They, too, can be divided into two groups, depending on what kind of advantages are achieved by the participants in the dispute - organizational-procedural or subjective-psychological.
Organizational and procedural tricks are akin to unscrupulous judging in sports. One of the parties gets an obvious advantage due to the organization of the dispute. Especially it is noticeable on television, when the studio is invited not to "its", but to "someone else's" - a person who does not share the value system, imposed by the owners of TV channels. The most rude are the mechanical tricks when:
• The enemy is given the opportunity to speak, interrupting him;
• Organize chorus semi-listeners who are semi-participants in a dispute who in every way praise the arguments of one party and demonstrate a skeptical or even contemptuous attitude to the arguments of the other party;
• violence or threat of violence is used to force the other side if not to accept the thesis, then at least pretend that it accepts it;
• In every way irritate the opponent, try to drive him out of himself, instigating insults, bullying, obviously unfair, revolting accusations, etc .;
• Materials for discussion are not distributed on time or distributed selectively;
• The word is first provided to those whose opinion is known and impressed, thereby programming the primary settings;
• Some speakers are strictly limited in compliance with the regulations, others - allow to go beyond it;
• One Forgive sharpness against opponents, others - make comments.
The arsenal of such measures of influence is truly inexhaustible.
The tricks are subjective-psychological. These include the following:
Argument to the person, to the person - the reference to the personal characteristics of the opponent, his beliefs, tastes, appearance, advantages and disadvantages. Transitions to the personality can be very diverse: "You're still young to talk about it"; "Take my place, then you will reason on this subject"; "You will receive a diploma, then you will begin to reason on this problem"; "A woman does not understand this" etc. In order to keep the dispute in the vein of the topic under discussion, it is necessary to point out decisively that this is not about age, education, social status, a man or a woman, but about a specific problem - that's what we should discuss about it.
Argument to authority - appeal for the support of their views to the ideas and names of those people with whom the opponent does not dare to argue, even if they, in his opinion, are wrong; it is a reference to the statements or opinions of great scientists, public figures, writers, etc. in support of his thesis. A scientist who has become outstanding in some area may not be as authoritative in all other areas and wrong. Therefore, the reference to the fact that some great person holds such an opinion does not say anything about the truth of this opinion on the substance of the subject under discussion.
The argument for authority has many different forms: refer to the authority of public opinion, the authority of the audience, the authority of the opponent and even on one's own authority. Sometimes fictional authorities are invented or ascribe real judgments to judgments they never expressed.
Defeat the enemy. In an effort to justify his opposition to the thesis, the opponent emphasizes the negative features of the one who has put forward and defends this position. Say, he is uneducated, not knowledgeable in this field or once he was wrong in his judgments. The purpose of this kind of effort is to raise doubts about the truth of the thesis.
One of the varieties of this trick is hanging shortcuts. Label - the most shameless reception, direct calling of the partner defaming a good name with a fruity spruce, unworthy nickname, undeserved nickname. In the first place on the frequency of use should be put the words - negative assessments of the intellectual level of the interlocutor: a fool, a dumbass, an idiot, a dunce; from an animal lexicon - an ass, a ram, a camel; from the forest - stump, deck, club, aspen; from a set of medical terms-idiot, cretin, moron, etc. Assessment of creativity - gray, lack of talent, without the spark of God. And how many opportunities to humiliate the moral qualities of the interlocutor: a hypocrite, a hypocrite, a geek, a coward, a parasite, etc.
Self-praise. I'm so-so and so-and-so (a high score for myself in all respects is given). And you, they say, as opposed to me, are all that's left. " The trick is that directly ns say "who are you", but by the one "who am I" and with whom you argue - not hard to guess. In the story of FM Dostoevsky, "Stepanchikovo and its inhabitants" Foma Fomich Opiskin - servant-master of his master, - tyrannizes everyone around, using the whole arsenal of self-glorification. For example: "Let's all the scientists here!" I can refute everything; all the provisions of them can be refuted! I'm not talking about the nobility of the soul. Just now, for example, I expressed my mind, talent, colossal erudition, knowledge of the human heart, knowledge of modern literatures; I showed it and brilliantly unfolded it ... Well? Did any of them appreciate me? "
Argument for vanity - waste immoderate praises to the opponent in a dispute in the hope that, touched by compliments, he will become softer and complaisant. Expressions: I believe in deep erudition of the opponent & quot ;, Opponent is a person of outstanding merit etc. - can be considered as veiled arguments to vanity.
Option - compliment-bait: "Any smart and decent person would be sympathetic ... and would not mind ..." So decide how to proceed, if you want to be among the smart and decent. The teacher sometimes hears: "You are such an experienced, interesting person" - and in the eyes of the hope that more will not be asked.
Argument to force ("to the stick", "to the policeman") - the threat of unpleasant consequences, up to the use of means of violence.
Here is what the famous United States theologian GV Florovsky wrote about the "polemical" the manner of Feofan Prokopovich, the closest associate of Peter I: "Objections to the dissent under his pen somehow imperceptibly turned into political denunciation, and Theophanes did not hesitate to transfer theological disputes to the court of the Secret Chancery. The strongest means of self-defense - but also the most reliable one - was to recall that in this issue the opinion of Theophanes was approved or shared by Peter himself. Then under the accusation was the person of the Monarch himself, and the accuser of Theophanes was guilty of direct insult to the Majesty, which was already subject to search and analysis of the Secret Chancellery, and not free theological discussion. "
Argument to ignorance - use of facts and statements about which the opponent does not know anything; reference to ignorance, and even ignorance of the opponent in matters relating to the substance of the dispute; the mention of such facts or provisions, which none of the disputants know and can not verify.
