Dispute as a type of dialogue, tricks in dispute and ways to protect against them. Tricks in a dispute and ways to protect against them were able to at least partially remove or reduce tension in relationships, eliminate manifestations of mutual ill will, mistrust, resentment, division

Introduction_______________________________________________________________2

General information about the dispute_______________________________________________3

Tricks in an argument_________________________________________________6

Tactical techniques_________________________________________________12

Rules and mistakes regarding the form of argumentation and criticism____15

Conclusion__________________________________________________________ 16

List of References_____________________________________________17

Introduction

Dispute is of great importance in life, in science, in state and public affairs. Where there is no debate about important, serious issues, there is stagnation. - Our time in Russia is especially rich in heated debates of a social and political nature. The theory of dispute is a completely undeveloped subject in modern science. Naturally, the first attempts to develop and popularize it cannot claim any completeness.

Initially, logic was developed in connection with the needs of judicial practice and oratory. The connection between logic and these areas of human activity can be traced in Ancient India, Ancient Greece and
Rome. Thus, in the public life of Ancient India during the period when interest in logic emerged, discussions were a constant phenomenon. The famous Russian orientalist Academician V. Vasiliev writes about this: “If someone appears and begins to preach hitherto unknown ideas, they will not be shunned and persecuted without any trial: on the contrary, they will willingly recognize them if the preacher of these days satisfies all objections and refute old theories. An arena for competition was erected, judges were chosen, and kings, nobles and people were constantly present during the dispute; determined in advance, regardless of the royal reward, what the result of the dispute should be. If only two persons argued, then sometimes the defeated one had to take his own life - throw himself into a river or from a cliff, or become a slave of the winner, convert to his faith. If he was a respected person, for example, who had reached a rank like the sovereign's teacher and, therefore, possessed a huge fortune, then his property was often given to a poor man in rags, who managed to challenge it. It is clear that these benefits were a great lure to direct the ambition of the Indians in this direction. But most often we see that the dispute was not limited to individuals, entire monasteries took part in it, which, due to failure, could suddenly disappear after a long existence. As can be seen, the right of eloquence and logical proof was so undeniable in India that no one dared to evade a challenge to an argument.”

Judicial and political discussions were also common in ancient times.
Greece. Often, a judicial decision depended on the logical evidence of the speech of the accused or prosecutor. No artificial techniques, no eloquence can help if there are no well-founded ideas and convincing evidence.

General information about the dispute

1. Before talking about the dispute and its features, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the evidence at least in the most general terms. After all, a dispute consists of evidence. One proves that such and such a thought is correct, the other proves that it is wrong. The thought for which proof is constructed to substantiate the truth or falsity is called the thesis of the proof. The entire proof must revolve around it. She is the ultimate goal of our efforts. That is why the first requirement for anyone embarking on a serious proof or dispute is to clarify the controversial idea, to clarify the thesis.

2. Three necessary and sufficient points when clarifying the thesis: a) all the concepts included in it that are unclear to us; b) its “quantity” c) “modality”.

a) If the meaning of a word in a thesis is not entirely clear and distinct, then it is necessary to “define” this “word” or concept. In practice, there are two means for this:

1) define the concept on your own; 2) use ready-made definitions from others.

The second method is more preferable. You can use an encyclopedia or other scientific literature as a source of definition. You should not trust what you “read about it once”; definitions should be memorized wisely. It should be remembered that the same concept can have several definitions.

b) For clarity and distinctness of thinking, you need to know whether we are talking about just one object, or about all objects of a given class without exception, or not about all, but about some (most, many, almost all, several, etc.). Sometimes you have to find out whether the attribute that is attributed to it is always characteristic of an object, or not always. Without this, too, the thought is often unclear. Clarification of this point is called clarification of the judgment (and therefore the thesis) by “quantity”. Where the "quantity" of a thesis is unclear, the thesis is called indeterminate in quantity.

c) Then we need to find out what kind of judgment we consider the thesis to be, undoubtedly true, reliable and undoubtedly false, or only probable to a greater or lesser extent, very probable, simply probable, etc. Or does the thesis being refuted to us, for example, seem only possible : There are no arguments for it, but there are no arguments against it either. Again, depending on all this, various methods of proof have to be given.

It may seem that such clarification requires too much time and that this waste is unnecessary. In fact, taking the time to figure it out always pays off, often a hundredfold. Sometimes it happens that as soon as you clarify the thesis, it becomes obvious that there is nothing to argue about.

1. To prove the truth or falsity of the thesis, we provide other thoughts, the so-called arguments or grounds of evidence. These should be thoughts: a) which we consider true not only ourselves, but also the person or people to whom we are proving, and b) from which it follows that the thesis is true or false.

2. Each important argument in the proof must be considered separately and also clarified - in the same way as we clarified the thesis. This work protects against a lot of mistakes and significant time expenditure. - You shouldn’t trust the “first glance” and think that there is no need to find out.

3. Errors in evidence are mainly of three types: a) either in the thesis, b) or in the arguments, in the grounds, or c) in the connection between the arguments and the thesis, in the “reasoning”. Errors in the thesis consist in the fact that we set out to prove one thesis, but in fact we proved or are proving another. This error is called a deviation from the thesis. It happens that a person sees that he cannot defend or prove a thesis, and deliberately replaces it with another so that the opponent does not notice. This is called substitution of the thesis. It also happens that a person has simply forgotten his thesis. This will be a loss of thesis, etc.

4. There are most often two mistakes in arguments: a) a false argument, b) an arbitrary argument. A false argument is when someone relies on a clearly false idea. An arbitrary argument is one that, although not obviously false, still requires proper proof.

5. Finally, errors in the “connection” between the grounds and the thesis (“in reasoning”) consist in the fact that the thesis does not follow, does not follow from the grounds, or it is not clear how it follows from them.

6. Logic teaches in more detail what errors there are in reasoning.

It should also be noted that the main types of dispute are:

Constructive
Destructive
Oral
Writing
Organized
Spontaneous

The conditions for starting a dispute are:

The presence of at least two parties with an individual view on the subject of the dispute.
The presence of disagreements among the disputing parties and personal interest in resolving these disagreements.
The willingness of those arguing to argue and each side to have arguments of varying degrees of persuasiveness.

In relation to the arguments of the opponent, a good debater must avoid two extremes:

· he should not persist when either the opponent’s argument is obvious or clearly proven correctly;

· he should not agree too easily with the opponent’s argument if this argument seems correct to him.

