Heated discussions on television, quarrels between spouses, heated debates between colleagues... Often their fruitless or destructive results are as far from the truth as the times of Socrates, to whom this aphorism is attributed, are far from us. What prevents us from obtaining the truth in a reasoned debate?
Sometimes it’s a simple reluctance to look for it. We are driven by the desire to insist on our own, to assert ourselves or to devalue another, and not to discover what is “true, genuine, fair” (this is how Vladimir Dal defines truth in his dictionary). Example: A student accidentally broke the glass in a bookcase. The teacher is tired, irritated and does not want to find out the truth: if he broke it, it means he is guilty and must be punished.
He does not listen to explanations, does not strive to look at the situation from the student’s point of view, take into account his opinion, and insists on his own. There is no dialogue between them, no equality of relations, no desire to discover the truth.
Truth is always the birth of something new. Something that did not exist between these people. For example, understanding and accepting the reality in which the disputants find themselves, with its possibilities and limitations for everyone. Truth is future-oriented. It opens up perspective, allows you to see a clearer, wider field of reality. This creates more opportunities. And when I try to prove to another that he is a fool, I do not discover a new meaning, I do not expand our capabilities. Rather, I block them.
The truth is not born in most disputes because we are often captured by strong emotions - anger, indignation. These emotions signal a violation of boundaries and protect us in a situation where we are negatively assessed and hurt. But these defenses do not allow us to hear ourselves, our inner voice, and prevent us from understanding the other. How to break the vicious circle?
Try to step back and take a break to see what is happening to me. Do I want to be who I am now? Do I want to give in to these feelings? Or do I want to be different and understand what's wrong? This pause may look like weakness, a sign of defeat, but in fact it is strength and independence, because in this way we create the opportunity for ourselves to act not automatically, but meaningfully.
The ability to hear oneself, as well as the ability to speak without judging, and respect for others, are the conditions necessary for genuine communication. What is respect? This is when another is important to me - not as an enemy whom I follow, but as an interlocutor in whom I try to find interesting, good, worthy.
These principles of communication, described by one of the founders of humanistic psychology, Carl Rogers, are today successfully implemented in mediation - a method of constructive resolution of disputes and conflicts.
If we can distance ourselves from what offends us and not succumb to irritation, if we try to hear ourselves and perceive the other as an equal - and if this other responds, striving for dialogue - then perhaps something new will be born in the dispute that turns out to be the truth .
What did Socrates really say?
In fact, Socrates denied the fact that truth can be born in a dispute, contrasting it with a dialogue of equal people, none of whom considers himself smarter than the other. Only in such a dialogue, in his opinion, is the search for truth possible. In order to understand where exactly the truth is revealed, it is necessary to distinguish different types communications: dispute, discussion, dialogue. In principle, the difference between them is quite arbitrary, but it exists. A dispute is simply an attempt by each side to convince the others of the correctness of their point of view. Such discussion is rarely constructive and reasoned, largely based on emotions. As for discussion, this is a type of discussion of a controversial issue in which each side puts forward its arguments in favor of one point of view or another. Dialogue is an exchange of opinions without attempts to convince the interlocutor. Based on this, we can say that dispute is the least promising way to search for truth.
Socrates believed that if one of the opponents considers himself smarter, then he should help the other find the truth. To do this, he recommended accepting the opponent’s position and, together with him, proving it wrong.
Where is truth born?
The birth of truth in a dispute is unlikely, if only because each of the participating parties is not interested in finding out the truth, but strives to defend its opinion. In essence, a dispute is an attempt by each participant to prove his superiority over others, while the search for truth usually takes a back seat. If we add to this those negative emotions, which often accompany heated debates, it will become clear that the issue is not at all a matter of truth or error.
If you are going to argue, it is worth studying public speaking techniques for conducting discussions, since armed with them, you will most likely be able to prove your case more confidently.
On the other hand, if you turn a dispute into a discussion or dialogue, be ready to take the side of your interlocutor or admit that you are wrong, you can get quite a lot of benefits. Firstly, you will learn to argue your position, look for logical connections, draw conclusions and conclusions. Secondly, you will learn the point of view of the interlocutor, his argumentation, and idea of the issue under discussion, which will help you expand the boundaries of your own worldview. Third, by trying to make any argument constructive, you will greatly improve your skills in controlling emotions. In addition, discussion, and even more so dialogue, presupposes a joint search for the most correct solution, which will take you much further along the path of searching for truth than the most furious dispute.