Argument to pity - arousal in the other side of pity and sympathy. For example, a student who does not pass the exam asks the professor to give him satisfactory, otherwise he will be deprived of scholarships. This argument is unconsciously used by many people who have learned to themselves the habit of constantly complaining about the hardships of life, difficulties, illnesses, failures, etc. in the hope of awakening in the listeners sympathy and a desire to give in, help in something.
The argument to the advantage - instead of the logical justification of the truth of the thesis, agitate for considering it as true because of its advantage in moral, political, economic or some other respect.
Argument to fidelity - instead of proving the thesis is inclined to accept it because of fidelity to traditions, party beliefs or even personal devotion to the person putting forward the thesis. Peredkie appeals to the opinion of the people, the claim to speak "in the name of the people" and the like.
Boarding. - Let me deliver your message ... & quot ;, It's clear where you're going, what you want to prove ... "," It's not difficult to predict the continuation of your thoughts ... " ; A variation of this trick is reading in the hearts & quot ;: you say this not because you think so, but out of envy, out of greed, etc. And, by the way, how much did they pay for this? and the like.
The choice of terminology allows you to form a negative or positive attitude in the listeners to the thesis or arguments discussed. The difference arises depending on what words are chosen to denote the corresponding phenomenon: spy-scout; study - cramming; desire - whim; agreement - collusion; huckster - dealer; killer - killer; feast - booze, etc.
From the head of the required characterization of the donkey. The bear thought and wrote: "Tugger and stubborn". "Do not do anything stupid," said Fox. "Do not you know that he's being promoted?" - And what should I write? - Offended Bear. "The same, but in other words," she explained, and immediately wrote: "It does not take rash decisions. Persistent in achieving the goal
Q. V. Veresaev noted such intonational synonymy among some writers: "Heroes are cute - pale and pale, unsympathetic - green and hiss."
Demagogy (from the Greek demagogia, demos - people and & aacute; go - lead) - an impact on the feelings, instincts and consciousness of people through false promises, high-minded arguments, etc.
Lady's argument - exaggeration to the point of absurdity of some situations: "I do not understand, my dear, why did you meet my school friend so badly? And what am I to kiss with him, or what, will you order?! "
Or this option: "You already see for yourself that I'm right. I'm right because I understand you better than that, and secondly, because I'm always right and most important: I can not be right as a person, but I'm certainly right as a woman ".
Another classic example: "The plaintiff asserts that you took a jug from her for maintenance and have not given it yet. - Mercy! Where is justice? Yes, I did not see the foul pot in my eyes, believe the word. In addition, let the shameless confess, she gave it to me cracked. And I, the fool, did not know whom I contact, a long time ago she returned this jug from hand to hand, and absolutely whole. "
Philosophy - use a sophisticated language. With the help of a set of abstruse or misty words, the vagueness of the thought expressed or even its absence at all is masked.
Trickle - a heap of words at a fast pace and in a confusing form.
Drilling - repeated repetition of the same thought in different variations - allows you to submit it as a matter of course and need no justification.
Significant understatement: I could still say a lot about this, but, alas, circumstances do not allow ( the time has not yet come, & quot ;, "this is not a conversation for the general public", "you know what the consequences may be", etc.).
Imaginary inattention - a person misses the "ears", deliberately ignores ("forgetting") those arguments of the opponent that he can not answer on the merits. For example, you have come up with an excellent killer argument. Your opponent, without interrupting, gave you time to fully express it. At the same time he lazily yawned, absent-mindedly examining those present in the audience, or engaged in "something important" (focused rummaged in his papers, checked the contents of his pockets, as if he had lost something, etc.). And to top it all off for your strongest attack, he reacts like this: "Well, finally, everyone said? Now listen to me & quot ;. As a result, your best, victorious argument went past the opponent's ears, as if he were not.
Simulation of misunderstanding. Not knowing how to argue your arguments, the opponent pretends that he does not understand what you say and what you said.
Dodge Nozdrevat ( eyewitness or honest word ). A vigorous, energetic debater insists that his words "the real truth", for he "saw it with his own eyes" ("honestly, do not get off my feet"; "" break my thunder if I'm lying ";" I would never have believed in life if I had been told this, but myself, saw it with my own eyes ").
Double-entry bookkeeping or Hottentot morality - one measure for yourself and for what is profitable and pleasant for us , another - for strangers and for what is harmful to us and not to liking. Leo Tolstoy was indignant over the phrase of E. Renan: "The death of a Frenchman is a fact of a moral order, and the death of a Cossack is a fact only physiological."
There are many other tricks with which an inquisitive reader can read by reading the books of SI Povarnin and VB Rhodes (listed in the list of recommended literature).Conclusion
As you can see, there are different ways of dealing with a vast arsenal of various techniques. The choice is always the person. "For other people," Jean de Labriere wrote, "to speak means to offend: they are prickly, they eat, their speech is a mixture of bile and wormwood infusion; ridicule, mockery, insults flow out of the mouth like saliva. " But, fortunately, this is not the only way to communicate. This was well said by T. Payne: "If one or two affable words can make a person happy, one must be a villain to refuse him."Conclusions
Dispute as a clash of opinions and vital attitudes is a particular case of argumentation, its most acute and tense form.
The main participants in the dispute are his immediate participants - the opponent and the opponent.
The main varieties of the dispute are: discussion, polemics, eclecticism and sophistry, whose logical and ethical value is not the same.
There are valid (acceptable) methods of dispute management and incorrect (invalid). The arsenal of both is very extensive and requires more or less thorough research with a view to developing and improving the culture of the dispute.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay