Disputes follow us everywhere: from swearing on social networks to negotiations between politicians, people literally cannot agree on anything. For some, the main goal of disputes is to win at any cost; for others, it is the desire to know someone else’s position for a more comprehensive view of the problem.
It all depends on the goals of the discussion and its circumstances, but now we will focus on how to win any dispute and literally bombard your opponent with convincing arguments.
- M+F How to argue with a girl and avoid victims on both sides? 8 points no joke
Each person has his own strategy and model of behavior during discussions. However, in any case, getting personal and insulting your interlocutor is not worth it. If you want a polite argument rather than an open conflict, remember to remain neutrally respectful towards your opponent.
Different ways of conducting a dispute lead to different results and different “aftertastes.” So, get ready to remember and put our tips into practice.
Hierarchy of polemical techniques - from lowest to highest
It's time to figure out which methods in disputes are the lowest grade, and which deserve attention and respect. Having understood these categories, you will be able to decide whether to enter into an argument with a person or not even waste time on him.
The classification of these techniques was developed by American entrepreneur Paul Graham in his essay How To Disagree, written in 2005.
How to argue correctly
In order to defend your point of view and preserve the dignity of all participants in the dispute, you must not only master the art of eloquence, but also be able to argue correctly. Let's look at the key principles of constructive debate.
Don't forget about the subject of the dispute
Any dispute always begins with one person expressing the main idea and claiming that it is correct, and the other refuting it, citing his arguments as evidence. During the discussion, the one whose arguments are more powerful wins.
But in practice, most often, each side directs all its energy to inventing effective answers, ignoring the opponent’s comments. As a result, the debaters forget about the subject of discussion, becoming personal. This is a dead end path.
Never forget what exactly you are arguing about. Listen carefully to your opponent, notice uncertain pauses, illogical conclusions, meaningless generalizations. I will give the most common mistakes in argumentation that the parties make.
- They are mistaken about the consequences of certain actions. For example, you are arguing about measures of social support for the population. Your opponent states the following: “The unemployment rate increased when the government introduced additional social benefits. The number of employed citizens has decreased. Thus, the unemployment rate has increased due to the introduced social payments.” However, many factors influence the unemployment rate, so this conclusion is devoid of logic.
- Give arguments based on generalizations. Often in your opponent’s statements you can hear something like the following phrases: “all men”, “every child”, “every pensioner”, etc. Such generalizations made on the basis of stereotypes are illogical. No one can speak for everyone.
- They draw incorrect conclusions. For example, an opponent says that children love sweets and candy should be given out at school for breakfast and lunch. This conclusion is devoid of logic. Many children really love sweets, but there is no benefit from them, only harm.
Hit the weak points in your interlocutor's argument without hurting his personality.
Support your conclusions with facts
Base your evidence on facts. In the Internet era, it is much easier to find the information you need, convincing facts that prove your position. The main thing is to use proven and authoritative sources and publications.
You can enhance the effect of your arguments using graphs built on the basis of statistical data. People tend to trust those who skillfully handle graphical data.
When using statistics, it is important to ensure that the research is conducted in an unbiased and unbiased manner. It is better to turn to university or government research. They are more reliable than data from private statistical centers. I do not recommend using statistics obtained as a result of paid research. It may be biased, and the results will speak in favor of the one who paid for the study.
Respect your opponent's opinion
Try to understand why your interlocutor insists on his point of view. Look at the subject of the dispute through his eyes. To do this, listen carefully to your opponent. Ask why he thinks this way and not otherwise. Show that you are willing to consider his position as a possibility.
By taking into account all sides of an issue, you can formulate a compelling argument. After all, a dispute provides an opportunity to consider a problem from all sides and come to a consensus. Even if you do not agree with someone else's opinion, this is not a reason to treat it with disdain.
Ask clarifying questions
If you learn to ask the right questions during an argument, then your opponent, when answering them, can eventually independently come to the conclusion that his point of view is wrong.
In 2013, at the University of Colorado, psychologist Philip Fernback conducted an interesting experiment. He divided people who had different political views into 2 groups. One group had to explain why they held certain views. And the other is how exactly it is necessary to implement these ideas in practice. As a result, those who answered the question “why” did not change their opinion at all. But those who explained how this should really work thought about it and were more inclined to dialogue and discussion.
So, if you want your opponent to become more flexible and compliant, don't ask him why he thinks that way. Ask him how he imagines it.