Let's consider the first case. To persist if the opponent’s argument is immediately “obvious” or proven beyond doubt is inappropriate and harmful for the arguer. It is clear that a person does not have enough courage and honesty and love of truth to admit to a mistake. In private disputes, excessive persistence sometimes reaches the point where it turns into the so-called “donkey tenacity.” The defender of his mistake begins to pile up such incredible arguments in favor of it that the listener begins to laugh. Unfortunately, such stubbornness is found even in scientific disputes. However, if the dispute is important and serious, it is a mistake to accept the opponent’s arguments without the most vigilant caution. Here, as in many serious cases, you need to “try on seven times and cut off once.” It often happens that the enemy’s argument seems very convincing and irrefutable to us at first, but then, after thinking carefully, we are convinced that it is arbitrary or even false. Sometimes this awareness comes during an argument. But the argument has already been accepted, and we have to “take back consent to it” - which always makes an unfavorable impression on the listeners and can be used to our detriment, especially by a dishonest, arrogant opponent. Therefore, the more serious the dispute, the higher our caution and demandingness should be in order to agree with the opponent’s arguments. The measure of this exactingness and caution for each individual case is “common sense” and a special “logical tact”. They help to decide whether a given argument is obviously reliable and does not require further verification or whether it is better to wait to agree to it. If an argument seems very convincing to us and we cannot find any objections to it, but prudence still requires us to postpone agreement with it and first think about it better, then we usually resort to three methods to get out of the difficulty. He started to get personal and just try to offend, but he lost the argument.

1. The most direct and honest is conditional acceptance of the argument. “I accept your argument conditionally. Let’s assume for now that it is true. What other arguments do you want to give?” With such a conditional argument, the thesis can only be proven conditionally: if this argument is true, then the thesis is true.

2. The most common technique is to declare an argument arbitrary. We demand proof of it from the enemy, despite the fact that the argument seems reliable to us.

3. Delaying the answer.

Tricks in an argument

In the process of argumentation and criticism, two types of errors can be made: intentional and unintentional. Deliberate errors are called sophisms, and persons who commit such errors are called sophists. The reasoning itself, which contains deliberate errors, is also called sophistry. The name sophistry comes from the Greek. ??????? - a cunning trick, an invention. A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which one usually wants to make the dispute easier for oneself or make the argument more difficult for the enemy. There are different types of tricks:

Permissive tricks

Permissible tricks in disputes can be considered:

Suspension of a dispute by one or both parties for valid reasons.
If the dispute escalates and the dispute reaches an unacceptable phase (violations), the dispute can be stopped by one (even the wrong) party to its benefit.
Contacting an independent person or source with a request for clarification of inaccuracies, etc.

1A trick in a dispute is any technique with the help of which one wants to make the argument easier for oneself or make the argument more difficult for the enemy. There are many such techniques, very diverse in nature. Some of them, which are used to facilitate the dispute for oneself, are permissible. Others are unaffordable and often downright dishonest. It is currently impossible to list all the tricks or at least accurately classify them. We believe, however, that it is necessary to describe some of the most important and most frequently encountered ones in order to help recognize them and take protective measures.

2. First, let's touch on some clearly permissible techniques. Such tricks include (most often in an oral argument) delaying an objection. Sometimes it happens that the enemy has given us an argument to which we cannot immediately find an objection. It just “doesn’t come to mind,” and that’s all. In such cases, they try to “delay the objection” as unnoticeably as possible for the opponent, for example, they raise questions in connection with the argument presented, as if to clarify it or for information in general, although they do not need either one; they begin the answer from a distance, with something related to the given question, but also not directly related to it, etc., etc. At this very time, the thought works and often the desired objection appears, to which they now move on. You need to be able to do this deftly and unnoticed. If the enemy notices what's going on, he will do his best to interfere with the trick.

3. This trick in its pure form is completely permissible and often necessary. The human mental mechanism is a very capricious mechanism. Sometimes suddenly the thought in a dispute refuses to work for a moment in the face of the most ordinary or even absurd objection. The person gets lost. This happens especially often with nervous or shy people, under the influence of the most unexpected reasons - for example, even sometimes under the influence of a suddenly flashing thought: “what if I don’t find the answer” (self-hypnosis). This phenomenon reaches its highest degree in the so-called “shock”. The person arguing suddenly loses all the baggage of thoughts on this issue. "My head is empty." All knowledge, all income, all objections seemed to “fly out of my head.” The man is completely helpless. This “shock” occurs most often when a person is very worried or tired. In such cases, the only “salvation” is the trick we analyze. You must try not to give away your condition, not look confused, not lower or weaken your voice, speak firmly, and skillfully delay an objection until you recover. Otherwise, both the opponent and the listeners (for the most part judging the course of the dispute “by appearance”) will think that we are “broken,” no matter how absurd the reason for which this unpleasant story happened to us.

Often they resort to “delaying an objection” in cases where, although the opponent’s argument seems correct, the possibility cannot be ruled out that we are subject to some illusion or error in such an assessment. Caution dictates not to agree with him too easily; In such cases, they very often resort to other tricks that are no longer permissible, for example, they evade an objection to it and keep silent, “bypass” it; or they simply transfer the dispute to another topic, etc. etc.

4. That technique is also completely permissible (it’s hard to even call it a “trick”) when we, seeing that the enemy has become embarrassed by some argument, or has become especially excited, or is trying to “escape” the answer, pay special attention to This argument is what we begin to “press” on it. Whatever the dispute, you should always vigilantly monitor the weak points in the opponent’s argumentation and, having found such a point, “develop” it to the end, without “letting go” of the enemy until the entire weakness of this point is revealed and emphasized. In such cases, you can “release” the enemy only when the enemy is obviously in shock or the like. or out of generosity, out of the well-known “chivalry in an argument”, if he got into a particularly ridiculous “problem”. Meanwhile, the ability to exploit enemy weaknesses is quite rare. Anyone interested in the art of argument often watches with pity as the arguer, due to his complete inability to navigate the argument or for other reasons, loses his advantage over his opponent.

5. Some tricks used to respond to the enemy’s dishonest tricks are also quite permissible. Sometimes you can't protect yourself without this. For example, in an argument you need to prove some important idea. But the enemy felt that if you prove it, you will also prove the thesis, and then his case is lost. To prevent you from proving this idea, he resorts to a dishonest trick: whatever argument you give in favor of it, he declares it unproven. You say: “all people are mortal,” he replies: this has not yet been proven. You will say: “Do you yourself exist or not?” He answers: maybe I do exist, or maybe it’s an illusion." What to do with such a person? With such a “malicious denial” of arguments, the only thing left to do is either give up the argument or, if this is inconvenient, resort to a trick. The most typical are two “defensive tricks ": a) it is necessary to “conduct” the arguments in favor of the idea being proven so that the enemy does not notice that they are intended for this purpose. Then he will not “maliciously persist” and can accept them. When we have carried out all of them scattered, then All that remains is to connect them together - and the idea is proven. The enemy has fallen into a trap. In order to successfully carry out this trick, one often needs very great art, the ability to “master the argument”, the ability to conduct it according to a known plan, which is rare in our time . Simpler than another trick. b) Having noticed that the enemy maliciously denies every argument we have in favor of the thought being proven, and we need to make some argument, we set a trap. We remain silent about our argument, and instead we take a thought that contradicts it and pretend that we want to use it as an argument. If the enemy has “set up” to deny all our arguments, then he can, without thinking carefully, attack her and reject her. This is where the trap over him will slam shut. By rejecting the thought that contradicted our argument, he thereby accepted our argument that we wanted to carry out. For example, I need to make the argument “some people are vicious by nature,” but my opponent has clearly taken up malicious denial and will never miss any argument. Then I pretend that I want to put forward, as an argument, a contradictory thought: “after all, you will not deny,” I will say, “that by nature every person is good and blameless, and depravity is acquired from upbringing, from the environment, etc. ". If the enemy does not solve the trap, he will apply his tactics here too and declare that this is an obviously false idea. “Undoubtedly, there are people who are vicious by nature” - sometimes he will even provide evidence. This is exactly what we need. The argument has been carried out, the trap has slammed shut.

