The art of arguing is closely related to such concepts as "dispute", "discussion" and "controversy". In those situations when we are talking about a dispute, we mean a collective discussion of moral, political, literary, scientific, professional, and other problems, to the solution of which there is no unambiguous, generally accepted answer. During the dispute, its participants express various opinions, points of view and assessments of certain events or problems. A discussion usually means a public discussion of any problems, controversial issues. The discussion is often seen as a method that activates the learning process, the study of a complex topic, a problem that wedged into the context, for example, a seminar. Controversy is also characterized by a dispute procedure, but a dispute leading to confrontation and struggle of fundamentally opposite opinions and approaches in solving certain problems. It is known that discussions and disputes most often lead to a peaceful outcome of events, to a collective search for truth. The goal of a polemical dispute is to defeat the enemy at all costs.

The concept of the dispute, goals and approaches to its conduct.

An argument is a discussion in the form of a study of a problem in order to establish the truth. V. I. Andreev proposes the following as a working definition of the concept of "dispute":
Dispute- this is a characteristic of the process of discussing a problem, a method of its collective research, in which each of the parties, arguing (defending) and refuting (opposing) the opinion of the interlocutor (opponent), claims to have a monopoly on establishing the truth.
There are seven options for the course of the discussion-dispute:

Heuristic approach to the conduct of a dispute, when one of the parties, without insisting on its approach to solving the problem, using the methods of persuasion, intuition and common sense, gradually inclines the other or other interlocutors, participants in the dispute, to its point of view.

logical approach to the conduct of a dispute, which is characterized by a rigid logical analysis and argumentation, due to which, following the methods and rules of formal logic, the participants in the discussion come to some final conclusion.

Sophic approach to the conduct of a dispute in which one of the parties seeks to defeat his opponent in any way, even logically incorrect, using the so-called sophisms.

Critical Approach to conducting a dispute, when one of the parties completely focuses only on the shortcomings, weaknesses and positions of its opponents, does not want and does not seek to see positive elements in the opposite point of view and cannot offer its own solution.

Demagogic approach to the conduct of a dispute, which consists in the fact that one of the parties is arguing not for the sake of truth, but most likely in order to divert the discussion away from the truth, while pursuing their personal goals, often unknown to the participants in the dispute.

Pragmatic Approach to the conduct of a dispute, which consists in the fact that one or each of the parties is arguing not only for the sake of truth, but for the sake of their practical, sometimes mercantile goals, which are hidden and not known to the interlocutors.

Objectives of the dispute, depending on whether they are aimed at solving the problem under discussion or, conversely, at creating additional problems and barriers, can be divided into two groups: constructive and destructive.

We list the most typical constructive goals discussion, dispute

Discuss all possible solutions to the problem;

Develop a collective opinion, a collective position on any issue;

To draw attention to the problem as many interested and competent persons as possible;

Refute an unscientific, incompetent approach to solving a problem, expose false rumors;

Attract to your side as many people who are ready for cooperation as possible;

Evaluate possible like-minded people and opponents.

Destructive goals, which may be the targets of individual groups and participants in the dispute:

Split the participants in the dispute into two irreconcilable groups;

Lead the solution to the problem to a dead end;

Turn the discussion into a scholastic dispute;

Using deliberately false information, lead the dispute along the wrong path;

Defeat dissidents, discredit the opposition.

There are probably many more of these goals, both constructive and destructive. In addition, in their pure form, as a rule, they do not appear within the framework of one dispute, but can be realized in a variety of combinations.

Of course, there are many more goals, but, as a rule, the ones given are fundamental. On the Internet, the latter is usually taken as the main goal. At the same time, the most banal methods of conducting a destructive dispute are used.

Reception first. It consists in the fact that the participant in the dispute must make the opponent feel his intellectual and moral superiority, in other words, make it clear that the opponent is a limited person, weak-minded, a graphomaniac, a talker, a perfect zero, an inflated value, an epigone, an illiterate swindler, a bast shoe, a chaff, a bastard and, in general, a subject unworthy of being talked to.

Reception second. It is in the art to use only such expressions that can create only a negative opinion about the beaten opponent. If you are circumspect, you can be called a coward; you are witty - they will say that you claim to be witty; you are inclined to simple and concrete arguments - you can declare that you are mediocre and trivial; you have a penchant for abstract arguments - it is advantageous to present you as an abstruse scholastic, and so on. For a clever polemist, there are simply no properties, points of view and states of mind that could not be labeled, which by its name alone exposes the amazing emptiness, stupidity and insignificance of the persecuted enemy.

