightness and disarms your opponent.

6. The law of demonstrating equality and respect.

Present your arguments by showing respect for your opponent and his position.

7. The law of authority.

Citing an authority that your opponent knows and perceives as an authority enhances the impact of your arguments. Seek authoritative reinforcement for them.

8. Law of reframing.

Do not reject your partner’s arguments, but, recognizing their legitimacy, overestimate their strength and significance. Increase the significance of the losses in case of accepting his position or reduce the significance of the benefits expected by the partner.

9. The law of gradualism.

Do not try to quickly convince your opponent; it is better to take gradual but consistent steps.

10. Law of feedback.

Provide feedback in the form of an assessment of your opponent’s condition and a description of your emotional state. Take personal responsibility for misunderstandings and misunderstandings.

11. Law of ethics.

In the process of argumentation, do not allow unethical behavior (aggression, deception, arrogance, manipulation, etc.), do not touch the “sore spots” of your opponent.

Dispute rules.

First rule (Homer's rule):

The order of the arguments presented affects their persuasiveness. The most convincing order of arguments is: strong - medium - one of the strongest (do not use weak arguments at all, they do harm, not good). The strength (weakness) of arguments should be determined not from the point of view of the speaker, but from the point of view of the decision maker.

Second rule (Socrates' rule):

To get a positive decision on an issue that is important to you, put it in third place, prefacing it with two short questions that are simple for the interlocutor.

Third rule (Pascal's rule):

Don't drive your interlocutor into a corner. Give him the opportunity to “save face” and preserve his dignity. “Nothing disarms like the terms of honorable surrender.” (Show that the solution you propose satisfies some of the needs of the interlocutor).

Fourth rule:

The persuasiveness of arguments largely depends on the image and status of the persuader. A high official or social position, competence, authority, and support from the team increase a person’s status and the degree of persuasiveness of his arguments.

Fifth rule:

Don't drive yourself into a corner, don't lower your status by showing signs of insecurity.

Sixth rule:

Do not belittle the status of your interlocutor, because any manifestation of disrespect or disregard for your interlocutor causes a negative reaction.

Seventh rule:

We treat the arguments of a pleasant interlocutor with favor, and we treat the arguments of an unpleasant interlocutor with prejudice. A pleasant impression is created by many factors: respectful attitude, ability to listen, competent speech, pleasant manners, appearance, etc.

Eighth rule:

If you want to convince, start not with the points that divide you, but with the points on which you agree with your opponent.

Ninth rule:

Show empathy, try to understand the emotional state of the other person, imagine his train of thought, put yourself in his place, empathize with him.

Tenth rule:

Be a good listener to understand the other person's thinking.

Eleventh rule:

Check whether you understand your interlocutor correctly.

Twelfth Rule:

Avoid words and actions that lead to conflict.

Thirteenth rule:

Watch your facial expressions, gestures, and postures—yours and your interlocutor’s.

To defend their point of view and refute the opinion of their opponent, the disputants use various polemical techniques.

1. Humor, irony, sarcasm. The use of humor, irony, and sarcasm is considered an effective means. They are mandatory psychological elements of public speaking. These means enhance the polemical tone of speech, its emotional impact on listeners, help defuse a tense situation, create a certain mood when discussing sensitive issues, and help polemicists succeed in an argument.

An ironic or humorous remark can confuse an opponent, put him in a difficult position, and sometimes even destroy a carefully constructed proof, although this remark in itself is not always directly related to the subject of the dispute. Therefore, there is no need to get lost. It's best to act naturally. If it’s funny, you can laugh with everyone, and then be sure to return to discussing the essence of the problem.

2. “Reduction to absurdity.” A common method of refutation is “reduction to absurdity” (Latin: reductio ad absurdum). The essence of this technique is to show the falsity of a thesis or argument, since the consequences arising from it contradict reality.

F. N. Plevako, a remarkable Russian lawyer who had an amazing gift of speech, used this technique brilliantly in one of his speeches at the trial. The passionate and excited voice of F.N. Plevako captured and captivated listeners and remained in their memory for a long time.