The grossest impermissible tricks

The crudest tricks in a dispute are:

Moving “aside” from the topic of the ongoing dispute with a transition to “personalities” - indications of: profession, nationality, position held, physical defects, mental disorders.
Shouting and obscene language, mutual insults, shouting and insults to third parties.
Threats and hooligan behavior.
Assault and fighting as an extreme measure of so-called “proof” of right or wrong.

1. There are countless illegal tricks. There are very rough ones, and there are very subtle ones. The most crude tricks are of a “mechanical” nature. The wrong “way out of a dispute” often has this nature. Sometimes you have to “give up the argument” because, for example, the opponent gets personal, allows himself rude expressions, etc. This, of course, will be the right “way out of the dispute,” for serious reasons. But it also happens that a debater has a bad time in a dispute because the opponent is stronger than him, either in general or in this matter. He feels that the argument is beyond his strength, and tries in every possible way to “sneak out of the argument,” “suppress the argument,” “finish off the argument.” They are not shy about their means and often resort to the crudest mechanical tricks.

2. The crudest of them and the most “mechanical” is to not allow the enemy to speak. The arguer constantly interrupts the opponent, tries to talk him down, or simply demonstratively shows that he does not want to listen to him; covers his ears, hums, whistles, etc. etc. In a dispute in front of listeners, listeners sometimes play such a role, seeing that their like-minded person is having a bad time: there is a chorus of approval or disapproval, and roaring, and cackling, and stamping feet, and breaking tables and chairs, and a demonstrative exit from the room - all according to the degree of culture of the listeners' morals. It is, of course, impossible to argue under such conditions. This is called (if successful) "breaking the dispute."

3. Another but more “serious” mechanical ploy to put an end to an unprofitable dispute is an “appeal” or “argument to the policeman.” First, a person argues honor with honor, argues over whether the thesis is true or false. But the dispute is not playing out in his favor - and he turns to the powers that be, pointing out the danger of the thesis for the state or society, etc. And then some “power” comes and clamps down on our enemy, which is what we needed to prove. The dispute stopped and “victory” was theirs.

4. But the “call to the policeman” is intended only to end the dispute. Many are not content with this, but use similar means to “convince” the enemy, i.e. or rather, to force him, at least in words, to agree with us. Then such arguments are called “stick arguments.” Of course, even in our time “stick arguments” are still used in the literal sense of the word. Violence of all kinds very often “convinces” many and settles disputes, at least for a time. But such stick arguments are not included in the field of consideration by logic, even applied logic (However, one domestic logician made an attempt to introduce them into the field of logic. Considering “the sophisms of practical life and the activity of this or that person in particular,” etc., he says: “the best logic for overthrowing such sophisms is: 1) religion and civil law, their guardians and executors, such as church pastors and state authorities, 3) heads of families and all elders in relation to those subordinate to them... 4 ) State sophisms can be resolved and refuted only by the supreme authorities, through diplomatic relations and negotiations or by armed force" (Koroptsev, P. Guide to an initial introduction to logic. St. Petersburg, 1861, p. 192). It must be said that these words formulate a system of “exposing sophisms” that is quite popular in our time.). Here, a stick argument is a rather ugly trick, which consists in presenting an argument that the opponent, according to the sophist, must accept for fear of something unpleasant, often dangerous, or which he cannot answer correctly for the same reason and must or remain silent, or come up with some “workarounds”. This is, in essence, robbery in a dispute. Even, perhaps, in one respect, even worse. The robber openly offers a dilemma: “trick or treat.” The sophist presents in a hidden manner and with an innocent air the dilemma of “accept the argument or suffer trouble”; "don't mind or get hurt."

5. Such arguments abound at all times, among all peoples, under all regimes; in state, in public, in private life. During the Inquisition, for example, such disputes were possible: a freethinker declares that “the earth revolves around the sun”; the opponent objects: “Here it is written in the psalms: You have set the earth on solid foundations, it will not shake forever and ever.” “What do you think,” he asks pointedly, “can the Holy Scriptures be mistaken or not?” The freethinker remembers the Inquisition and stops objecting. For greater security, he usually even “makes sure” and sometimes even touchingly thanks “for teaching.” For a “strong”, “strike argument”, like the Inquisition standing behind one’s back, is naturally irresistible and “convincing” for most weak mortals.

In our times, thank God, there is no Inquisition, but there are many other forms of argument with a stick. An example from recent life is a missionary’s interview with Old Believers. The Old Believer vehemently argues that the missionary and his church are heretics. The resourceful “missionary” poses the question: “That’s it! So our Sovereign Emperor is also a heretic”? The familiar faces of the Alguazils flashed before the Old Believer (in imagination, and perhaps in reality), and he remembered “places not so distant.” “His heart was troubled and his strength deserted him” and “like a man who does not hear and does not have reproof in his mouth.” Bosses are sometimes very successful at convincing their subordinates. “People of other beliefs” are “not suitable” for him, and at the house of the persuaded man, Vasya and Vanya squeak and ask for food and drink. The arguments of the authorities are often incomparably stronger than Cicero’s eloquence.

Psychological tricks

Opponent's flattery
"Greasing Arguments"
Arrogance, demand for self-respect
Blackmail
Bet on false shame
Personal attacks
Breaking down an argument
Unfounded accusation of stubbornness
Suppose the first participant said that something cannot be done for 60 seconds, the second says, for example, “that is, at the 59th second. It’s not possible, but on the 60th it’s possible. And what, I wonder, will happen at the 60th second?” Of course, this does not mean absolutely any cases.
Comparing something incomparable. In this case, it is still recommended to be able to explain the difference “between Africa and a computer” in order to explain why they cannot be compared.
When comparing something, say that it cannot be compared (of course, this means when it can). In this case, it is advisable to ask your opponent why. And it must be in detail (Otherwise you will get a very stupid answer, and it is always difficult to find counterarguments for stupid answers due to the fact that they are poorly connected with logic).

False arguments - "Imaginary evidence"

A false argument in a dispute is any frankly unreliable information used by one of the parties (the disputant, the disputants) in order to prove their point of view on a subject or situation. Presenting a false argument is usually an indicator of the weakness of the position in the dispute of the party that resorts to false arguments and misinformation. When presenting a false argument, the disputing party’s calculation is made on the other party’s lack of competence in the matter of dispute, and is intended to strengthen its position in a controversial situation. The destruction of a false argument by the opposing party can be done by bringing an independent point of view, citing documents on the subject of the dispute, etc.

