We know how to argue competently. How to argue with your loved one? Victories and defeats

We often have to argue with our superiors and colleagues about various issues, and you need to be able to defend your point of view without entering into conflict, and sometimes agree with your opponent’s point of view if yours turns out to be wrong.

Many years ago I was in psychiatry residency. As always, clinical examinations of patients took place on Mondays. Heated debates often arose at these discussions. It was interesting to watch how venerable psychiatrists picked their picks while discussing the patient’s condition. Sometimes, he breaks into raised voices and thereby provokes conflicts.

But there were others who knew how to argue without entering into conflict. I learned a lot from them.

I remember how I introduced the patient and expressed my diagnosis. My teacher, a professor, politely asked me if there were other diagnostic options? I replied that there are none. He said softly: “Think, Igor Olegovich, don’t rush. What symptoms do not fit your diagnosis and why?

Only later did I understand how important it is to be able to ask the right questions when arguing. Yes, he could have harshly said that I was wrong and given his diagnosis, but he did not do this, trying to push me to a more objective perception of the situation.

We are grateful to our teachers who taught us how to argue with people on the merits without offending the other side or making enemies. Otherwise, people become irritated and sometimes even vindictive, especially in the presence of others, when you rub their nose in their own mistakes.

You may not be forgiven for this. Although, if you are a lover of truth and are not afraid of enemies, believing that decent people should have enemies, then the flag is in your hands!

Learn to manage disputes, if you want, of course, to resolve them constructively, and not turn your life into something like Solovyov’s program “To the Barrier.” But this is a TV show, where the louder the scandal, the better, and the most wonderful debaters are those who are ready to fight. However, such emotions are only good on television. IN real life they just get in the way.

So what should you do?

• Questioning (to learn about the opponent's criteria and principles, to clarify ambiguities and check the level of understanding).
• Listen carefully to what your opponent says.
• Based on your opponent's ideas.
• Control your emotions while remaining calm.
• Show both sides of the issue.
• When putting forward a thesis, give arguments.
• Be brief.
• Use clear, simple language.
• Use examples and analogies.
• Involve independent experts, evidence, precedents.
• Express your point of view firmly.
• Criticize a person's arguments, but not the person himself.

Here's what you should never do:

• Go straight to harsh criticism of your opponent.
• Argue, find fault over little things.
• Speak with sarcasm, be “the smartest.”
• Interrupt, trying to seem like “the most important thing.”
• Announce disagreement in advance.
• Be overly talkative.
• Use jargon, unclear, ambiguous words.
• Speak abstractly.
• Be irritated, aggressive.

Summary. The fact that people argue is normal, the whole question is in what form. Stick to the rules of argument, and you will be considered an intelligent person.

1. Is it worth starting an argument in order to “put down” the speaker?
From life: Many people start an argument not because they consider their opponent’s version to be wrong, but because they simply want to lower him in the eyes of users (and, therefore, elevate themselves). Skilled debaters often succeed in this, even if their opponent was right.

Consequences: Many forum members will still understand what you were trying to achieve and turn away from you. Those who liked your spectacular fight will, of course, initially be for you, but their opinion will quickly change as soon as a more skillful debater appears. An offended opponent, if he is a fairly competent person, will simply forget about this incident, but if he belongs to the category of flooders (is it worth arguing with them at all?), then you can get yourself a lot of problems (insults, spam, etc.).

Conclusion: Don't get into an argument if you only want to "put down" the person. You will lose a lot more than you gain, mainly the support of those people who saw through your goals, and these are not stupid people.

2. Do you need to have your own ideas on the issue in dispute?
From life: Often people enter into opposition without having their own ideas on this issue, but believing that the opponent’s opinion is wrong. Many people confuse disputes with ordinary showdowns, believing that the main thing here is to prove that the enemy is wrong.

Consequences: If you manage to refute your opponent’s opinion, then without having your own ideas on this issue, the topic of conversation will most likely be exhausted, and many will regard your actions as point 1. If you lose, it will be doubly offensive - after all, it was not your ideas that were refuted, but your refutations.