According to the memoirs of V.V. Veresaev, he spoke in defense of an old woman who stole a tin teapot worth 50 kopecks. In the indictment speech, the prosecutor noted that the theft was insignificant, that the poor old woman was driven to commit the crime by bitter need, that the defendant does not evoke indignation, but only pity. But, despite this, he emphasized, the old woman must be condemned, because she encroached on property, and property is sacred, all civic amenities rest on property, and if people are allowed to encroach on it, the country will perish. After him, defender Plevako spoke. He said this: “Russia had to endure many troubles and trials during its more than thousand-year existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues fell upon her and Moscow was taken. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, and only grew stronger and stronger from the trials. But now, now... the old woman stole an old teapot worth fifty kopecks. Russia, of course, will not be able to withstand this; it will perish irrevocably.”

And the court acquitted the old woman.

3. Boomerang technique. Quite often in discussions and polemics a “return strike”, or the so-called boomerang technique, is used. The English word boomerang means a throwing weapon that, when thrown skillfully, returns to the place from which it was launched. A polemical technique is that a thesis or argument is turned against those who expressed it. At the same time, the impact force increases many times. The enemy's defeat becomes obvious to everyone present. A.V. Lunacharsky used this polemical technique more than once.

A variation of the “return strike” is the “catch-up” technique. During the discussion of controversial issues, polemicists often throw out remarks of a different nature. The ability to use an opponent’s remark in order to strengthen one’s own argumentation, expose the opponent’s views and position, and exert a psychological influence on those present is an effective technique in polemics. “Taking up a cue” is often used when speaking at congresses, conferences, and rallies.

Let us give one very interesting example of the use of the techniques of “return strike”, “picking up a cue”, described in the story by S. Zvantsev “The Vagliano Case”.

The essence of the matter was as follows. In the eighties of the 19th century, Taganrog traded briskly with overseas countries. A young trade broker, that is, an intermediary in concluding trade transactions, unexpectedly became fabulously rich. For a long time no one could understand the source of his wealth. And when this became clear, Vagliano was already so rich that he was not afraid of exposure. Vagliano was a special kind of smuggler: he imported prohibited goods by entire steamships.

There was a customs rule: after officials checked the cargo and calculated the duty, the cargo owner had the right either, having paid the duty, to take the goods from the ship, or, by refusing to pay, to sink the cargo in the roadstead. The report on the sinking was filed, and the ship left for its return voyage.

In reality there was no sinking. Vagliano chartered a whole flotilla of Turkish feluccas - capacious boats, and all the cargo from the ship, and not from the bottom of the Sea of Azov, ended up in the basements of the Vagliano mansion.

A new prosecutor arrived in Taganrog, overwhelmed by a thirst for a career. He opened a case against Vagliano, which moved with extraordinary speed. No attempts to bribe the prosecutor were successful. Vagliano was threatened with three months in prison, and most importantly, a fine for smuggling in the amount of 12 million rubles, that is, his entire fortune.

A. Ya. Passover, a specialist in civil claims, was invited as a defense lawyer. And now the court hearing. The prosecutor delivers the indictment. It lasts three hours. Vagliano's guilt has been proven. Compared to the prosecutor, the defense attorney was unusually brief. He spoke for no more than 5 - 6 minutes. He only stated that Vagliano should be acquitted, since he imported the cargo on Turkish feluccas. In the explanation of the judicial department of the Senate with an exhaustive listing of all types of maritime smuggling: boats, longboats, lifeboats, rafts, even life belts and shipwrecks, even empty rum barrels, flat-bottomed Turkish feluccas are not mentioned. And the explanations of the governing Senate are not subject to general interpretation.

The prosecutor's pale face turned red. He jumped up and almost shouted in a trembling voice: “Vagliano is a smuggler!” If he were not one, he could not pay his defender a million rubles for protection! There was a gasp in the hall. One million rubles?! An unheard of number!

The prosecutor's remark immediately turned against him.

Yes, I received a million,” the defender calmly answered. “So my words are so highly valued!” Now let’s calculate how much the prosecutor’s words are worth...

The prosecutor receives three thousand 600 rubles a year,” the “good-natured” lawyer calculated out loud, “three hundred a month, therefore, a day, including today, ten rubles.” The prosecutor delivered his speech today for three hours and said 45 thousand words for his ten rubles. How much is a prosecutor's word worth?

Stretching out, Passover shouted:

The word of the prosecutor is worthless!