Arbitrary Arguments

These are arguments given by a third (indirect) party to the disputing parties, and do not have a clear semantic connotation for a specific point of view on the subject of the dispute. Arbitrary arguments, as a rule, are neither proof nor refutation, and, to a large extent, carrying the meaning of a superficial judgment, interfere with and distract the disputing parties from resolving the dispute and finding the truth. In Ancient Greece there were sophists who, for a fee, taught the art of winning an argument, no matter what the argument was about, the art of making a weak argument strong, and a strong one, if it was an opponent’s argument, weak. They taught to argue about what you don't understand. Such a teacher was, for example, the philosopher Protagoras. Compliance with special rules helps prevent errors in argumentation and criticism.

The first rule: it is necessary to clearly formulate the thesis (in the form of a judgment, a system of judgments, a problem, a hypothesis, a concept, etc.). This rule expresses the main condition for the effectiveness of argumentation and criticism. To implement the first rule of argumentation in relation to a thesis, it is necessary: first, to examine the controversial idea and highlight points of agreement and disagreement; secondly, agree on the points of argument of the parties.

The second rule: the thesis must be formulated clearly and clearly. How to fulfill this requirement? Firstly. It is necessary to find out whether all the descriptive (non-logical) terms contained in the thesis statement are completely understandable to everyone. If there are unclear or ambiguous words, they should be clarified, for example, by definition. Secondly. It is necessary to identify the logical form of the thesis. If the thesis is a judgment in which something is affirmed or denied about objects, then you need to find out whether all objects are being discussed in the judgment or only some (about many, about the majority, and the minority, etc.) For example, the proponent states: “ people are angry." Some might argue that this is not the case. If the statement is qualified as follows: “Some people are evil,” then there is no need for argument. It is necessary to clarify in what sense the conjunctions “and”, “or”, “if..., then...” etc. are used. For example, the conjunction “or” can express both a loose and strict disjunctive connection, “if..., then...” - an implicative or conditional connection, etc. Third. Sometimes it is advisable to clarify the time in question in a judgment, for example, to clarify whether it is stated that a certain property always belongs to an object or it belongs to it sometimes; clarify the meaning of words such as “today”, “tomorrow”, “in so many hours”, etc. Sometimes it is stated that a certain event will happen in the near future, in the next period. It is difficult to refute such statements because they are not clear. It is necessary to require the opponent to clarify such statements. Fourthly. Sometimes it is necessary to find out whether it is argued that the thesis is true or whether the preparatory work, which consists in developing a general field of argumentation, researching a controversial thought and highlighting and clearly formulating the thesis, allows you to save time at further stages of argumentation and increase its efficiency, that it is only plausible .

Third rule: the thesis should not change in the process of argumentation and criticism without special reservations. Violation of this rule is associated with an error called “substitution of thesis.” It occurs when a certain statement is put forward as a thesis, and another, similar to the one put forward, is argued or criticized; in the end it is concluded that the original statement is justified or criticized.

Tactics

Tactics of argumentation and criticism - a plan for a separate stage of argumentation or criticism. Often tactics involve the use of special techniques.
These (tactical) techniques are divided into general techniques
(general methodological), as well as logical, psychological (including socio-psychological), rhetorical, physiological and physical.
The basis for identifying types of tactical techniques is the possible aspects of considering argumentation. One of the aspects is moral. There appears to be no absolute criterion for the acceptability of certain techniques from a moral point of view.

Let's consider the main general methodological tactics.

"Pulling expression." This technique is as follows.
When carrying out argumentation during a discussion, a person may find it difficult to answer a question or select arguments for an objection.
He may feel that the arguments exist, that they will be found if he can gain time and think. In this case, it is recommended to ask the questioner to wait and repeat the previously stated arguments or
“remember” something that definitely needs to be said to those present now.
If it depends on the person responding to the objection, you can even call a break.
By gaining time, sometimes just a few minutes, you can find the required objection.

"Hiding the thesis." If such a pedagogical rule is to give a lecture, participate in a discussion, speak at a meeting, etc., clearly formulate the thesis of the argument, and then justify it. This way of constructing a lecture, speech, etc. allows you to focus the attention of those present and better understand the entire course of the argument.

In some cases, it is advisable to do the opposite: first present the arguments, and formulate them clearly and clearly; ask your opponent whether he agrees with the arguments, and only then derive the thesis from the arguments. Sometimes the thesis may not be deduced, leaving it to the opponent.
Moreover, sometimes, in order not to offend your opponent, you can even express a false thesis that clearly does not follow from the arguments, and the opponent, upon subsequent reflection, will correct the mistake and come to the correct conclusion.

This technique is used when your opponent is not interested in proving your thesis. There is, however, an opinion that impartiality is maintained in scientific disputes, since scientific truths do not affect the interests of people, especially if they are truths of natural sciences. This idea is contained in the following statement by Leibniz: “If geometry were as contrary to our passions and our interests as morality, then we would also argue against it and violate it in spite of all evidence
Euclid and Archimedes, which we would then call nonsense and consider full of errors.” In reality, geometry can also be contrary to our interests. If a scientist spends his whole life busy justifying a certain concept, and his opponent puts forward a new concept that contradicts the concept of this scientist, then the latter most often shows interest in the dispute.
It is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to convince him of the falsity of the concept he is developing, and therefore of the futility of his many years of work. Famous physicist M.
Planck wrote: “A great scientific idea is rarely introduced by gradually persuading its opponents. What actually happens is that opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation becomes accustomed to the new idea from the very beginning.

In such cases, the technique of “hiding the thesis” can help to find the truth.

"Dragging out the dispute." This technique is used in cases where the opponent cannot answer the objection, as well as when he feels that he is wrong on the merits. The opponent asks you to repeat your last thought, to formulate your thesis (“It’s okay for the fifth time”). How to react to this technique? You need to name the technique used and address the audience with the question: “Who else, besides your opponent, did not understand what I was proving?”

"Divide and rule". It consists of dividing the forces of a collective opponent by finding differences in its ranks and pitting one part of it against another. If it is possible to cause a dispute within a group that is a collective opponent, the goal is considered achieved.

The response is to invite group members to look past minor disagreements and advocate for the core idea on which there is agreement.

“Shift the burden of proof to the opponent.” Sometimes it is easier to criticize the argumentation of the opposite side than to substantiate one’s thesis, therefore, when using this technique, one tries not to substantiate one’s thesis if this is difficult, but to demand proof of the opponent’s thesis. Another name for this technique is “truth in silence.”

“Cunctation” (from Latin сunctator - slow). Cunctator is the nickname of the ancient Roman commander Quintus Fabius Maximus, which was given to him for his slowness in the war against Hannibal (he acted in such a way as to exhaust Hannibal’s army).

Using this technique, they try to take a wait-and-see position in a dispute in order to test their arguments, discard weak ones, and use strong ones at the very end of the dispute, speaking last so that the opponent cannot object.