Partially agree with your opponent
The more persistently and stubbornly you try to convince your opponent that you are right, the more desperately he will resist and defend his point of view. Out of principle, he will defend his opinion, even if he himself understands that he is wrong.
In this case, you need to stop putting pressure on your opponent and try to win him over. To do this, use the following phrases:
- yes, I completely agree with you, but;
- you are, of course, right, but I would like to clarify;
- I can’t disagree with you, however, etc.
You seem to agree with your opponent, but at the same time you continue to put forward your arguments. The opponent's belligerent mood weakens, and it becomes easier to continue the dialogue. He is back on track again.
One of the effective methods of winning a dispute is the method of “extreme compromise”. You fully accept your opponent’s views and develop them together, coming to a logical, but most often absolutely absurd, conclusion. As a result, the opponent himself admits the inconsistency of his point of view.
To be self-confident
It is a well-known fact that what is more important to people is not what you say, but how you say it. Confidence is manifested not only in words, but also in the rate of speech, gestures, voice volume and other non-verbal signs. Only a person who is very confident that he is right will be able to convince a group of people and lead them. This way you can become a leader and learn how to manage people. Therefore, in order to win an argument, you need to stop doubting yourself.
Do not use prohibited techniques
Most often, a dispute is started not for the sake of finding a compromise or truth, but for the sake of self-affirmation. To this end, one of the debaters begins to use “dirty” techniques to throw the opponent out of emotional balance and win the argument at any cost. Here are the most famous psychological tricks.
- Accelerated rate of speech . The faster you pronounce your arguments, overwhelming your opponent with information, the more difficult it is for him to think it all through, adequately evaluate the data received and come up with a logically sound answer. As a result, he will simply lose the desire to continue the argument.
- Use of professional terms . The more complex the terminology you use in your speech, the more difficult it is for your opponent to understand your point. The discussion will take on a deeply scientific character, and your opponent will most likely be embarrassed to appear incompetent and will try to end the argument. Or he will agree with your point of view.
- Make your opponent feel ashamed . Use well-known scientific facts as arguments, saying with surprise: “How can you not know the latest science news?” The opponent will obviously not want to show his ignorance and he will have to agree with you.
- Indignation or resentment . To avoid an argument, but at the same time defend your opinion, respond to your opponent’s question with indignation or a sense of injustice. For example, these could be the following phrases: “Sorry, but my personal beliefs do not allow me to accept this,” “what you said is unacceptable to me!” and the like.
- Blackmail and threats . Some people use blackmail to force their opponent to accept their point of view. They may threaten violence, say that they will commit suicide, or blame the other person.
- Transition to personality . People who do not have the necessary knowledge and do not have weighty arguments begin to openly insult their opponents. One phrase: “Well, you’re a fool for thinking so!” – enough for a dispute to turn into a conflict. And if you also mention relatives in insults, then a scandalous showdown and even a fight are guaranteed.
Remember that you are challenging the person's position, not the person's position. You should not find fault with his tone, character, nationality, social status or appearance. Explore only his worldview and thoughts about the subject of the dispute. Winning by humiliating your opponent will not bring satisfaction. When you see that your opponent stops thinking constructively and starts using forbidden techniques, the best way to emerge victorious is to end the argument.
Altercation
- Example: “What nonsense? You didn't understand anything at all! So, what is next?"
- Purpose of use: trying to end a dispute in a draw.
The bickering strategy is used by those who understand that their battle is already lost, but if they confuse their opponent, then they can offer a draw.
To do this, they use empty arguments that may not be related to the topic of conversation at all. They simply ignore your arguments. The well-known phrase “conversation between a deaf person and a dumb person” is suitable to describe such a situation.
If you want to win an argument at the bickering stage, regularly return to the topic of discussion and persuade your opponent to argue for his conclusions.
Psychological tricks in dispute
Tricks in an argument are not always a “private trick,” but you need to know about them. If winning a debate is important, your counterpart uses too harsh methods, puts aggressive pressure on you, or you can resort to psychological tricks. However, before you learn to argue not entirely “purely”, remember - your counterpart can also know about such techniques and identify them. Even if you manage to gain the upper hand, you will be remembered as a person who plays “closet” and does not disdain anything for the sake of victory.