The trial was won. Vagliano was acquitted.

4. Attack with questions. Let's call another polemical technique - attack with questions. The purpose of this method is to make the opponent’s position difficult, force him to defend himself, justify himself, and create for himself the most favorable conditions for an argument.

5. "Argument to the person." Sometimes, instead of discussing the merits of a particular position, they begin to evaluate the merits and demerits of the person who put it forward. This technique in polemics is called “argument to a person” (Latin: ad hominen). It has a strong psychological effect.

“Argument to man” as a polemical device should be used in combination with other reliable and reasonable arguments. As an independent proof, it is considered a logical error, consisting in replacing the thesis itself with references to the personal qualities of the one who put it forward.

A variation of the “argument to the person” is a technique called “appeal to the public.” The purpose of the technique is to influence the feelings of listeners, their opinions, interests, and to persuade the audience to side with the speaker.

These are the main polemical techniques. The use of these techniques helps to conduct discussion and polemics more fruitfully.

Tricks in an argument. A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which the participants in a dispute want to make it easier for themselves and difficult for their opponent.

The mistake of many questions - the opponent is asked several different questions under the guise of one and asked to answer “yes” or “no”. The way out of this situation is to give a detailed answer.

Answering a question with a question - not wanting to answer the question posed, the polemicist poses a counter question.

How much did you buy your soul from Plyushkin? - Sobakevich whispered to him.

Why was Sparrow assigned? - Chichikov told him in response to this.

(N.V. Gogol. “Dead Souls”)

Answer on credit - experiencing difficulties in discussing a problem, debaters postpone the answer to “later”, citing its complexity.

Exit from a dispute occurs if one of the parties to the dispute realizes the weakness of his position.

Disruption of a dispute is done by constantly interrupting the opponent, demonstrating reluctance to listen to him.

The “argument to the policeman” is actively used in totalitarian societies. The thesis or argument is declared dangerous to society.

“Strike arguments” can be defined as a special form of intellectual violence. The disputant gives an argument that the opponent must accept for fear of something unpleasant or dangerous.

Psychological tricks:

► rely on false shame. People are often afraid to admit that they don't know something. Unscrupulous polemicists take advantage of this. Citing an unproven conclusion, the opponent accompanies it with the phrases “Of course, you know that”, “It is a well-known fact”, “Science established it long ago”, “Do you really still not know?”, thereby relying on false shame. If a person, wanting not to degrade himself in the eyes of others, does not admit that he does not know something, he will be forced to agree with the opponent’s arguments;

► “greasing” an argument - a weak argument is accompanied by compliments to the opponent;

► references to age, education, position are used to hide the lack of compelling and convincing arguments. Quite often we come across the following reasoning: “If you live to be my age, then you’ll judge”, “Get a diploma, then we’ll talk,” “Take my place, then you’ll talk”;

► logical diversion is used by an opponent to divert the attention of listeners to a discussion of another statement that is not related to the original thesis. To avoid defeat, the polemicist is distracted by extraneous topics;

► translation of the dispute into contradictions between words and deeds. To put an opponent in an awkward position, indicates a discrepancy between the opponent’s views and his actions;

► “double-entry bookkeeping”. This technique is otherwise called transferring the question to the point of view of benefit or harm. An unscrupulous debater takes advantage of the weakness of human nature: when we feel that a given proposal is beneficial to us, we agree with it, without considering the higher truth;

► displacement of the time of action - disputants replace what is true for the past and present with what will happen in the future;

► “Trojan horse” - the arguer goes over to the opponent’s side, distorts his thesis beyond recognition, begins to ardently defend it and thereby strikes a blow to the opponent’s authority;

► throwing the enemy off balance. In a public dispute, suggestion has a great influence on listeners, so one should not succumb to a self-confident, peremptory tone;

► “reading in hearts.” The opponent, using this technique, is not interested in understanding the essence of what the opponent said. It attempts to determine only the speaker's motives;

► obstruction - deliberately disrupting a dispute. The opponent is not allowed to speak, they stomp, whistle, etc. They say about Napoleon that during negotiations with the Austrian envoy, he threw porcelain vases on the floor, stomped... The intimidated envoy agreed with Napoleon just to stop this scene [10].