“Thomas’ Trick” (not agreeing with anything). “Deny everything, and you can easily be considered smart” (I.S. Turgenev). This technique is sometimes used out of conviction, and sometimes with the goal of remaining victorious in a dispute. In the first case of reception lies ignorance or denial of the philosophical doctrine of the relationship between absolute and relative truths. Scientific teaching, if it is a teaching about a complex phenomenon, is, as a rule, a relative truth
(contains statements that can be refuted in the process of development of science) and absolute truth (contains statements that cannot be refuted in the future).
Exaggeration of the first feature of teaching leads to agnosticism
and the second - to dogmatism.

The person applying the technique in question can be asked: “Are you an agnostic?”

"Ignoring intellectuals." The technique is as follows: the presenter behaves as if the audience were not intellectuals, i.e. educated and intelligent people capable of objectively and meaningfully assessing the information received. Refers, for example, to historical facts, but is inaccurate. The fact that among the listeners there are people who know history does not bother him.

"Simple speech." It differs from the previous one in that when it is used in reasoning, factual and logical errors are avoided. In the case of speaking in front of an audience, among which there are many uneducated people, complex reasoning is avoided. They speak slowly, give everyday examples, sometimes even rude ones, and do not use foreign words.

It is impossible to describe all tactical techniques of a general methodological nature, since human creativity in this direction is not complete. Using existing knowledge of logic and argumentation theory, we can find ways to respond to tactics unknown to us.

Rules and mistakes regarding the form of argumentation and criticism

Criticism (from French. critique from ancient Greek κριτική τέχνη “the art of disassembling, judgment”) -

identifying contradictions;
analysis (analysis), discussion of something with the aim of giving an assessment (for example, literary criticism);
a negative judgment about something (in art, social life, etc.), indicating shortcomings;
research, scientific verification of the reliability, authenticity of something (for example, criticism of a text, criticism of historical sources).

The relationship between arguments and thesis must be at least one of confirmation. If this rule is violated, a “does not confirm” error occurs.
When applied to proof, it is called “does not follow.” When arguing or examining a ready-made argument, it is important to know what the logical connection is between the thesis and arguments: does the thesis necessarily follow from the arguments; arguments only confirm the thesis; there is no logical connection between the thesis and arguments. To solve this problem, it is necessary to apply knowledge of the teaching of logic about deductive and inductive inferences. It should be borne in mind that the correctness or incorrectness of some methods of reasoning can be determined “by ear”, without the use of paper and pencil, while the analysis of other (complex reasoning) requires the written use of symbolic logic. There's a trick to the "shouldn't" error that goes something like this: The opposite side is confused by a set of meaningless phrases. At the same time, they proceed from the fact that some people are accustomed to thinking: if speech is heard, then something is hidden behind the words. This trick is especially effective when the enemy is aware of his weakness and is accustomed, listening to a lot of things that he does not understand, to pretend that everything is clear to him.

Such a person is asked the question: “Do you understand this?” He answers with a serious look: “I see.” In the end, they claim that the thesis has been proven. This trick is not applicable to those who do not pretend to understand what they do not understand.

Conclusion

As Aristotle once said, you should not argue with the first person you meet, but only with those who strive for the truth. This advice cannot always be used, since the interests of the case sometimes do not allow choosing an opponent for discussion. However, in cases where opponents argue not in order to achieve the truth, but in order to “show themselves,” the dispute can be interrupted. In conclusion, I would like to analyze the above and give some advice regarding the dispute. Based on this material, you should pay attention to these points:

1) You need to know the subject of the dispute. You should not speak categorically about things that are unfamiliar to you.

2) You need to know the rules of logic. Sometimes in a dispute we feel that “something is not right here,” but we don’t know what exactly. In such cases, they use knowledge of logic, with the help of which they find errors, and also convince others that they are reasoning incorrectly. If the reasoning is complex, then symbolic logic must be used to analyze it. Without this, it is not always possible to establish the correctness or incorrectness of the reasoning.

3) You need to remain calm in a dispute. All other things being equal, in a dispute, as a rule, the one who conducts it calmly wins. Sometimes it is difficult to remain calm, especially when the enemy wants to win the argument at any cost. In order not to lose self-control, you must first of all have a high goal for which it is worth arguing, prepare for this dispute, as well as for possible disputes: speak publicly more often, study logic and the matter for which you will have to argue, work to improve your diction, constantly enrich your speech, etc.

Bibliography

1. Gerasimova I.A. Truth, the Internet and the ancient Indian dispute // Epistemology and philosophy of science. 2008. No. 2

2.Ivin A.A. Logic: textbook. – M.: Gardariki, 2000..

3. Krol Yu. L. Dispute as a cultural phenomenon of ancient China // Peoples of Asia and Africa. - 1987. - No. 2.

4.Povarnin S.I. Dispute: about the theory and practice of dispute. Questions of philosophy.

Rhetoric has long ceased to be sacred knowledge, which only a few learn and possess. Today, persuasiveness and the ability to not only lead, but also win in a discussion are mandatory skills by default. We bring to your attention tricks in disputes - permissible and not so - techniques that you can use to make it easier for yourself to conduct a dispute and complicate it for your opponent, as well as ways to protect yourself from such tricks. So that next time, before arguing with you, people think about what consequences this is fraught with.

This is allowed, don't blame me

Russian philosopher and logician S. Povarnin in his 1918 work “Dispute: on the theory and practice of dispute” identifies permissible and impermissible tricks. The thinker of the twentieth century characterizes impermissible ones as dishonest and prohibited, based on the canons of traditional dispute management. On the contrary, the use of permissible tricks is justified and even necessary.

Permissible tricks (of which, for unknown reasons, there are strangely few) include:

Delaying an objection. It is useful when it is difficult to immediately find a counterargument or objection to the argument presented by the opponent. In this case, you should, as unnoticed as possible for your opponent, “delay the objection”: for example, raise many questions regarding the argument presented (“bombard with questions”).
Focusing on your opponent's confusion. It is quite permissible, according to S. Povarnin, having noticed that the opponent was embarrassed when expressing a certain argument, became excited or is trying to evade the answer, pay special attention to this, begin to “press” on the opponent, noting that he himself doubts his own argument , or does not understand this issue at all.

Forget that impermissible tricks are not permissible. Pretend that you are using only acceptable tricks in an argument.

It is probably not worth clarifying that the realities of the 21st century do not always, in principle, comply with any traditional canons and, especially, long-prescribed conditions for conducting a discussion. Therefore, if your opponent uses all kinds of techniques to win the argument, it is not time for you to suffer from remorse over the use of prohibited techniques. Convincing at any cost—sounds greedy and inhumane? No, if the outcome of the dispute determines the signing of a multi-thousand dollar contract with potential sponsors or obtaining a prestigious position - that is, your life.