It is not known why, but people tend not only to make mistakes, but also to argue. Regulars of numerous forums and social networks by and large, they are busy mainly with verbal battles: everyone defends their opinion, sometimes foaming at the mouth. Precious time and equally precious nerves are wasted in battles, but the participants do not lose heart: after all, everyone knows that in a dispute the truth is born, for which there is no shame in suffering. Nevertheless, there are certain subtleties that turn outright abuse into polemics. Let's talk about the positive and negative aspects of such a concept as a dispute, and determine its role in the life of society.
Fairy tale is a lie
This phrase is very common - every person has probably repeated it at least once in his life, putting a direct, ironic or even sarcastic meaning, because not every discussion can boast of such a remarkable result. Most often, neither its subject nor the composition of the participants imply such success: in disputes, the truth is born only when the conversation is substantive, and the interlocutors are not only “in the know,” but also well-educated enough to listen to the opinion
Perhaps the most impressive number of emerging truths can be found in disputes in the field of science. Each proposed theory or research is a kind of argument, during the exchange of which new knowledge emerges. Most likely, this is what the ancients meant when they said that truth is born in dispute.
Socrates, to whom the aphorism is attributed, is unlikely to have actually thought so. The famous philosopher rightly believed that a dispute, in essence, is nothing more than an attempt to impose one’s opinion on an opponent, to force him to admit that he is right. But human knowledge is far from perfect. What truth can be born in a dispute between two representatives ancient world, one of whom believes that the earth rests on three whales, and the other - that on four turtles?
It is known that Socrates contrasted dispute with dialogue, and placed corresponding hopes on it, recommending talking to a person and not messing with the crowd.
What can you argue about?
If you think about it, the subject of discussion is of great importance. The more complex and specific it is, the more truth there is in the statement that truth is born in a dispute: it would not occur to the uninitiated to discuss nuclear physics or molecular biology. To conduct conversations on such topics, you need to have the appropriate knowledge. And in order to master them, you need to have a considerable mind, which, in fact, plays a decisive role in the process of creating something worthwhile.
Unfortunately, most disputes in which one has to participate or observe from the outside are unlikely to be particularly meaningful.
And what is it better to remain silent about?
Albert Einstein believed that politics is a much more complex subject than In this light, it is completely incomprehensible why there are so few people willing to discuss a simple theory, and why there are 99% of the country’s adult population who are major specialists in international relations.
This is where the phrase “truth is born in disputes” sounds like a real joke. It is impossible to imagine a more fruitless and meaningless pastime. Is there anything stranger in the world than the fact that thousands of adults spend their lives trying to convince thousands of others that they are right, knowing in advance that this is completely impossible?
Apart from mutual insults and grievances, nothing is born in such disputes, and cannot be born: after all, they involve people who are not only incompetent, but also have absolutely no influence on the situation.
To positively answer the question of whether truth is born in a dispute, three things are important:
subject of dispute;
composition of participants;
their competence.
Born in controversy
However, a civilized dispute can have another result, which is sometimes even better than the truth, and its name is compromise. There are areas of life in which the notorious truth does not exist at all, and if it does exist, then “nobody knows it.” Everything related to love, marriage, raising children periodically forces people to cross invisible blades - and completely in vain.
There are things in which individual characteristics and preferences are a decisive factor. Here it is not the truth that needs to be sought, but the ability to come to an agreement - this ability distinguishes thinking beings from stubborn sheep. It’s just a pity that not everyone understands this.
Olympic principle
It is hardly always fair to say that truth is born in disputes, but at the same time, sometimes participating in such an event is “not only harmful, but also useful,” as satirists say.
Even if the exchange of arguments itself does not lead to a positive result, the need to argue your opinion will help you put your thoughts in order and discover shortcomings in your own logical constructions. In the end, even the conclusion that a dispute on this topic is pointless may also be useful in the process of gaining valuable life experience. As they say, you can learn lessons from everything - the main thing is not to get hung up on the material you have already covered.
Thus, having said: “Truth is born in dispute,” the author got excited. This result also cannot be excluded, but with a fair number of reservations.
Ethics above all
As in any other discussion about the abyss of human communication, we again have to state the truisms about the importance of mutual respect, the unacceptability of resorting to insults, the need to find the strength to appreciate and accept the opinion of another person, even if you yourself do not share it.
Humanity did not come up with rules of behavior in vain. There are areas in which the rule “truth is born in disputes” does not apply and will never work. Therefore, in decent society it is not customary to discuss politics, religion and football.
If you adhere to basic rules, any conversation, even the most heated one, will not make you bitterly regret it later, when passions subside and opponents begin to count their losses. It is not without reason that they say that at the very moment when the interlocutors feel anger towards each other, the argument should end, and not vice versa.
questions of this existence
Is the truth born in a dispute?
