Rus Articles Journal

How effectively to argue? (Disputes, discussions, debate)

of Pervo - napervo, that who wishes to learn to argue, it is urgently necessary to learn to speak. The Nepremenneyshy condition of effective dispute is a good, bright, unembarrassed speech. Without it at you it will turn out little and you, most likely, will lose dispute.

So what is dispute. Dispute - verbal opposition of two people having, opposite positions at which each of arguing tries to prove correctness of the and falsehood of foreign point of view. If dispute is understood as an event spontaneous more often, then here debate is already the same dispute which however is in advance planned and which is taking place more often, in the presence of large audience. Discussion - the same debate, only warring parties more than two, and fight for each of the parties groups of participants, but not one. As we see, concepts rather different, however the essence, the purposes, tasks are absolutely identical, only the form changes.

The purpose of dispute is absolutely clear: to prove correctness of the views and abnormality of views of the opponent, from here the rule - do not get into dispute with the person if your positions are identical or almost identical. It will be useless expenditure of forces and time. Here if positions opposite, or in general mutually excluding (at correctness the one second is surely false), here then dispute is necessary because it only in is mute the truth is born.

Never you approach a question of dispute it is ordinary even if you well know the opponent, and it seems to you that it for you does not pose threat, all the same carefully consider the position, plan possible sensitive issues and ways of their overcoming. I very often observed how only only one question which the opponent could not answer plainly nothing decided destiny of further opposition in favor of asked this question though before it looked much weaker. If you participate in debate and you have time for preparation, by all means use it, prepare the good argument if it is necessary, use statistical data, examples from life. Try to learn as much as possible about the rival, present yourself on his place, try to find the weakest places in the position and reliably protect them the additional argument. Remember - good luck loves prepared!!!

Now directly action. I will consider dispute of rivals, approximately equal on force, as if forces are not equal, then all and is so clear. Thus, if dispute equal, positions on both sides are rather reasoned, participants are courageous, resourceful and strain to be in action, the draw suits nobody and fight will be to a victory, then different cunnings come to the rescue. They to very few people are pleasant, but not one serious debate does not do without them.

The first of them - to beat out the opponent from a context. The most powerful weapon in the professional`s hands. Is in answering not all remark of the rival completely, and to select only a few phrases and to bring down all anger just on these phrases. A remark from lips of the person able to argue - usually logically unshakable design which well cannot just be broken, without having broken laws of formal logic (and it is at once noticeable to one and all). But here randomly the phrase which is pulled out by you, usually such monumentalism does not possess, (you have to take care of it :). Not to be unfounded, I give an example:

- Russia the rich country and she has to, is not present is simply obliged to achieve the same economic and social progress as the European states!

- Russia - as Europe...!? You want that average age of the population of our country made 50 years!? You try to obtain that the increase in population was carried out only at the expense of emigrants from Third World countries which do not want to work, but are able to burn down houses and cars, allegedly fighting for the rights!?

This reception was invented in antiquity. Almost safe combination as listening often forget that initial remark which was told by the rival, and perceive it as you say at the answer. If the opponent tries to restore the following remark injustice, will begin to prove what he told at all not so, and absolutely differently, and say, it is not necessary to distort him words - all this will look as baby talk, as attempt to justify oneself, and it is already losing position in itself. But you remember if you try to beat out from a context be ready - you too by all means will be tried to be beaten out. And still, do not forget that you cannot constantly criticize the opponent`s position, you have to defend still the, it is the best of all to do it at the same time.

Further, choosing dispute strategy you have to define how you will criticize the opponent. There are two options, the first, rather difficult, - to criticize the opponent on a basis to them the accepted fundamental norms, rules, axioms. You will need to find contradictions, disagreements of its position and those rules which it took as a basis. It is rather difficult, not always it turns out, but if it is possible - you win that quickly and unconditionally.

An example

- Under the law of dialectic development we see two characteristics of the phenomena - quantity and quality. - Allow

, but this postulate of dialectic development sounds as transition of quantity to quality, from here we can conclude that the quantity and quality are an essence - one characteristic but divided into two parts by a certain time span.

The second way - to prove insolvency of approaches, laws on the basis of which all conclusions are drawn.

The following receptions give superiority in the psychological plan over the opponent more. Such reception as visible full or partial ignoring of information usually throws the rival into confusion, confuses thoughts, forces down from the taken speed. Your sudden derivation on any subject also forces to arrive and the rival, at this moment the pause which at desire can be filled with the remark is often formed.

And still, all me the described and other receptions you will be able really qualitatively, effectively and correctly to apply only after long and persistent trainings. Ideally, all these receptions are comprehended independently and used intuitively, without any efforts, during continuous practice. For example, I learned about them, being only trained at university, to same I constantly used them, but simply did not even know that they are some special, classified, having the names and directed to a certain effect.

Several words about politeness. Ladies and gentlemen, during disputes be POLITE, do not interrupt the opponent stop short, do not try to outvoice him, you do not pass to the identity of the rival (it is not necessary to speak about personal shortcomings, defects of the opponent), and especially it is impossible that dispute came to an end with a manhandling. You remember, dispute is an intellectual duel, a priori clever people:

the Fist and a knife - the weapon of fools, Oruzhye`s

clever - the word. You are ready

to everything!

(Alexander Berg) of

P. S. I will be glad to help or prompt something to those who will try councils in practice. As sources abstracts on rhetoric and logic, and also own life experience were used. Examples are followed from everyday life.