"Studway" in no way encourages you to resort to an arsenal of prohibited tricks. But we always make decisions on our own. Therefore, here is a far from exhaustive list of what cannot be used, but what you can familiarize yourself with. So, the rudest, unacceptable tricks:

Don't let the enemy speak. The so-called “mechanical” technique, when the disputant understands that the opponent has a better understanding of the problem of the dispute and that, in general, the dispute is almost lost. The rudest of unacceptable tricks. And, by the way, the most frequently used.
Point out the prohibition or danger of the ideas contained in the opponent’s argument. For example, when a freethinker declared during the Inquisition that “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” the main counter-argument was: “So you think the Holy Scriptures are wrong?” After such a “stick argument,” the opponent not only abandoned the thesis, but also unconditionally accepted the opinion of the opposite side.
Infuriate your opponent and end the argument victoriously. To do this, they use “personalities,” insults, mockery, and mockery. If the opponent “boiled”, the case is won, because while the opponent “has not come to his senses”, you can draw any conclusions beneficial to your position.
Use as much pathos and vivid metaphors as possible. The meaning of an argument that contains a strong emotional message, as well as an excess of successful tropes and figures of speech, is less perceived and remembered.
Use false facts, the truth of which the opponent cannot verify at the time of the dispute. After this, you can “finish off” your opponent using the “bet on false shame”: “Don’t you know this well-known/long-established by science/proven fact?”
Substitute your own thesis and return to it again when it is beneficial (use of sophisms). You can also refute one or two arguments, the weakest or the most effectively refutable, leaving the most significant and important without attention.

Countermeasures to protect against tricks

Or“In order to conduct disputes and defend opinions, one must at least become familiar with the circumstances of the case in advance.”

Of course, there are a huge number of types of tricks and there is no universal recipe for “exposing”, confronting and protecting from manipulative tricks. However, you can identify some rules, if you follow them, it will be more difficult for the enemy to resort to various kinds of tricks.

Argue only about what you know well and what you understand.
Do not argue unnecessarily with a person who is a “fraudster of words” or “boorish” in discourse. Otherwise, always be on guard.
Learn to “embrace” an argument rather than move (“wander”) from one argument to another.
Stay calm and composure is the basic rule for winning an argument. By any means, emphasize the confidence in what you say.
Carefully and clearly clarify each thesis and argument - both yours and your opponent's.

Now why not argue?

Pardon in the text? Seen її, press Shift + Enter or click .

In a dispute, it is necessary to be extremely honest and truthful, but often these requirements are not met. It is associated with the possibility of being mistaken, making mistakes, and sometimes with a conscious desire to confuse an opponent or partner with the help of such arguments and arguments. To prove the truth of the thesis, arguments are given, the most weighty ones being those based on statistical data, examples from life, as well as quotes from the works of famous writers and poets. When presenting arguments, it is necessary to distinguish between the concept of fact and opinion. A fact is an actual event that actually happened. An opinion is a judgment, often based on subjective assessments; it can be biased, biased, and erroneous. Therefore, the most powerful evidence is facts. Opinions must be viewed critically, and historical and specific conditions must be taken into account. During a dispute, it is considered very important to take into account the emotional state and their attitude to the subject of speech. The art of argumentation consists not only in the truth of one’s judgments, but also in the ability to refute the opponent’s point of view and expose his incorrect judgments. To conduct a dispute, it is necessary to strictly observe the laws of logic, which impose certain requirements in relation to the thesis of the evidence. There must be a logical certainty of the thesis; during the dispute, you should not replace the thesis with another. Proof and refutation in a dispute perform different functions; evidence requires a positive role in substantiating an idea, while refutation requires a critical one. Refutation is carried out in three ways: the thesis is refuted, the arguments are criticized, the inconsistency of the demonstration is shown, that is, those forms and methods of proof that the opponent uses. The most effective way is to refute the thesis; for this, real facts, events, statistical data from eyewitness accounts, as well as the results of experimental studies are provided. It is less effective to refute the arguments; it is necessary to show their inconsistency. In this case, the use of humor, irony, and sarcasm is considered an effective means. A technique such as a return strike or a boomerang technique is also often used; a variation is the technique of picking up a cue, seizing the initiative from an opponent, attacking him with questions, as well as psychological arguments, such as an argument to a person’s personal qualities, an argument to the public. A reference to authority, to the statements or actions of a person who is influential.

A form of hidden struggle in a dispute is tricks, they come in very different forms. Tricks in an argument are tactics and techniques whose purpose is to make it difficult for your opponent to justify his ideas. Mastering tricks, a person can easily win any dispute. Tricks are divided into two types: acceptable and unacceptable. Acceptable tricks are used when we see that the enemy is using unacceptable techniques in a dispute, in this case it is necessary to create a kind of trap in the dispute into which this dishonest person will fall. The tricks of “ignoring an argument” are used when they pretend that the opponent in a dispute does not have a strong argument or believe that this argument is untenable. The trick of “delaying an objection” is considered acceptable - this trick is used to collect thoughts. “Over-specification” - clarification of a fact, from generalization to specificity. Arguments that violate the rules of debate are considered unacceptable - leaving a dispute, disrupting a dispute, appealing to personal qualities, reading in hearts. Quitting a dispute occurs when one of the opponents is unable to maintain the dispute. Disruption of a dispute occurs when the opponent seeks to interrupt the opponent and shows reluctance to listen to his arguments. Reading in hearts involves attributing collateral motives to the opponent for conducting a dispute. Argument to the policeman - this trick is used to suppress the enemy in the case when the thesis or argument put forward by the opponent is declared dangerous for society and the state. Stepping aside is when your subject of discussion is imposed on your opponent. Stick arguments - its essence is that the opponent must accept this argument out of fear of something unpleasant and dangerous; as a rule, it is used when there is a clear superiority of forces and in the absence of legal guarantees. Particularly difficult are the psychological tricks associated with fast speech and a self-confident tone. Butchering an argument or flattery. A bet on false shame. Reference to your age, education, position. Gluing labels. When arguing with a woman, they use references to the imperfection of female logic. The desire to throw the enemy off balance. Shooting with beautiful phrases. Discrediting, undermining the authority of one’s opponent.

In order to neutralize tricks, you need to know them well, be very attentive to your interlocutor, in order to be able to catch these techniques in a dispute, have quick thinking and instant reaction. Many different questions are used in disputes; the ability to ask questions is an important sign of a person’s intelligence and insight. Questions can be clarifying when we want to find out the truth or falsity of a judgment. Questions can also be explanatory; they arise due to inaccurate wording or lack of understanding of the listeners. Questions may be additional, go beyond the content of the topic or problem being discussed. In addition to questions about content, there are also questions about form. Based on their form, questions are divided into two types: complex and simple. Simple questions are asked about only one problem and require a monosyllabic answer. Difficult questions include multiple question words. By nature, questions are divided into: neutral, benevolent and unfavorable, provocative. The nature of the question can be recognized by the tone of the question. In order to react to it correctly.

From lectures!

Polemical techniques.

Humor, irony, and sarcasm enhance the emotional impact on listeners and help defuse tense situations. An ironic remark can confuse your opponent.

The boomerang technique (“hit the enemy with his own weapon”) is that the thesis or argument is turned against the one who expressed it.