Reception third. The main thing in it is to evade and speak not on the merits of the issue. Thanks to this, the controversy is profitably enlivened, weak positions are masked, and the entire dispute becomes endless. This is also called "wearing down the opponent".

Reception fourth. This technique is based on the fact that sometimes it is convenient to use a reference to authority (whatever), for example, to state - "Pantagruel also spoke" or "as Treitschke proved". With a certain erudition, for each case, you can find some quote that will kill the enemy on the spot.

Reception fifth. The technique is similar to the previous one and differs only in the absence of a direct reference to authority. They just say, "It's been rejected for a long time," or "It's already passed," or "Any child knows," and so on. Against what has been refuted in this way, no new arguments are required. The reader believes, while the opponent is forced to defend what has long been refuted - a rather ungrateful task.

Reception sixth. Do not allow the enemy to be right about anything. It is worth recognizing for him at least a grain of mind and truth - the whole controversy is lost. If another phrase cannot be refuted, there is always the possibility to say: "Mr. X undertakes to teach me ...", or "Mr. X operates with such flat and long-known truths as his "discovery ...", or "Wonder the whole world! The blind chicken found the grain and now cackles that ... In a word, there is always something to be found, isn't it?

And finally reception seventh. This is one of the most important tricks, and it consists in the fact that the battlefield must always be left with the appearance of a winner. A sophisticated polemicist is never defeated. The loser is always his opponent, who was "convinced" and "finished". This is what distinguishes controversy from any other sport. The wrestler on the carpet honestly recognizes himself defeated; but, it seems, not a single polemic ended with the words: "Your hand, you convinced me."

Dispute Rules .

1. It is necessary to listen, accurately understand and evaluate all the arguments of the opponent. If there are several arguments, then one must try to single them out, at least from the whole sea of ​​​​words in which they are often divorced, put them into short phrases and find out how the thesis was clarified without skimping on information. Sometimes one has only to find out the opponent's argument - and the opponent himself refuses this argument, sensing his weakness, "hushes up" the argument, etc. When an opponent brings some argument against your opinion, against your thesis - for the defense you need to make sure of two things: either that this argument is true, correct, or that it really contradicts your opinion and is incompatible with the latter.

2. Awareness - clarifying, informational questions and statements - a very important part in the dispute and in skillful hands - an indispensable weapon. A particularly difficult point for information is the clarification of the meaning of a particular word, as understood by its opponent. Sometimes the opponent understands the word in this way, and you in another way - there is a dispute about the definitions of the word. It must be remembered that it is far from possible to give a completely accurate and indisputable definition of a word for all words. All that is needed is a definition sufficient for this dispute. If you and your opponent clearly understand the meaning of the word, but differently, then it is often best for someone to "give up" their definition or completely discard the controversial word, replacing it with another, more suitable word or expression.

3. Argue only about what you know well, do not argue about principles, ideals and trifles.

4. Do not argue unnecessarily with a swindler of the word or with a "rude" in a dispute, and if you need to argue, then be "on the alert" all the time.

5. In every possible way to keep calm and complete self-control in a dispute is a rule that is especially recommended.

6. Carefully and clearly clarify the thesis and all the main arguments - one's own and the opponent's.

Quite often, disputes are accompanied by all kinds of criticism. Let's try to figure out what it is and how to behave criticized and criticized.

The dictionary defines criticism as "a discussion, analysis of something in order to evaluate the merits, discover and correct shortcomings." But it doesn't always come down to discussion. Criticism can also be called "a negative judgment about something." Finally, both the critical remark and the argument in the dispute have some relation to the subject of the conversation. From how well all this succeeds, a reputation is formed: a person who knows how to stand up for his principles, prove his case, or a frivolous loudmouth. Accurate, persuasive arguments can decide the outcome of a case. And vice versa: many great ideas were ruined by enthusiasts who failed to defend them. .

If two opposing points of view are expressed, then one should not immediately rush to the conclusion that "the truth is in the middle." In fact, as Goethe noted, the problem lies in the middle. The truth can be anywhere, which, in fact, makes its search by the arithmetic mean method useless. It is not always possible to find it in a dispute, contrary to a well-known statement. In a dispute, not truth is often born, but victory. The offended loser remains in his own opinion and is waiting for revenge, finally losing the ability to perceive other people's arguments.

Criticism is not an end in itself. Therefore, before criticizing, it is worth considering: is it possible to correct the situation, so to speak, in working order? It is possible that for this it is quite enough to find out the position of those against whom we are going to direct critical arrows. Criticism must be appropriate. Speaking harshly about newbie failures is more likely to do more harm than good. In general, the form of criticism should correspond to the task.