Welcome to the blog pages"THE WORLD AROUND"
Dispute! What do disputes lead to? What is a dispute? A dispute is when two parties, each having their own opinion, dispute one object. During the dispute, each side presents its own arguments for its beliefs, criticizing the opinion of the other side.
There is such an expression “Truth is born in dispute”, but what kind of truth can be born if the subject of the dispute is genuine. But the birth of Truth is only in dialogue, and not in argument.
The dispute itself is aimed at winning, defending one’s position. In every dispute, there is a winner and a loser, or everyone remains to their own opinion.
It’s good when the opponent, out of respect for the interlocutor during an argument, keeps his distance, without insulting, and tries to resolve the situation.
Some disputes lead to quarrels and even assault. In a dispute, you need to be wise so as not to offend your interlocutor and not fall in his eyes.
There is a wonderful parable about one debater.
In one city there lived an incredible debater, he loved to argue, he argued with everyone and everyone. Because he had an extraordinary talent for arguing, and thanks to his persistence, the argument always ended in his favor and with the words “See, I was right.” Whatever it was, whatever the statement, the proof, he always found the opposite and, challenging, defended his position, came out victorious.
He was confident in himself and proud of his victories in arguments. Once he heard that a wise old man had come to their city to visit his friend.
The great debater had the idea to find a sage and argue with him. He was insatiable with his arrogance; he wanted to become famous throughout the country for his ability to argue.
Having found the sage, approaching the house where the sage was visiting, the debater asked to be allowed to talk with him. When he approached the elder, he said arrogantly: “I heard that you are a very wise old man and, despite this, I am sure that any phrase you say, I can challenge and prove that I am right.” " 
The elder calmly replied, “Yes, you’re right.”
- “No, I’m wrong!” - The debater exclaimed hotly... and hesitated.
Here is such a small, wise parable.
Hot temper and insults during an argument are an indicator of a reluctance to listen to the interlocutor, trying to impose one’s opinion.
A wise and confident person, he will be calm and try to avoid the topic of conversation so as not to escalate the situation.
Share this:
Liked this:
Post navigation
Add a comment Cancel reply
From my own experience, I will add that in a dispute the truth is not born, but rejection and rejection of the interlocutor is born. After all, learning to listen to your interlocutor and his opinion is a lot of work, and not everyone has this patience.
I can't stand arguments! A worthless occupation!
I would like to learn such wisdom as from the elder.
I always give in to provocations and get into arguments.
That’s it, I’ll wise up and quit this rotten business. ??
I don’t like to argue, it’s unpleasant and alienates a person!
I read the article and remembered how parents always told their arguing children: “Whoever is smarter will be the first to shut up.”
I agree that in most cases disputes do not become dialogues in order to find out the truth. Although, not everyone can avoid getting involved in the dispute. For example, I can’t help but argue.
Although there are professions where argument is an indispensable attribute. I mean the defense and prosecution in court, judging by the recently popular programs like “From the Courtroom”.
I try not to argue, there really is no point, everyone remains to their own opinion.
What an interesting parable, it immediately put everything in its place. And I don’t like arguments either, everyone proves their point, but doesn’t even listen to their interlocutor.
They say a fool is the one who proves to a fool that he is a fool. Indeed, a smart person will already understand where the truth is, but what’s the point of arguing with a fool?
Oh, how I hate arguing. I don’t know what is being born there, the truth or not, but why not just talk, but immediately argue. My husband likes to argue on one penny. Once upon a time I bet with a friend on some little thing for one penny, and still holds it to this day. But this was their game??
I try not to argue, because I know that you can never convince anyone. All the same, the person will remain unconvinced, and you will be left with an unpleasant aftertaste in your soul. But sometimes, when it comes to fundamental issues, for example, about work, you still have to argue. Not the most pleasant experience, I must say... ??
I remembered the phrase: “If you are arguing with an idiot now, he is probably doing the same thing.” ??
mirvokryg.wordpress.com
“Shine - and no nails! This is my slogan and the sun” (c) It doesn’t matter what they say in the back, it’s important what we think about ourselves!
It is born in a dispute.
“Truth is born in dispute.” This expression sounds like an axiom. But in fact, this statement is indisputable. Having repeatedly observed heated debates and directly participated in them, I am convinced of something else - most often, a dispute gives rise to enmity, sometimes even friendship, and almost never gives birth to the truth.
Everyone in their life has at least once encountered a situation when they had to prove something, challenge something, or convince someone. Please tell us what such debates usually entailed for you - did you find new friends, pleasant interlocutors, or maybe make enemies? And is there any point in starting disputes at all, because no matter how much they prove to each other, in the end, everyone still remains with their own opinion.
In disputes the truth is born - yes or no?
Dima Pechkin,
psychologist
No truths are born in disputes. In our kindergarten They liked to say: he who argues is not worth it. This expression best describes the majority of debaters. People are not in relationships to prove who is right and who is wrong. Especially if it concerns some global crap like religious views or the political situation in the country.
What I'm saying is that relationships are meant to reap mutual benefits from being together. And the most important of these benefits is mutual compensation of neurotic experiences. Simply put, partners are designed to comfort each other. A great example is the most cohesive groups of monkeys. They spend most of their time petting, hugging, and scratching their partner.
Disputes are a type of competition. It is possible to argue only in one case - when the subject of the dispute is objective and the disputants do not pursue hidden benefits. For example, you might argue about who will do what and when, or who will pay for what. Everything is clear here. Here's what to do in such a situation:
Hello, Dmitry! We have been living with a man for about a year. We are both over forty. Both are divorced and have been single for a long time. We try very hard to make the relationship as close as possible and bring joy. But there is one problem that worries me and confuses me... We are discussing some issue or situation. I may have a different point of view from him. I can see the situation from the other side. I even give examples that I have seen myself. I always speak calmly. His reaction: “Why are you contradicting me?”, “Is it difficult for you to agree with me?” I explain: all people look at the world differently. I just have a different opinion... He gets irritated and even angry. He says how to live with a person who DOES NOT SUPPORT you. And the question is not fundamental. I have never encountered such a situation and I don’t know how to react to it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I can agree and remain silent, it’s not difficult for me. But why such a reaction, because truth is born in a dispute.
Judging by the letter, these disputes are of a different nature. Heroes lack confidence own strength. Like most people, they are internally depressed, which means that a loved one is also needed to play the role of external support. The husband doesn’t really care about his wife’s opinion; it’s important for him that she supports him. The benefit is not to prove who is right, but to obtain the consent of a loved one, which will give the feeling that you are not alone.
Usually in a family, someone is always a buffer: the softer partner softens the more emotional or rigid one. But, of course, there is a difference in how the partner does it - consciously or not? The partner who buffers unconsciously turns into a victim, since, in essence, he loses his position and swallows the aggression directed at him.
You should approach marital disputes by asking yourself the following question: what is more important to you - your own opinion on this issue or the feeling that arises in a situation of agreement and mutual acceptance? If you see that your partner is not pursuing the goal of suppressing you, then you should not treat the dispute as a confrontation. Try to consciously agree with him for a certain period of time, despite the difference in views. If you see that as a result you are losing less than you are gaining, this tendency will take hold and become an excellent compensation for your partner’s neuroticism.
Living together is a strategy. And strategy, in turn, provides for responsibility.
Is the truth born in a dispute?
In a dispute, truth is born. Or is it not worth even starting?
There is such a popular expression “truth is born in a dispute”, with which I want to argue))
I have never been good at verbal battles, and in recent years I have become more and more convinced that disputes are generally pointless. This is why I sometimes find it difficult to respond to a negative comment, and why I usually don't try to convince anyone. I expressed my opinion - you expressed yours, we do not agree with each other. Well, thank God! Do I need you to start thinking like me? No, and again no. We, as they say, exchanged opinions. In an ideal world, we would respect each other's opinions and not think of each other as idiots (or worse).
After all, what is a dispute? This is not just a desire to prove the correctness of one’s point of view, but also desire to convince an opponent. I don't know about you, but I don't have such goals. If they disagree with me, I won’t “argue until I’m hoarse”...
At the same time, if I hear reasonable (in my understanding) arguments, I am ready change point of view- I don’t like stubborn people who boast that they “don’t change their opinions” - as a rule, it’s difficult to get along with them and be friends. A normal person can accept someone else’s opinion and will not consider it a sign of weakness to say “I agree with you, you are right, and I was mistaken.”
And when two irreconcilable positions converge in a dispute - you consider something white, and I consider it black - we will never agree, right? So what's the point of wasting time and effort on a meaningless activity?
Unfortunately, a categorical position is a sign of our time. I’m not talking about the concepts of good and evil, but even complete nonsense can consume kilobytes of pages and waste hours of life. As a result, everyone has their own truth, which only proves my point about the pointlessness of disputes. No truth will be born, everyone has their own.
How are you? Do you like to argue? Or can you calmly listen to the opposite opinion to yours and not get upset? Is the truth born in a dispute? And are you ready to change your mind or stand until the end?
blondycandywellness.com
Work Affairs
Business blog about the main things
Almost every person knows the famous expression “truth is born in a dispute.” At first glance, this is as it should be. No one alone is able to capture in general all the meanings of a certain object. But live dialogue helps to see the hidden sides of an object or phenomenon. Information obtained during the “battle of wits” complements previously acquired knowledge. Although opponents are more interested in how to win the argument. After exchanging opinions and emotions, a person looks at his mental constructs more critically and objectively.