“Does he really think to himself,” Chichikov thought, “does he take me for a fool?” - and then added out loud:

“It’s strange to me, really: it seems like some kind of theatrical performance or comedy is happening between us, otherwise I can’t explain it to myself... You seem to be a pretty smart person, you have information about education.” After all, the subject is just fu-fu. What is he worth? Who needs?

- Yes, you’re buying, so it’s needed.

Here Chichikov bit his lip and couldn’t find anything to answer.

(N.V. Gogol. “Dead Souls”)

Reduction to absurdity - the thesis is demonstrated to be false, since the consequences arising from it contradict reality.

The famous Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako spoke in defense of an old woman who stole a tin teapot worth 50 kopecks. The prosecutor's thesis was this: private property is sacred; if people are allowed to encroach on it, the country will perish. F. N. Plevako spoke as follows:

“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 lady stole an old teapot worth 50 kopecks. Russia, of course, will not be able to withstand this; it will perish irrevocably.”

The court verdict was not guilty.

Attack with questions - in a dispute it is important to ask questions; answering is always more difficult than asking. The purpose of this technique is to seize the initiative and make the opponent’s position difficult.

- But let's say you're right. Suppose I treacherously take you at your word in order to hand you over to the police. Everyone will be arrested and then tried. But will it be worse for you in court and in prison than here? And if they send you to a settlement and even to hard labor, is that worse than sitting in this outbuilding? I suppose no worse... What is there to be afraid of?

Apparently, these words had an effect on Ivan Demyanovich. He sat down obediently.

(A.P. Chekhov. “Ward No. 6”)

Argument to a person - instead of substantiating the thesis, they try to rely on the feelings and moods of the listeners, they begin to evaluate not the actions of the person, but his advantages and disadvantages.

“When the prosecutor’s comrade was able to prove that the defendant was guilty and did not deserve leniency, when he understood, convinced and said: “I’m done,” the defense attorney stood up. Everyone's ears perked up. Silence reigned. The lawyer spoke, and... the nervous public began to dance!..

“We are people, gentlemen of the jury, and we will judge as human beings!” – said, by the way, the defender. “Before appearing before you, this man suffered six months of pre-trial detention. For six months, the wife was deprived of her beloved husband, the children’s eyes did not dry from tears at the thought that their dear father was not around them! Oh, if you would look at these children! They are hungry because there is no one to feed them, they cry because they are deeply unhappy... Look! They stretch out their little hands to you, asking for everything to be returned to them by their father!..

The defense attorney talked and talked... He ignored the facts and focused more on psychology.”

(A.P. Chekhov. “Case from judicial practice”).

Permissible tricks. Gross unacceptable tricks. Complication and modification of stick arguments. Psychological tricks. Sophistry: a deviation from the purpose of the argument. Deviations from the thesis. False arguments. Arbitrary arguments. Imaginary evidence. Sophistry of inconsistency. Measures against tricks.

A trick in an argument is called any technique with the help of which they want to make an argument easier for themselves or make it more difficult for their opponent.

(Wikipedia) Permissive tricks in disputes may be considered:

13) Suspension of the dispute by one or both parties for valid reasons.

14) If the dispute escalates and the dispute reaches an unacceptable phase (violations), the dispute can be stopped by one (even the wrong) party to its benefit.

15) Contacting an independent person or source with a request for clarification of inaccuracies, etc.

The grossest unacceptable tricks:

14. “mechanical” - do not allow the enemy to speak.

15. Moving “aside” from the topic of the ongoing dispute with a transition to “personalities” - indications of: profession, nationality, position held, physical defects, mental disorders.

16. Shouting and obscene language, mutual insults, shouting and insults to third parties.

17. Threats and hooligan behavior.

18. Assault and fighting: as an extreme measure of so-called “proof” of right or wrong.

Stick clincher- a situation in a dispute in which any attempt is made to exert pressure and thereby prevent the opponent from expressing his point of view.

(S.I. Povarnin) The most popular modifications and complications of stick arguments include “readings in the hearts.” This trick is that the opponent does not so much analyze your words as the secret motives that forced you to express them. Sometimes “reading hearts” takes another form: it looks for the reason why a person does not say something or does not write. Insinuation should also be included in the same categories of argumentative tricks. A person seeks to undermine listeners or readers’ trust in his opponent, and, consequently, in his arguments, and for this purpose he uses insidious irresponsible hints.

Among the gross changes to the cane methods, it is worth noting: presenting oneself as a victim in order to evoke pity, falsely deflecting an argument.

Psychological tricks(keep your opponent off balance):

· irritate the enemy and infuriate him (becoming “personal”, insulting, mocking, mockery, clearly unfair, outrageous accusations).

· speak very quickly, express thoughts often in a form that is difficult to understand, and quickly replace one another.

Opponent's flattery

· “Greasing arguments”

· Arrogance, demand for self-respect

· Bet on false shame

· Personal attacks

· Disruption of dispute

Unfounded accusation of stubbornness

· Picking on phrases

· Comparing something incomparable

· When comparing something, say that it cannot be compared (of course, this means when it can). In this case, it is advisable to ask your opponent why. And it must be in detail (Otherwise you will get a very stupid answer, and it is always difficult to find counterarguments for stupid answers due to the fact that they are poorly connected with logic).

Among the most common and favorite tricks in argument are sophisms (deliberate errors in evidence).

Sophisms consisting of deviation from the objective of the dispute and in a “digression from the thesis”, an infinite number. You can start a debate with this sophism or error, immediately taking, for example, the wrong thesis; you can do this in the middle of an argument. You can completely discard the previous thesis, you can only more or less change it, etc., etc.

·replacement of a dispute over a thesis with a dispute over evidence. The main goal is to prove the inconsistency of the opponent’s argumentation, thereby, in the eyes of the majority, to come to the conclusion that his thesis has been refuted.

·translating the dispute into contradictions. The goal is to point out that the opponent is contradicting himself, thereby showing him and others the falsity of his thesis, which is largely unrelated to his judgments.

·translating the dispute into a contradiction between word and deed; between the enemy’s views and his misdeeds, life, etc.

· “incomplete refutation” (a long and thorough refutation of 1-2 simple and unimportant arguments, while relegating more important ones to the background. The effect of victory is created in the eyes of the audience).

· refutation is not essentially (the Sophist does not refute the very essence of a complex controversial thought. He takes some unimportant details of it and refutes them, but pretends to refute the thesis).

Digression from the thesis.

· “make a diversion” (during a dispute, completely leave aside the previous task of the dispute, an unsuccessful thesis or argument and move on to others)

· the defender of the thesis stops proving his thesis and begins to refute ours or demands that we prove our thesis

· changing the thesis, while pretending that we are proving the previous one (“people are selfish” is changed to “all people are selfish”)

·strengthening and softening of the thesis (“the ministers are mediocre” is strengthened by “the ministers are idiots?”).

· a thought that is given with a certain reservation, with known conditions under which it is true, is replaced by the same thought, but already expressed “in general,” without any conditions and reservations.

·translation of the question into the point of view of benefit or harm

False arguments - “Imaginary evidence”

Arbitrary Arguments

Imaginary evidence

Identity (A reliable or more probable thought is made a thesis, and a less probable thought is made an argument for proving this thesis)

· "The argument is weaker than the thesis."

·Reversed proof.

·Circle in proof.

Sophisms of inconsistency (the thesis “does not follow” from the arguments): false generalization, sifting of facts, juggling of facts, substitution of concepts, “woman’s” or “ladies’” argument (the most extreme and most absurd opposite of other conceivable solutions to the issue is chosen and contrasted with one’s own opinion, it is proposed to make a choice: either recognize this absurdity, or accept his thought.), imposed consequence (imposition of a thought is an absurd consequence that does not follow from it at all), multi-questioning (questions are asked to the opponent, which cannot be answered yes or no, and what is required is precisely This).

Methods vs. Tricks: a) argue only about what you know well; b) do not argue unnecessarily with a swindler of words or with a “boorish” person in an argument, and if you need to argue, then be “on guard” all the time; c) learn to “cover” a dispute, and not wander from argument to argument; d) maintain calm and complete self-control in every possible way in a dispute; e) carefully and clearly clarify the thesis and all the main arguments - your own and your opponent’s; f) reject all arguments that are not relevant to the case.

It should be admitted that it is not often possible to observe an ideal form of argument in life. More often, there are disputes in which the participants do not understand (or do not want to understand) each other, do not listen to the argument, interrupt each other, “attack” the opponents’ arguments, or “attack” the opponents themselves. A more sophisticated form of hidden struggle in an argument is a ruse.

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 or make it more difficult for their opponent. A person who masters tricks is able to win an argument faster and more “successfully”.

Tricks may or may not be acceptable. They are acceptable if it is noticeable that the opponent is resorting to dishonest, impermissible methods of conducting a dispute. In this case, it is necessary to create a kind of trap into which the unscrupulous debater must fall. For example, a person who insists that “all people are dishonest, trying to grab a bigger piece for themselves” and does not listen to any arguments refuting this thesis, can be stopped in his persistence only by attributing this statement to his own person, a statement of this kind: “ If we assume that what you insist on is fair, then you are also a dishonest person, trying to grab a bigger piece for yourself.” Usually a moralizing person does not accept such assessments of himself.

Such a technique as delaying an objection is allowed.

They resort to it if an objection to a thesis or argument does not immediately come to mind. Usually a person finds clearer objections only after an argument (often called late in the mind); at the right moment there is only a “feeling” that he could respond to the attack, but his thoughts do not line up in a coherent logical chain. In such a situation, you can begin to ask questions in connection with the argument presented, imagining this as a simple clarification of the essence of what was said or information in general. It would be forgivable to delay the objection even if there is a need to more carefully consider the thesis or argument being put forward with their apparent correctness.

The following types of tricks are considered unacceptable: incorrect way out of a dispute, disrupting a dispute, “argument to the policeman,” “stick” arguments.

Exit from a dispute occurs if one of the parties to the dispute is unable to support argumentative activity due to the weakness of his own position in this dispute.

Disruption of a dispute is done by constantly interrupting the opponent, demonstrating reluctance to listen to him, etc. Unfortunately, such a trick is resorted to even during dialogue about socially significant problems at the highest level. “Argument to the policeman” as a method of suppressing an opponent in a dispute is actively used in totalitarian societies. This usually happens in the following way: the thesis or argument proposed by the opponent is declared dangerous for society or the state. In any case, these tricks are aimed at ending a dispute that is unfavorable for one of the parties to the dialogue.

If the goal of the dispute is to “convince” the opponent at any cost, then they resort to the so-called “stick” arguments. This type of trick can be defined as a special form of intellectual and psychological violence. Its essence lies in the fact that the participant in the dispute makes an argument that the opponent must accept for fear of something unpleasant, dangerous, or to which he cannot answer correctly for the same reason and must either remain silent or come up with “workarounds.”

A variation of the above tricks is such a technique as “reading in hearts.” At the same time, the opponent is not interested in understanding what the enemy said, but is trying to determine the motives for which he says it or somehow acts. A person focused on winning an argument at any cost has a fairly large arsenal of psychological tricks, which include such as throwing the enemy “off balance”, relying on the slowness of thinking and gullibility of the enemy, distracting attention and leading to the wrong trail, relying on false shame , “greasing” an argument, suggestion. One of the most powerful tricks in an argument is suggestion. Its role is especially great in oral argument. If a person has a loud, impressive voice, speaks calmly, clearly, confidently, authoritatively, has a representative appearance and manners, he has, other things being equal, a huge advantage in an argument. If a person is deeply convinced of what he is arguing about, and knows how to express this unshakable firmness with a convinced tone, manner of speaking and facial expression, he has greater inspiring power and also “acts” on the enemy, especially one who does not have this conviction. A persuasive tone and manner are often more persuasive than the most solid argument. Among the usual and widespread tricks are the so-called sophisms, or deliberate errors in proof. Sophistry and error differ not essentially, not logically, but only psychologically: error is not intentional, sophistry is intentional. Sophisms are possible as deviations from the objectives of the dispute in the field of argumentation, as well as so-called sophisms of inconsistency.

A deviation from the objectives of the dispute, a deviation from the thesis occurs if at the very beginning of the dispute or in the middle of it, the previous thesis is discarded and another one takes its place, or a dispute over the thesis is replaced by a dispute over evidence. In the latter case, the following happens: instead of refuting the thesis, the opponent breaks down the proof and, if he succeeds, announces that the opponent’s thesis has been refuted. In fact, one correct conclusion follows from this: the thesis has not been proven by the enemy. This same type of sophism includes the translation of a dispute into contradictions. It is necessary to point out that the opponent contradicts himself, but this is absolutely not important for proving the falsity of his thesis. Such indications, for example, are of great importance when criticizing any system of thoughts; often with their help it is possible to break or weaken the opponent’s evidence, but it is impossible to refute his thesis with one indication of the inconsistency of the opponent’s thinking. This should also include transferring the dispute to the contradictions between word and deed, between the views of the enemy and his actions, his life, etc. This is one of the ways of “clamping the mouth.” As a method of denunciation, it may be necessary, but denunciation and an honest dispute for the truth as a struggle of thought with thought are two incompatible things.

If not one argument, but several, is given as proof of a thesis, the sophist often resorts to an “incomplete refutation.” He tries to refute one or two of the weakest or easiest to refute, often leaving the most significant and only important without attention. At the same time, he pretends to refute all the evidence.

Frequent deviations from the objectives of the dispute include the substitution of a point of disagreement in a complex controversial thought, the so-called refutation without substance. It is especially typical for disputes in the press and occurs in the expectation that the reader might not have seen or remembered the original thesis. The sophist does not refute the essence of a complex controversial thought, but takes only unimportant details and refutes them, pretending to refute the thesis.

In the scientific literature on the rules of ideal argumentation, the code of the argumentator and the code of the opponent are formulated, with the goal of helping those participants in the dispute who strive not only for success in argumentation, but also for their statements to correspond to reality and be effective.