If a person tried, but he did not have enough experience, then spacing will not help here. And if the loser himself is aware of his inability, then his hands will drop and he will not work better. In other words, first of all, goodwill is needed here.

Before criticizing, you need to make sure that it is clear from your words:

* what is the essence of the matter;

* who is to blame for what happened;

* what needs to be done to correct the situation;

* how to prevent this from happening in the future.

So that your comments are not dismissed, as they say, from the threshold as frivolous, first be sure to listen to the most criticized and state your understanding of the situation.

4. Aggression during an argument.

Considering the problems of disputes and criticism, it is impossible not to dwell at least a little on the problem of aggression and stress among the participants in this far from always pleasant situation. It is often possible to observe that people who have entered the path of conflict undergo changes in behavior and even in external signs. Even a fleeting glance is enough to notice the characteristic signs... Why is it that very often none of the conflicting parties “sees” these indicators, does not take measures to localize the partner’s aggressive behavior, but, on the contrary, switches to an aggressive form of behavior, trying in this way resolve the conflict?

There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the correct form of response to the partner's aggressive behavior is retaliatory aggression. For some reason, many people believe that such behavior is the only correct way out of this situation, that if the response behavior is different, then the partner may perceive this as a manifestation of your weakness and insecurity.

Secondly, self-doubt, in their rightness.

In this case, we are seeing an attempt to use such a strategy of behavior as a camouflage of what really is. In addition, some people who experience insecurity try to cheer themselves up through aggressive behavior, to give an additional impetus to their own activity. .

Thirdly, such behavior may be an indicator that you finally got the opportunity to express to your partner all the bad things that you know about him. As a rule, statements about a partner in such a state are of such a nature that neither you nor he will be able to forget them for a long time.

Fourthly, such behavior can also be an indicator of the elementary bad manners of a partner in a conflict situation. The more a partner allows himself, the less he is brought up.

And, finally, fifthly, such behavior may be the result of the emergence of so-called reactive thinking under the influence of a strong stimulus. This kind of thinking blocks the possibility of an adequate assessment of the situation, self-control and calm awareness of what is happening.

The most important thing in this situation is to remain calm. Many books proclaim the need for calmness in critical situations, but give practically no acceptable recommendations on how to do this. These authors act according to the principle: “Do you want to be calm? Be him! Others offer rather cumbersome and, unfortunately, far from always effective methods of self-regulation, the development of which takes quite a long time.

Effective communication cannot allow disputes to arise. It is impossible to win the argument - this is an illusion. The skirmish only demonstrates that one side is unable to compromise, while the other looks helpless. The loser in the dispute will always go to any measures, only to regain his position, to defend his position. It cannot be argued that truth is born in a dispute, even though this expression has been around for many years. Usually the products of the dispute are hostility and misunderstanding. A good communicator should avoid conflict situations at all costs. This applies not only to the dispute itself, but also to any participation in it, even as a third party. Giving preference to one, you can lose the trust of another. This postulate opens basic rules for conducting a dispute.

Dispute must not be allowed at any cost.

If you want to emerge victorious in a conflict situation, then you need to change the opinion and position of the interlocutor. This is the only way to achieve success in the dispute. But an effective dialogue can abruptly turn into a different direction, turn into a skirmish. We need to restrain our capabilities, not lead to an aggravation of the conflict.

Sometimes it is impossible to get away from the argument, since the involvement is spontaneous, independent of the communicator. In this case, it is worth smoothing the situation, reducing the intensity of passions. An effective communicator can not only moderate an opponent's ardor, but also help him save face in a conflict situation. At the same time, the communicator is able to convey his own thoughts and ideas to the interlocutor. In order to competently promote your attitudes, to create a calm discussion, you must use the second paragraph, which is included in the rules for conducting a dispute.

Learn more about the interlocutor's opinion, about his views on the problem

You should never hurt your opponent, underestimate his self-esteem. This can lead to negative consequences. Your thoughts should not be imposed, you should not interrupt your opponent and forcibly promote your own opinion to him.

The advantage of "reconnaissance activities" 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 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, until the interlocutor speaks out completely, until he voices his thoughts in full, then he will not listen to you. He is psychologically not 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 the opponent.

The interlocutor must understand that you value his ideas and position

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

• To begin with, you need to ask clarifying questions so that the opposing opinion becomes more understandable and transparent.
• Then it’s worth making it clear that you not only respect the 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 think about it, it means that he definitely said something significant and interesting. Conversely, too quick a response can be seen as disrespectful and lack of interest in the opposing opinion.