How to win an argument using different techniques of suggestion and evidence.
People's desire for established truth rarely has anything to do with the art of winning arguments. If we take into account that no one fully knows the actual reality, but relies on logic (if only because any knowledge is infinite, in a sense). The conclusion suggests itself that the dispute not only does not bring us closer to the truth, but tends to divert the “look” of the mind from the actual essence of the matter. At the same time, individual disputants have no real claims to possession of absolute truth.
Dispute (controversy)– this is not an ordinary, not a positive form of dialogue. In a dispute, people show aggression and competition towards each other. Everyone wants to hurt and humiliate the other. The main goal of such an intellectual onslaught as an argument is to defeat the other person, to gain recognition from him (from the public). Reduce arrogance, prove superiority. The ability to defeat an opponent in a dispute sometimes gives both recognition and benefits - status, authority in society. And recognition helps you become successful.
How can clever manipulation help you win an argument? After all, the plausibility of a theory depends on logically correct evidence.
Logics- These are universal laws about the correct ways of thinking. The mechanism of logic was given to man initially, without any admixture of encyclopedic knowledge or experience. As long as a person reasons alone, contradictions are excluded - they are hushed up. As soon as the need arises to defend one’s opinion, one’s point of view to others, individual characteristics of thinking begin to prevail. Character and experience interfere with the logic of reasoning - this is what gives rise to “stormy” debates.
General strategy of disputes.
The ability to win arguments is necessary to gain majority recognition of an individual opinion, good or bad. The speed of response and the degree of awareness of opponents are taken into account. To win in any dispute, never neglect the enemy’s weaknesses, use them as an advantage. The art of arguing correctly sometimes goes beyond ethical standards. The ability to defend one’s opinion is based partly on “dirty” tricks.
The art of winning arguments is used in the course of reasoning on the proposed topic. Presumably one side puts forward a theory, confirms thoughts with accessible arguments. The other party must agree, show tolerance, or prove the opposite.
If, in proving the theory, a psychological trick was used. Then the opponent will react to her with a feeling of annoyance and a feeling of deception. There are two options for the outcome of the “conflict”, the first is to interrupt communication, eliminating such contacts forever. In another way, if you can’t defend your opinion, then the other side is given a head start. A temporary concession to make the enemy relax and calm down.
In a situation of deception, no one will receive the truth. Then it’s worth defending yourself psychologically, defending your opinion in an irrational way. To answer with the same coin is deception for deception. Try to generate your answer based on your opponent's answers. Learn to defend your opinion using psychological defense. This will help you become an independent leader.
Psychological tricks that are used in a dispute.
You can learn to defend your opinion with the help of psychological suggestion. Without using argumentation. These techniques do not introduce any reasonable connection between statements, but they help to out-argue a person. A strange combination of phrases forces the enemy to temporarily turn off attention - turn to internal resources, maybe even fall into a slight trance state. To do this, we have prepared 8 tricks that will help you understand how to win an argument:
1. How to win any argument using scientific terms . Special terminology in speech complicates the understanding of the expressed thoughts and slows down the reaction of the answer. Attaches importance to the topic under discussion and brings the discussion to the level of scientific theory. The enemy must “reach” the established level of knowledge, but it is rarely possible to quickly navigate. The person avoids questions and becomes embarrassed. Or he agrees with the opponent’s opinion as more competent.
2. How to learn to defend your opinion using tricks. One of the tricks is the use of the logical connective “or”, meaning the choice of one of the proposed alternatives. Any premises or meanings are inserted into the matrix of the question with “or”.
- A formulated question may falsely impute to a person something that he did not literally assert, but those around him drew a conclusion in their own way (they took the situation to an extreme).
- You can learn to argue using two different but related “issues” as opposites – mutually exclusive. For example, “Do you want to take your own initiative in business, or would it be better to use ready-made resources?”
- Choosing one answer or another automatically excludes part of the information sphere, which provides an extensive “field” for searching for a counterargument. “Are we going to decide the effectiveness of the drug, or talk about the placebo effect?”
3. Speeding up the rate of speech. The accelerated pace of speech excludes complete, adequate perception and understanding of information. It is impossible to give a quick answer or come up with a logical objection.
4. Unnecessary details, going into specific examples, details. This will tell experienced people how to win an argument. Having experience and a steady focus on the essence of the issue is the most powerful weapon. To confuse the enemy, give more specifics and cite past situations. Combine situations under your own reasoning, reinforcing your personal opinion. It is especially effective if a person has no knowledge other than book knowledge.