Here are some techniques to help you argue:
- the use of the connective “or” in a dispute - imposing an alternative on the opponent, reducing his room for maneuver, helped many to win;
- accelerating the pace of speaking - this prevents the opponent from concentrating, finding the correct answer, and helps to “skip” dangerous moments;
- “increasing expectation” technique – slow presentation of information, giving out facts, pauses, forcing the opponent to rush and make mistakes;
- appealing to a feeling of fear or shame for an action, ignorance of some facts, behavior - talking and arguing should be done carefully, “presenting” the trick in the form of slight surprise;
- the “human factor” technique – the ability to argue, turning to psychology, any important moments for the opponent (convenience, pleasant emotions);
- using the opinions of authorities, going into excessive detail, deliberate resentment, indignation and other non-obvious ways to win.
Graham's Pyramid
In 2008, American entrepreneur Paul Graham wrote the essay “How to Object Well.” In it, he described the reasoning that people use in an argument in the form of a 7-step pyramid. In this case, the strength of the argument increases from the lowest level to the highest. If the disputants move up this hierarchy, then the tension of the discussion decreases. In addition, it helps to understand whether it is worth continuing the argument at all, and how you can win it.
Direct insults
At this level of the hierarchy, instead of giving reasoned arguments, your opponent simply insults you. "You are a fool!" - he says. The opponent’s goal is to provoke you into reciprocal emotions. He has no evidence for his point of view and is trying to divert the discussion in a different direction, to shift attention from the subject of the dispute.
The strategy is not to succumb to provocations, try to avoid a dispute or stop it immediately.
Getting personal
At this stage, instead of direct insults, the opponent turns to your personal qualities, such as appearance, level of intellectual development, nationality, social status, etc. Example: “Such arguments could only be given by a narrow-minded person like you.” The goal is the same as in the previous level - change the topic by pointing out your shortcomings. The opponent simply does not have compelling arguments and is trying to avoid the subject of the dispute.
The optimal strategy for experienced speakers is to admit their imperfections and continue the argument on the merits, without allowing the conversation to suddenly change. If you do not yet have enough experience in successfully conducting discussions, then it is best to stop demagoguery without responding to your opponent’s attacks.
Complaints about the tone of dialogue
The opponent makes complaints about your tone, terminology and speech in general. Example: “How dare you talk to me in such a tone!” A person begins to use this technique when he realizes that he has lost in an argument, but does not want to admit it. In this way he tries to end the discussion before he is finally defeated.
At this stage, you can win the argument or at least come to a compromise. You need to accept the claims presented and present your arguments. The opponent will not be able to answer anything to this.
Altercation
This strategy is used by people who understand that they have lost the argument, but want to reduce everything to a draw. This is one of the attempts to confuse the opponent. Example phrase: “Complete nonsense! You didn't understand anything at all! I don’t want to continue this pointless conversation any further!”
To emerge victorious in this situation, constantly remind your opponent of the subject of the dispute and ask him to justify his conclusions.
Counterargument
A counterargument is the first sign that the opponent wants to reach an agreement and is trying to conduct a constructive dialogue. As counterarguments, people usually use their own positive experiences or the experiences of other people, but do not take your experience into account.
For example, in response to your statement, your opponent says: “One of my friends claims the opposite! And he succeeded, although he did everything completely differently from you.”
The most important thing in such a situation is to let the interlocutor speak out. This will help you establish contact with him and also convey your ideas to him.
Refutation in essence
At this stage, there is already an exchange of experience and knowledge, an attempt to get to the bottom of the truth. Communication occurs in the following vein: “You say this is A, but this is B because...”
The discussion is becoming healthy. Don't be afraid to agree with some of your opponent's conclusions. He will most likely do the same. Even if each of you ultimately remains unconvinced, you will both hear each other and acquire new knowledge about the subject of the dispute.
Refutation in its purest form
This is the highest level in dispute strategy. It has the following features:
- interlocutors treat each other with respect;
- each side of the discussion gives the other an opportunity to speak;
- arguments are put forward consistently, and not head-on, so that they do not look like an accusation;
- both sides pursue the same goal - to find objective truth.
It is precisely such discussions that we must strive for and learn to conduct negotiations in this way.
Finally, I recommend that you watch the video, which describes 5 steps towards winning an argument.
Distraction to win
If you feel that your opponent is overwhelming you and victory is slipping away, you can use a little trick and switch his attention. To distract your opponent, any small object will do - a fountain pen, a pencil, glasses. They are needed:
- demonstrate to your interlocutor, diverting his attention from the selection of arguments;
- transfer from hand to hand, move on the table so that your counterpart begins to fascinatedly follow the object with his eyes;
- Holding it in front of you like a shield helps you calm down and argue more effectively.
A person’s attention will naturally shift. He will be distracted, lose the thread of the argument, and allow you to take the initiative.