You can not strive for the complete defeat of the opponent

Losing in an argument is a serious blow to reputation, which can subsequently negatively affect the productivity of communication. You should not wish your opponent a 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 rise to hostility, does not show that he intends to completely crush the interlocutor in the 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 communicate productively and cooperate with your opponent. It is impossible to get everything at once.

Each participant in the dispute has arguments and positions that are insignificant. A good communicator knows how to sacrifice these arguments to please the opponent. It is better to give up positions in minor issues, but to strengthen in more important aspects. It is worth recognizing the correctness of the interlocutor in the details. Without these concessions, even the most constructive dispute turns into a massacre, into a desire to completely destroy the opposite opinion. There will definitely not be a positive result from such a skirmish. Effective communication does not share such categoricalness.

Keep a low profile and choose precise definitions

The rules for arguing and polemics assume that the communicator will 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, force the interlocutor to listen to his own opinion. To do this, in the midst of a dispute, we can raise our voice, interrupt the opponent, and turn to rudeness. Naturally, such measures will cause irreparable harm to further effective communication or completely exclude its possibility.

Use a third party

The very situation of the dispute is initially unfriendly atmosphere. The interlocutors do not perceive the polar position, they are skeptical towards it. This means that they perceive the opposite opinion worse, they will not listen to a position that is different from their views. But the arguments of a third party that is not involved in the conflict will carry much more weight. Because of the lack of hostility, these arguments will be better received and understood.

Also, the use of a third party will be useful in maintaining the self-esteem of the opponent. Your thoughts and ideas will be voiced, conveyed to the interlocutor, while he himself will not suffer. If a third party is an authority for your opponent, then this greatly simplifies the task. An effective communicator can use his 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.

Let the interlocutor save face in a dispute

The basis of the dispute is the objection. In any case, when the dispute did not turn into a squabble. Most often, it is with the objection that the dispute begins.

As soon as a person sees an objection, he must decide how to proceed. You can immediately translate the dialogue into the mainstream of the dispute, put up your own argument. Another option is to use the objection for your own purposes, a non-linear effect. Each objection has its own reason, which the communicator must find out.

• lack of necessary information;
• the conflict of the reconstructed picture of the world with reality;
• unwillingness to lose position in a dispute;
• other personal reasons.

If the opponent insists on his opinion, if he is firmly convinced of it, then it will be quite difficult for him to deviate from his views. In the heat of the conflict, he will use all possible methods to emerge victorious. The basis of this behavior is the fear of losing face, the unwillingness to realize that one is wrong.

You can take the argument to another plane. But for this, the communicator must understand why the objection arose, what caused it. The rules of the dispute state that a competent discussion can not only convey a different opinion to the interlocutor, but also save him from having to fight with all his might. An experienced communicator can help the interlocutor pay attention to a different point of view.

If you correctly analyze the origin of objections, you can help your opponent maintain the status quo. So the communicator will be sure that further business communication will not stop because of one dispute. And the result of the controversy will be a skillful change in the opinion of the opponent for their own purposes.

In order for an objection to disappear, it is necessary to determine the cause of its occurrence and eliminate it. If the reason for the objection lies in the lack of information, then simply provide it to the interlocutor.

- I understand your point of view, but pay attention to the facts that you did not know.

Also, effective dispute rules help to reach an agreement if the communicator identifies errors in the views of the opponent on his own.

- I would also come to this opinion under the influence of similar circumstances.

- At first I thought so too, but after receiving more information, my opinion changed.

Another way to avoid damaging controversy is to show the opponent an acceptable way out of the dispute that will not affect his reputation and the status quo. First, you need to study in detail all the features of the interlocutor's opinion, to determine the points of tension. Then just show him how to leave the argument without losing face. This method uses all of the above rules, but it can help get out of a crisis situation with the least loss for both parties.

The common expression “truth is born in a dispute” turns out to be true only in relation to “correct” disputes.

An argument can spark an original idea, allow an idea to be developed in an unusual way, convince one or both participants to reconsider their views on a subject…or lead to a fight. Is it worth explaining that after a fight there is no truth for the opponents anymore?

By and large, what ultimately led to the fight, as such, was not an argument. Most likely, these were "showdowns". In order not to confuse one with the other, and also in order to avoid the emergence of destructive factors in the course of the controversy that turn the dispute into a showdown, it is necessary to understand the basic mechanisms of the functioning of the dispute.

What do the parties to the dispute need to do?

1. Express your point of view.
2. Argue your point of view.
3. Listen to the point of view of the interlocutor.
4. Give additional arguments to strengthen your position.
5. Give arguments designed to weaken the position of the interlocutor.