5. How to win an argument by appealing to shame. Use generally accepted scientific principles and facts as an argument. At the same time, add an emotional component - surprise. For example, “how can you not know this?” Sometimes, in order to defend their opinion, they pretend as if everyone gathered has known the information for a long time.
6. Resentment, self-irony, indignation - a method of saying no and defending your opinion without losing influence and prestige. You can get away from reasonable argumentation by reacting to your opponent’s question, for example, with a feeling of injustice “I’m sorry, but I can’t accept this from my personal convictions”, “This is logical, but does not fit into the framework of my personal experience“,” “What you say is unacceptable!”, “Oh, I thought...”
7. How to win an argument by appealing to the feeling of fear - fear is an undesirable emotion, and a threat to freedom and human life provokes a sharp rejection of previous beliefs. To cause fear, cite negative cases, describe possible risks, deterioration in “colorful” words. To argue correctly in this vein, support your opinion with real-life examples that convey horror.
8. How to win an argument by increasing your opponent’s sense of expectation. Reception – slow issuance of response information and arguments. Responses to the opponent’s statements are laconic, with a pause. The opponent rushes to fill the pauses, increasing speech activity, giving out a bunch of details. From what has been said, he can choose what he needs to create a contradiction. Some tips on how to manipulate people using emotions
Truly general logic is an interesting tool, there are few rules. But having studied simple logical laws, you can begin to construct any theories. Let a fictitious sequence of facts, expressions lead to a result that is far from the truth. But new meaning allows you to get interesting paradoxes, allow you to win an argument and raise your self-esteem.
This method of being able to defend one’s opinion depends on the power of intuition and the ability to select the necessary answers extemporaneously. The search for the necessary arguments and counterarguments is carried out in the field of information provided by the opponent. At the same time, you can defend your opinion passively, avoiding the construction of complex logical systems. Using intuition, unobtrusive persuasion and common sense, slowly but surely persuade your opponent to accept the opposite opinion. Intuition helps to attract luck and anticipate questions and find non-standard answers.
This strategy is how to win an argument using knowledge of formal logic. Discussion implies strict adherence to the rules of formal logic. Provide statistical figures as evidence; use only information supported by facts.
You can out-argue a person using logical errors, which without careful consideration seem to be the correct construction of the proof. In this case, the main goal pursued is how to win the argument, and not how to get to the bottom of the truth. You can base your conclusion on partial, indirect evidence.
This argument tactic will tell you how to win an argument using authority. A person may have many authorities in his head that limit his abilities for spontaneous, free thinking. Use the technique when the enemy’s status is lower, or cite as an example the views of a specific respected person, musician, preacher. Confirming your personal position using status. Authors of books, phrases, and quotes from scientists can be used as authority.
How to learn to argue and defend your opinion using a negative attitude towards your opponent. Be critical of your opponent’s arguments. Such a psychological attitude forces the subconscious to look for weaknesses in its theory. It is worth looking not only for errors in the proof, but also observing what and what weaknesses your opponent is covering up with. Weaknesses can then be used to show the weakness of the evidence, or the opponent's inability to argue. It is not permissible to change negative attitude to positive. To make your defense more effective, do not take your opponent’s arguments seriously. Do not admit that there is a grain of reason in his words.
The ability to talk interestingly and for a long time on the topic of discussion will help you defeat the other person in an argument. The answer should be detailed, meaningful, and lead the enemy away from the essence of the question posed. Various facts can be cited. Narrow or expand the scope of the topic as needed, as well as the key concepts themselves. Use similar tactics to reveal more of your opinion and thoughts. Set vague goals for the discussion.
The pragmatic approach is good when you are not interested in discovering the truth, and there is a certain benefit behind the victory of your opinion. Here you can confuse your opponent by discovering in his theory a lack of experience, or things that are not applicable in specific experience. Find more minuses than pluses in theory.
In order not to look completely defeated in a discussion, a participant can exit the argument gracefully. It is worthy to acknowledge the opponent’s victory. There are two approaches - avoiding the topic, citing personal beliefs. For example, “This is beyond my understanding,” “My beliefs do not allow me to admit this.” Another way to agree is, for example, “Okay, you convinced me.”
How to teach a child to defend his opinion?