Conclusion: Do not enter into an argument without having your own ideas on how to solve this problem. Carefully read everything that was written before you - perhaps you will repeat yourself or begin to refute what is already practically a fact.
And after all, the result of the dispute should be a solution to the issue, and if you think that your opponent is wrong, then you should at least express your point of view on the issue, and not run to refute his words.

3. Frequently heard “Fuck you.”
From life: Very often disputes end with the words “Screw you,” “Well, why argue with you when you don’t know this.” This is said mainly by those who are tired of the conversation, those who believe that the opponent is stupid and should not talk to him anymore, or when meeting with a very stubborn opponent (although this does not simply exclude his stupidity).

Consequences: If you said this and you entered into an argument, then this will be considered your defeat. If you said this to someone who entered into an argument, refuting your judgments, then you considered him stupid or stubborn, this can cause resentment and it is not a fact that this person will stop refuting your words - but after “Fuck you,” further argument with your side will be somewhat inappropriate. And the enemy has the advantage of saying something that you cannot refute, because... in their own words, they stopped paying attention to him (but others did not).

Conclusion: You must know at least a little bit about the person you want to argue with. Because when entering into a dispute, you accept the enemy as he is. Let me explain. If he has become known as a great flooder, then when you enter into an argument with him, you can no longer “write off” the fact that he is a flooder and does not understand anything - because YOU entered into an argument with him. And if the issue of the dispute has not yet been resolved, it is better to refrain from words such as those given above, because it is unknown what the enemy will say and this may be practically the result of the dispute - to refute some of his judgments. If everyone else, except your opponent, is convinced that you are right, it’s time to say “Screw you,” but even though you win the argument, you will not convince your opponent, but this is his stubbornness.

4. What is the purpose of the dispute?
From life: Many quickly forget about the disputed issue and get personal, trying to remember the old sins of their opponents. Their goal is to convince the enemy that he is wrong, using not specific reasoning on this issue, but the enemy’s behavior in general in society, some of his reasoning a year ago, etc.

Consequences: Usually such disputes very quickly become personal, the main issue is forgotten and the topic takes on a flame character with all possible outcomes. And both debaters fall in the eyes of the public.

Conclusion: Do not forget that if you join, then you disagree with your opponent’s opinion and you must convince him of his wrongness (or partial wrongness), and then (or along the way) offer your opinion (which he can also refute). If someone gets into an argument with you, you don't have to convince them that they are wrong. If you prove it to everyone like this, you won’t have enough time and energy, because... Each person is distinguished by his own stubbornness. The main thing is to convince others that you are right. This is precisely why opponents in a dispute are needed, because by refuting their statements, you thereby affirm your own, and the more you refute, the faster those around you will agree with you, so you should not completely ignore the enemy.

5. You're not a know-it-all.
From life: On the way to victory, many arguers, breaking down their opponent’s arguments, rise sharply in their own eyes. They consider themselves all-knowing and all-right.

Consequences: And because of this, very often they make further mistakes and I can lose just as quickly as I went to victory. Also, their speech is usually accompanied by an arrogant tone. This offends your opponent, and can also turn the public against you, because... Most people don't like it when someone speaks too arrogantly, considering others inferior to them.

Conclusions: Remember, you are not a know-it-all - and you cannot imply that you understand all issues better than others. There will always be someone who will rub your nose in one area, another in another area, etc. - thus they can wipe your nose everywhere. If you know, show this knowledge, it’s only a +. But you shouldn’t abuse this by saying things like “Do you even know what the word entropy means,” or “What do you even know!” And besides malicious looks from the outside, you will achieve nothing.

6. He is always right!
From life: Very often, many lose not because they were wrong, but because their opponent very cunningly and skillfully transferred those around him to his side. Mainly due to attacks on some minor arguments of the opponent, but not on his main idea.

Consequences: Most likely they will be defeated. Moreover, the loser will not even understand why he lost, because he was right and no one even convinced him.

Conclusions: As a rule, if you are confident that you are right, you can continue the argument and take it into an ideological direction, letting your opponent understand why your idea is not suitable, and not some petty judgments. You should not say something of which you are unsure - the enemy will certainly take advantage of this and try to refute it, or overshadow it with his more confident statements. Say only what you are sure of.

7. A cunning opponent.
From life: Very often the enemy, seeing that you are more right than him, will try to move his idea closer to yours, or, even worse, develop your idea and pass it off as his own.

