It is said that truth is born in a dispute. It really is. But in order to get out of the confrontation with a constructive result, you need to know and follow the rules of the dispute. What are they? How to win? How to worthily meet defeat?
Bit of theory
Before learning the rules of dispute, you need to familiarize yourself with the theory. So, a dispute is a verbal confrontation between two or more persons, in which everyone defends his point of view. In other words, it is a struggle of opinions. There are such types of disputes:
- Discussion is a public debate involving a comparison of different points of view in order to identify the true.
- Disputation - in the original version means public speaking in order to protect scientific work. Now this term means a public debate on a scientific or public topic.
- Controversy is a debate involving a serious confrontation of ideas. That is, it is a struggle of fundamentally opposing points of view.
- Debate or debate - discussion of reports, messages, speeches and so on.
Types of disputes by purpose
Dispute rules remain unchanged, regardless of purpose. And the goals may be as follows:
- An argument for the sake of truth is a test of an idea and a justification for its correctness. A comparison of various points of view takes place in order to identify the most correct or form a fundamentally new statement.
- A dispute for the sake of persuasion - the arguing one is trying to convey his opinion to the opponent, to give powerful arguments to convince him of his correctness.
- A dispute for the sake of victory - occurs when each of the participants is sincerely convinced of their rightness. Moreover, victory is of fundamental importance and is important for self-affirmation.
- An argument for the sake of argument is one of the common formats when opponents don't care what to argue about. They are fascinated by the process itself.
Constructive and destructive goals
In short, the rules of dispute can be reduced to the fact that it should be held in a constructive manner. Thus, we can distinguish the constructive and destructive goals of verbal confrontation. Let's consider them in more detail.
Design goals:
- discuss possible solutions to the problem;
- come to a common compromise on a particular issue;
- to draw the attention of a wide circle of people to a problem situation;
- to refute false rumors and expose an incompetent approach to solving the problem;
- establish contacts with persons who are ready for dialogue and cooperation;
- evaluate allies and opponents 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 standstill;
- to distort and discredit the original topic of dialogue;
- turn an ordered dispute into promiscuous abuse;
- lead the dispute in a false direction;
- to discredit those who think differently.
Principles of dispute
Anyone aiming for success should know the rules of the dispute and the principles on which this process is based. Namely:
- Subjectivity. The dispute should have a specific topic, and should also highlight specific points on which there is disagreement.
- Readiness. The parties to the dispute must first collect as much information as possible on the issue under consideration and outline a scheme of argumentation for themselves.
- Alternative As a rule, any problem has several solutions. The parties to the dispute should be open to consideration of alternatives.
- Argumentation of criticism. To disprove the arguments of the interlocutor is possible only through objective facts.
- Correctness. Regardless of the direction in which the dispute develops, it is important to behave with dignity.
- Sequence. Give reasons for a predetermined logical sequence.
Basic Dispute Rules
The argument is science and art. Verbal duel is a powerful tool for determining truth and self-affirmation. The main thing is to follow the rules of the dispute. Namely:
- In a dispute, you need to adhere to a clear position. It is important to adhere to the initial position throughout the confrontation, and not to "jump" from one idea to another.
- The use of terms should be appropriate. First, you must clearly understand what they mean. Secondly, you must be sure that the other parties to the dispute also understand specific terminology.
- Respect your opponent. Even if you fundamentally disagree with his position, you should try to understand it.
- Demonstrate interest in the opponent’s point of view. Do not just listen to him, but ask clarifying questions.
- Know how to lose. If you understand that the opponent is right, openly admit it.
- Maintain endurance and composure. Aggression and increased tone should not be present in the dispute. Do not let your opponent get you crazy.
- Ignore the opponent's lunges. If he showed disrespect or aggression, do not be like him, keep a calm tone. If the opponent’s behavior is outrageous, it’s more correct to end the conversation.
Skills of a successful polemicist
In addition to knowledge and compliance with the general rules of the dispute, it is important to develop certain skills:
- The ability to assess the mood, temperament and actions of the opponent. This will help you build a winning line of conduct.
- The ability to find the right arguments and accurate rebuttals. They should be formulated taking into account the individual approach to the opponent.
- The ability to keep in mind the key points of the dispute. This will help you at the right time to return the discussion to the right track if the opponent starts to move away from the topic.
- Ability to overcome psychological barriers. We are talking about internal complexes and fears, which may prevent us from effectively defending our point of view.
- The ability to pull away. It is important to be able to look at the discussion from the side in order to objectively evaluate the actions and arguments of each participant in the dispute (including their own).
- Stress resistance. No matter how your opponent behaves, no matter where the argument goes, you should always maintain objectivity and composure.
Dispute Approaches
In addition to the rules for conducting dialogues, conversations and disputes, it is also important to become familiar with the main polemical approaches. Among them:
- Heuristic. The participant in the dispute does not insist on his opinion, but gradually convinces opponents, using logic and common sense.
- Logical. Each argument is subjected to rigorous analysis and argumentation in terms of formal logic.
- Pragmatic. Proving their case, opponents pursue mercantile goals.
- Sophistical. The dispute participant tries to defeat the 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 his case, but focuses only on the weak points of the opposite point of view.
- Demagogic. The participant is not aimed at finding the truth in the argument, but is constantly moving away from the topic, pursuing only his known goals.
Only the first three approaches can be considered valid and constructive.
Effective Arguments of Argument
The goal of each participant in the dispute is the victory of his point of view. This can be achieved through effective methods of argumentation:
- "Changeover". Convincing the opponent of their own rightness by phasing illustrating the way to solve the problem.
- "Salami". Admission involves the preliminary formulation of several questions to which the opponent is guaranteed to answer positively. Further, the opponent will react similarly to inertia by principle.
- "Dismemberment". Isolation in the interlocutor’s argumentation of erroneous arguments that discredit the position as a whole.
- "Classical rhetoric." You listen to the opponent’s position and agree with it, and then give a sharp, irrefutable argument proving your case.
- "Two-way argumentation." The participant in the dispute indicates not only the strengths, but also the weaknesses of his position, which his opponent has to himself.
Bad taste, or What you should not do in a dispute
The ethical rules of a business dispute impose some restrictions. Namely:
- Do not get personal. In no case do not use the facts from the life of the opponent, his shortcomings and weaknesses as an argument in the dispute.
- Do not talk about what you do not know. It is much more worthy to admit that you do not understand the question than to drive yourself into a dead end with outrageous answers.
- Do not answer a question with a question. It does not put you in the best light.
- Do not give assessments to questions and arguments of the opponent. Your task is to prove the validity of your opinion, and not to criticize someone else's.
- Do not try to unbalance your opponent. Constructive conversation is possible only in a free environment.
- Do not demonstrate your superiority. Even if you are more competent than your opponent or higher in status, you should not openly demonstrate this.
- Do not refer to authorities. You should not focus on the fact that some scientists and other famous people held the same opinion with yours. You must find convincing arguments yourself.
- Do not respond aggressively to the correctness of the enemy. This demonstrates disrespect for your opponent and your own weakness.
Conclusion
You can compare the dispute rules with real art or complex science. The dispute, its types, goals, principles and techniques - all this is necessary for study by those who want to learn how to conduct a constructive discussion and emerge victorious from verbal confrontations. But the most important thing is the observance of ethical standards and rules when communicating with an opponent. After all, the superiority gained in violation of decency cannot be considered a victory. In the long run, this threatens to defeat and secure a negative reputation for the aggressive debater.