How to find out if your child can defend his opinion? Try an experiment at home. Gather a group of children and hand out cakes to everyone. Salt one of the cakes; deliberately serve the salty treat to the person you are watching. After the children start eating the treat, ask if it tastes good? Most of those who have eaten sweet cakes will say yes. Will a child who received salty food be able to say the same thing? Most likely yes. As long as the child communicates with others, he adheres to the majority opinion. A child should not be scolded for wanting to be like everyone else. Young children have experienced little in life and are learning self-identification. They don’t know how to say no and defend their opinion.
Very often, adults themselves adhere to the side of the majority and cannot easily say no. Sometimes it’s also difficult to defend your opinion. If the skills to win an argument, such as aggressiveness and criticality, are weak. Then a person prefers to simply compare thoughts and perceptions by looking at others.
Maintain trusting contact with your child at any stage of his development. Try not to limit children’s curiosity with a negative emotional reaction (anger for asking, for example, “why don’t you love Aunt Masha?”) Meaningful silence if the answer implies details of adult life.
The feeling of curiosity is the main motivation for knowledge. A child learns to have his own opinion and defend it when he reads a lot and talks out loud with his parents. But it’s worth giving away too much serious knowledge about life in measured doses. You should also not put pressure on a child as an adult if he is being excessively stubborn.
To teach your child to stand up for his opinion, let him choose for himself. For example, “What will you eat porridge or scrambled eggs?” Do not push your child to make a choice by referring to the authority of the majority “all other children eat porridge in the morning.” But you can, for example, push him to make a choice if the child does not fully understand what he wants. Or he doesn’t see the advantages of one or the other. For example, “the porridge is already ready,” or “you can add honey to the porridge”
Teach your child not only to give a more or less “common” answer, but also motivate him with questions so that he can give a detailed explanation. Logic games teach how to argue correctly, build on general logic. It will help you find your calling in life in the future.
Play board games Developing imagination. Those games that imply not only clear rules of movement, but also require ingenuity and calculation of profitable moves.
To develop an independent opinion in your child, teach him how to win in any dispute. Introduce him to the same adult strategies as needed.
Video on how to win an argument
Conclusion
The most important thing is that if you want to win an argument, you need to completely turn off your emotions and treat everything neutrally. So that the opposite side does not understand the weaknesses in the personality, it is worth thinking from time to time to sort out your emotional psychological problems, increase erudition. It is necessary to develop immunity to criticism - for this you should not cherish shortcomings every time. Try to think positively, always find a third solution to two opposing solutions to a question. Remember, people spend a lot of time and mental energy on emotions. Read our articles and success to you in everything.
Arguments in a dispute are not the main thing! When opponents run out of reasonable arguments, they resort to absurd ones. When the absurd ends, insults begin. But when the insults have already been exhausted, what happens is where it should have started - with a fight. And then it turns out that strong muscles are the most powerful argument in any dispute! (Tetcorax)
Fear not those who argue, but those who avoid arguing. (Maria Ebner-Eschenbach)
To be refuted is nothing to fear; One should be afraid of something else - being misunderstood. (I. Kant)
There are no losers in a discussion, and there are no winners in an argument.
(B. Toyshibekov)
Define words correctly and you will free the world from half the misunderstandings. (Rene Descartes)
A powerful argument in a dispute can become a weapon for an opponent. (Marcel Proust)
In any dispute, we defend not our point of view, but our “I”. (Paul Valery)
There is only one way in the world to win an argument - to avoid it. (D. Carnegie)
Refrain from arguing - argument is the most unfavorable condition for persuasion. (Juvenal)
Everything deteriorates - this is the best argument in favor of progress. (Gilbert Chesterton)
Truth is born in disputes, and in disputes it dies. (Tetcorax)
Truth is born in disputes. (Latin last)
In a dispute, audacity and eloquence often win, rather than truth. (Menander)
You may win an argument, but lose a friend. (John Lubbock)
The main secret of a successful argument is not to win, but to persuade! (Tetcorax)
Let's agree to have disagreements. (R. Stevenson)
A gentleman tramples his opponent into the dirt without resorting to direct insults. (Tetcorax)
Gentlemen do not argue, they exchange opinions; and that is quite enough. (Tetcorax)
Discussion is possible only between people with the same views. (Yanina Ipohorskaya)
Discussion is a means of convincing others of their mistakes. (Ambrose Bierce)
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge, dispute is an exchange of ignorance. (Robert Quillen)
Fools always disagree with us. (Tetcorax)
Fools are refuted by facts, not arguments. (I. Flavius)
(But still, a couple of knocked out teeth or a broken rib are much more convincing than any facts :)