Consequences: It very often happens that everyone will accept his idea and forget about yours, he will take all the laurels of the winner for himself, coming with the wrong idea and generally taking yours as the first one!

Conclusion: Don’t let the enemy take over your idea - if you notice that he is grabbing some parts of it for himself and developing them, then you must quickly stop him in this, saying that he took your idea as a basis, and not his own, that they say, really Now he himself considers his idea wrong. But at the same time, try to develop your idea yourself, thereby ensuring that he does not do it.

8. How to skillfully admit defeat?
From life: Although it happens quite rarely that a clear division into losers and winners is achieved in a dispute, it nevertheless happens. This often happens when smart and competent people lead a debate. Usually the loser leaves the argument as offended; it’s worse if he insults the winner first. It also happens that because of his pride (stubbornness?), he does not want to admit defeat in any way.

Consequences: If you left simply or by insulting the winner, then you will not increase in the eyes of the public, and in the latter case, even the opposite. And hardly anyone will consider it an honor to argue with you in the future.

Conclusion: The winner likes it when his main opponent acknowledges his victory, you will rise in his eyes and in the eyes of the public. And they won’t say about you, “You’re stubborn and don’t know how to admit defeat.” The ability to admit defeat is also a great thing and is highly valued. The winner, seeing that you admitted your mistake, can pat you on the shoulder or virtually shake your hand, and he will never insult or humiliate you. Remember - he also wants to be merciful and very gently admits his victory. You should also not say that you were almost right - this may embitter the winner, cause another argument and your new defeat, but the winner will not be so merciful. It's easier to say "You're right, damn it!" - this will be better than some expressions that mean that the winner is right, but you are not completely or partially right.

9. You won the argument.
From life: “As you can see, I won, you were wrong, fool!” - many winners love to throw around expressions similar to this, not understanding what this can lead to.

Consequences: Apart from the resentment and anger of the loser, this will not cause anything, but perhaps discontent among the spectators, especially those who were “for” your opponent.

Conclusions: Under no circumstances should such expressions be used. The enemy admitted defeat - this means that you have grown in his eyes, he respects you. This is the most important thing you could achieve in an argument. You have also grown in the public eye. Accept the victory as it comes, shaking hands with your opponent for such a good argument as you haven’t had in a long time :-). It is also not worth saying that his idea was also almost correct - because the enemy can quickly change his opinion from these words and thereby cause a new dispute.

10. Draw? Does this happen?
From life: It happens, and even more often than one could imagine. This usually happens when both opponents, with their arguments, destroy both of their theories or agree that they are all partially right.

Consequences: There is no winner or loser here, usually as a result of such a dispute, the result may be the combined idea of ​​both disputants or without them at all. After this, they look at each other in surprise, ostensibly saying, “Who is right?”

Conclusions: If you understand that your theory is partially incorrect, and your opponent’s theory is partially correct, this is essentially a future draw, unless you just want to smash your opponent, following step 1. But those around you also see all this, and many just like you, which means the consequences may correspond to the first point. In fact, the winner will be the one who quickly recognizes this situation as a draw, namely that everyone is partially right. Therefore, if you see that everything is heading towards this, if those around you are already convinced that some of your ideas are wrong, then it is better to maintain the situation than to lose everything trying to convince them. Do it first and you almost win.

11.
This point has no title, conclusions or consequences, but is intended to tell you that everything described above is taken from real practice, and not invented by a person who is on his first day on the Internet and does not know what a virtual dispute is (although its difference from a real one is not very great).
You can agree with everything, partially or disagree at all - this is your personal opinion. And in any dispute you must respect other people's opinions.
Everything described above is rarely so clear in a dispute; usually one point accompanies another or several are combined into one.
Disputes rarely happen without flooding and dirt - there are almost always those who will get in and ruin everything, turning a good argument into a stupid showdown.
Just like if your goal in a dispute is to “lower” a competitor, to assert yourself in society, or to tell everyone “what a know-it-all I am” - you don’t need all this advice, because they are all aimed only at skillfully conducting and ending the dispute.

In life you have to argue a lot, object, refute the opinions of others, and disagree.