These five points form the backbone of any discussion. It is good if both opponents are aware of what the structure of the dispute looks like in general terms. Even better, if the opponents know some details to make the argument more productive.

How to make a dispute more productive

1. Indicate the topic and essence of the controversy.
Nothing will come of it if you discuss one subject, but different aspects of it. It will be strange if, arguing, say, about a house, one will insist that the house is big, and the other that the house is green.

2. Decide on the terminology.
Tell the interlocutor what you mean by certain words, find out what the opponent means by the words that he uses.

3. Make sure you understand each other correctly.
No longer at the level of individual words, but at the level of statements. It is useful to use the technique of "active listening": "if I understand correctly, you mean ...." etc.

But even having clarified the terminology and sorted out your own position, you run the risk of reaching a massacre (or simply reducing the polemic to empty chatter) if you don’t remember what you can’t do in any case.

What not to do to the participants in the dispute

1. Get personal.
Here everything is so clear. “Because you are an asshole” is not an argument, and in no context will it be.

2. Get distracted by side topics that arise during the discussion.
Try not to get too carried away and not forget about what all the fuss is about.

3. Talk about what you do not understand, or about those things and phenomena in your position regarding which you yourself are not sure.
It’s hard to argue whether soft-boiled eggs are good or bad, cooked under a full moon in an old abandoned cemetery, when you haven’t tried them and haven’t been to the cemetery at all on a full moon.

Finally, when both of you have had a cultural and pleasant discussion of yours, ask yourself - what started it all? And be sure to sum up the argument. If not the truth, then something must have been born in him.

Today there are many different controversial situations that are resolved through a dispute. Discussions that arise during communication cannot be avoided, since each of us has his own point of view, which is sometimes radically different from the views of others.

In a dispute, there are rules of etiquette to be followed. In ancient times, the dispute was based on the skill of defending one's point of view. Today, disputes are directed mainly to the search for truth and to ensure that the attitudes of the people who take part in the controversy remain within the bounds of decency.

The art of arguing is based on 3 main theses:

• ask your opponent
• have a conversation with an opponent,
• listen to your opponent's arguments.

If a person enters into an argument, he must understand that his beliefs and arguments may be erroneous. Therefore, it is very important in a dispute to listen to every point of view, to analyze all the arguments heard.

During your opponent's arguments, when he touches on a topic on which you need to clarify something, you can interrupt him and ask a question. But remember that interrupt an opponent You just need to apologize to him. Of course, we all know that interrupting is ugly, but if you interrupt your opponent, show him respect, he will forgive you for your desire to know the truth. After the opponent has explained all the inaccuracies to you, remind him where he left off.

The art of arguing is the ability to choose correct tone of discussion. Your intonation can be completely different, you can express yourself softly, gently, hesitantly, confidently, etc. But at the same time, you need to consider not to humiliate your opponent. During an argument, it is impolite to raise your tone or shout.

Before the dispute

Before a dispute, it is extremely important to establish topic of controversy, its purpose and meaning, and in no case deviate from it. Neglecting this rule, you will simply waste your time, without bringing the conversation to anything, you will not get any conclusions.

If you start arguing scientific topic, you must know the meaning of all terms that may be covered in your discussion. Clarify all the concepts and you will not have an awkward situation when you and your opponent interpret the same concept in different ways.

During the dispute

When you resolve a controversial situation with someone, you must understand that the dispute is not an attempt to throw out negative emotions, but way to find the truth. During an argument, decide which of your opponent's arguments you agree with and which you don't. Also, you shouldn't be shy. ask again your opponent has this or that argument, if it is not fully understood.

According to the rules of etiquette personalization is prohibited. The same applies to arguing. If you switch to personalities, the argument turns into a primitive quarrel.

If you notice that your opponent or you have gradually begun to move on to another topic, you need to switch to the questions originally raised. Otherwise, you will not only waste your time, but also end your dispute with nothing.

During the dispute be polite, do not use phrases like: "You will never understand this", "Yes, I don't believe you." Always listen to the arguments and arguments of the opponent, do not interrupt him especially when he makes arguments in his own defense.

Completion of the dispute

Ending a dispute is also an important step in which you must follow the rules of etiquette. When during the dispute it was proved that your opinion was wrong, you must show yourself to be fair and accept that you are wrong on this matter.

When was it proven that you were right, behave with dignity and do not show pride or joy in victory. Thus, you can lower your opponent's self-esteem or make him angry or offended.

At the end of the argument, announce the arguments and conclusions that you and your opponent have come to. Shake hands in gratitude for a good time.