If you want to win a person, let him defeat you in an argument. (B. Disraeli)
If you come to an agreement with yourself, then there is hope for mutual understanding with others. (Antonio Miro)
If people argue for a long time, this proves that what they are arguing about is unclear to them. (Voltaire)
If they cannot attack the thought, they attack the thinker. (Paul Valery)
If you can't convince, confuse. (Harry Truman)
If your opponent agrees with you on everything, it means that your thoughts are not interesting to him. (Tetcorax)
If you argue with an idiot, try to make sure he doesn't do the same thing. (Ogden Nash)
By silencing a person, you have not yet convinced. (John Morley)
A prolonged discussion means both sides are wrong. (Voltaire)
Of the two disputants, the one who is wrong gets angry. (Charles Lamb)
(Wrong. It is the one with weaker nerves who gets excited)
What people are like is the debate. (F. Engels)
When you have a conversation or argument, conduct it as if you were playing chess. (B. Gracian)
When in an argument with an opponent you begin to recognize yourself as weaker, stop arguing, because what you continue to say will become more and more stupid. (Goethe)
When you don't have serious reasons to object, it's better not to say anything. (Charles Colton)
He who convinces too hard will not convince anyone. (Chamfort)
He who argues with a drunken man fights with an absent one. (Latin last)
It is better to sort out a dispute between your enemies than between friends, because obviously after this one of your friends will become your enemy, and one of your enemies will become your friend. (Biant)
People usually quarrel because they don't know how to argue. (G. Chesterton)
People get to know each other through argument and on the road. (Herbert)
By starting a conversation with a detailed presentation of your opponent's point of view, you thereby cut the ground from under his feet.
(A. Maurois)
Our opponents refute us in their own way: they repeat their opinions and do not pay attention to ours. (Goethe)
(This is exactly how intra-family debates happen)
Ignorance is not an argument, ignorance is not an argument. (B. Spinoza)
They usually do not contradict those whom they love the most and those who are least respected. (Maria Ebner-Eschenbach)
Foolish people argue with other people, wise people argue with themselves. (O. Wilde)
Don't argue with a fool: people may not notice the difference between you. (E. Kashcheev)
Don't argue with an idiot, otherwise he will bring you down to his level and beat you on his field. (The author did not identify himself)
Don't argue with an idiot, otherwise he will bring you down to his level and beat you on his own field. (Mark Twain)
Don't try to say the last word, try to take the last step. (Gilbert Sesbro)
There is no point in arguing with men: they are never right anyway. (Sari Gabor)
Never argue with the person who stows your parachute. (The author did not identify himself)
Understanding is the beginning of agreement. (B. Spinoza)
The last word in a dispute always remains with the woman. Everything you say later will be the beginning of a new dispute. (Author not identified)
In every argument, the moment we begin to get angry, we stop fighting for the truth and enter into an argument for ourselves. (Thomas Carlyle)
The most difficult thing in an argument is not so much to defend your point of view as to have a clear idea of it. (A. Maurois)
How many people, so many opinions. (Latin last)
Always prefer discussions with professionals to arguments with amateurs. (Tetcorax)
It is much easier to argue than to understand. (Flaubert)
Many people know how to argue, few people know how to just talk. (Amos Alcott)
Disputes are an extremely vulgar thing. In a good society everyone has exactly the same opinion. (O. Wilde)
Argument is not sex, nothing is born in it. (Tetcorax)
Dispute is one of the ways to confirm opponents in their mistakes. (Ambrose Bierce)
The debate between smart people and fools is fruitless: the arguments of both sides are not clear to each other. (Tetcorax)
The wranglers remind me of a fish that, once hooked, churns the water around itself until it becomes invisible. (Joseph Addison)
Disputes have ruined the world. (Lat. seq.)
Only a fool can insist on something that he cannot prove, justify, explain, or even show! (Tetcorax)
For some, the truth is born in a dispute, for others, only broken faces. (Tetcorax)
A smart person turns an argument into a conversation, but a fool turns a conversation into an argument. (B. Toyshibekov)
A sufficiently intelligent person can be convinced of almost anything, but it is much more difficult to convince a slow-witted person. (Tom Stoppard)
Man is born a rational being and remains so until death, not counting small breaks when he takes a voice in the discussion. ("Pshekruj")
The more fragile the arguments, the stronger the point of view. (S. Lec)
No matter which side of the argument you choose, there will always be people next to you with whom you would not want to be on either side. (Jascha Heifetz)
Well, and the most important aphorisms, they are also “winged words”, which show opponents that it is useless to argue with us.
“There can’t be two opinions!”
“This is no place for discussion!” and of course
“Bargaining is not appropriate here!”
What is this statement about, and also
If you want to win an argument,
read Tetkorax's article for the beginning
3. Regarding the dispute, there are many useful statements in related topics “Argument, argument, evidence”, “Communication, eloquence”.
Loading...