A person shows his good manners best when he leads a discussion, argues, defending his beliefs.

In a dispute, intelligence, logical thinking, politeness, the ability to respect people and... self-respect are immediately revealed.

If in a dispute a person cares not so much about the truth as about victory over his opponent, does not know how to listen to his opponent, strives to “shout out” his opponent, frighten him with accusations, he is an empty person, and his argument is empty.

How does an intelligent and polite debater conduct an argument?

First of all, he listens carefully to his opponent - the person who does not agree with his opinion. Furthermore, if anything is unclear to him about his opponent’s positions, he asks him additional questions. And one more thing: even if all the opponent’s positions are clear, he will select the weakest points in the opponent’s statements and ask again whether this is what his opponent is asserting.

By carefully listening to his opponent and asking again, the arguer achieves three goals: 1) the opponent will not be able to argue that he was “misunderstood”, that he “did not claim this”; 2) the arguer, by his attentive attitude to the opponent’s opinion, immediately wins sympathy among those who observe the dispute; 3) the arguer, by listening and asking again, gains time to think about his own objections (and this is also important), to clarify his positions in the dispute.

In the future, when objecting, you should never resort to unauthorized methods of argument and adhere to the following rules: 1) object, but not accuse; 2) do not “read the heart”, do not try to penetrate the motives of the enemy’s beliefs (“you stand on this point of view because it is beneficial to you”, “you say so because you are like that yourself”, etc.); 3) do not deviate from the topic of the dispute; a dispute must be able to be brought to an end, that is, either to the refutation of the opponent’s thesis, or to the recognition that the opponent is right.

I want to especially focus on my last statement.

If you conduct an argument from the very beginning politely and calmly, without arrogance, then you ensure yourself a calm retreat with dignity.

Remember: there is nothing more beautiful in a dispute than to calmly, if necessary, admit that your opponent is completely or partially right. This way you gain the respect of others. By doing this, you seem to call on your opponent to yield, forcing him to soften the extremes of his position.

Of course, you can admit that your opponent is right only when it comes not to your general beliefs, not to your moral principles (they should always be the highest).

A person should not be a weathervane, should not yield to an opponent just to please him, or, God forbid, out of cowardice, for career reasons, etc.

But to concede with dignity on an issue that does not force you to give up your general beliefs (hopefully high ones), or to accept your victory with dignity, without gloating over the loser in an argument, without triumphing, without offending your opponent’s pride - how beautiful that is!

One of the greatest intellectual pleasures is to follow a debate conducted by skilled and intelligent debaters.

There is nothing more stupid in an argument than arguing without reasoning. Remember Gogol’s conversation between two ladies in “Dead Souls”:
“- Honey, this is colorful!
- Oh no, not colorful!
- Oh, motley!

When the arguer has no arguments, simply “opinions” appear.

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

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

By and large, what ultimately led to the fight was not a dispute as such. Most likely, it was a “showdown.” In order not to confuse one with the other, and also to avoid the emergence of destructive factors during the debate that turn the dispute into a showdown, you need to understand the basic mechanisms of the functioning of the dispute.

What the parties to the dispute must do

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

These five points form the backbone of any discussion. It is good if both opponents are aware of what the structure of the dispute looks like general view. It's even better if opponents know some details that can make the argument more productive.

How to make an argument more productive

1. Identify the topic and essence of the controversy.
It will not work if you discuss one subject but different aspects of it. It will be strange if, when arguing about, say, a house, one person will insist that the house is big, and the other that the house is green.

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

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

But even after clarifying the terminology and understanding your own position, you risk ending up in a fight (or simply reducing the debate to empty chatter) if you don’t remember what you should never do.

What disputants should not do

1. Get personal.
Everything is clear here. “Because you’re an asshole” is not an argument and in no context will it become one.

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

3. Talk about things you don’t understand, or about those things and phenomena about which you yourself are not sure of your position.
It is difficult to argue whether soft-boiled eggs cooked at full moon in an old abandoned cemetery, when you haven’t tried them and haven’t been to the cemetery on a full moon.

Finally, when you have both had a civilized and pleasant discussion, ask yourself - what started it all? And be sure to summarize the dispute. If it’s not true, then something must have been born in him.