How to win a debate. Use foundation anticipation

After you've tried once to start a discussion, especially in a real contest, you'll want to win it. Here are some methods to help you succeed.

Steps

Part 1 Persuade

1. 1 Be persuasive. The path to victory is clear: convince the jury that your plan (proposed solution) is the right choice.
2. 2 If you object to someone, then there are three ways to win the debate:
   • 1. Prove that the problem for which the solution is proposed does not really exist.
   • 2. Prove that the proposed solution is not capable of solving the problem.
   • 3. Prove that the proposed solution is not a suitable way to solve this problem and / or that the proposed plan will bring more negative consequences than benefits.
3. 3 If you are the third speaker, bring something new to the discussion. This will bring the audience's attention back to what you are saying. Remember that you cannot present any new arguments, but you have the right to defend or attack any previously stated argument from a new point of view.
   • Use (but carefully and carefully) strong expressions. If the audience is currently applauding you, then this will overwhelm your opponents, which in turn will pave the way for your victory.

Part 2 Questions

1. 1 It should be remembered that different points of view can only be offered during unprotected time (after the first and before the third minutes of speech). Maximum time: 15 seconds. Although the sentence must be in the form of a question, it can be used for almost any purpose.
   • For example, for: clarification, disrupting someone's speech, highlighting flaws, or getting an answer that you can use to your advantage.
   • "After the second speaker of the proposing party agreed with the proposal I made, he even admitted that..."
2. 2 In order to propose a question, you need to stand up with one hand on the top of your head, and keep the other up in the air. As a speaker, you can either deny or accept someone's point of view expressed in the form of a question. During the presentation, which lasts 4 minutes, you must accept at least one point of view, but no more than two. Also, never accept a question before you've finished making your own argument!

• Remain calm and unwavering throughout the discussion. If you get nervous, then you may forget something, for example, some of the evidence that you were right.
• Even the correct speech of your opponent does not always win. Do you have a large vocabulary is still a great idea; this approach can make your opponent feel discouraged and interfere with his ability to think clearly.
• NGN: Formulate your argument - Explain your argument - Illustrate your argument
• Label your arguments using S.P.E.R.M.N.! Social, political, economic, religious, moral, scientific. (In case you're wondering where the abbreviation comes from: speakers tend to have corrupt imaginations.)
• List your arguments, explain them, and explain again what you just said.

We argue all the time. It's time to learn how to do it with pleasure and benefit for yourself. The ability to win arguments is not a gift, but a trainable skill. After reading this article, you will learn how Arthur Schopenhauer, the German philosopher and author of the book “, or the Art of Winning Disputes”, taught to lead discussions and with what tools he himself won them.

Do not admit the correct and strong arguments of the opponent if you foresee their conclusion.

If you see that your opponent in a dispute begins to build an argument that will eventually lead to the conclusion he needs, do not let him do it. Use all sorts of nit-picking, put forward counterarguments (since eristic involves winning an argument at any cost, you can use, including false counterarguments and arguments), try to shake the opponent’s argument system in any way so that he does not come to the conclusion he needs.

But what to do if you are building a system of arguments, and your opponent finds fault? First of all, you should, if possible, not show what you are leading to. Put forward arguments one by one and do not put forward your conclusion if it has not yet been fully proven. If the opponent does not understand that you need to destroy your arguments until you have proved your position, then this will be a relatively easy victory in the argument.

But if the opponent nevertheless understands your intentions and begins to interfere with your argumentation, there are several options for counteraction:

1. If the opponent may not agree or already does not agree with your arguments, give arguments of the arguments.
   Example:
   Argument: You should give a little more time to work on the report, because today I was late and I did not have time to work on it.
   Argument of the argument (why was it late and there was no time?): This morning there were huge traffic jams, I could not arrive earlier. And since I'm late for reasons beyond my control, you must give me extra time to work.
2. Overwhelm your opponent with a number of arguments so that he simply cannot refute them all.
3. Put forward arguments in any sequence, haphazardly, so that the opponent does not understand what you are leading to and which arguments need to be refuted in the first place, and which arguments are secondary. Cover your game until your opponent loses.
4. Put forward false arguments and argument arguments. Including quantity. But do not allow frankly false arguments that are easy to refute, in which case the opponent may resort to the argument “you have a lot of errors in argumentation and false arguments, which means that in general you are also mistaken.” If you do not have sufficient practical experience and / or you can do without false arguments, then it is better not to risk it.
5. Use your opponent's arguments. You can paraphrase and flip them a little, but you need to do this discreetly. Make it look like your opponent said it himself. It is unlikely that anyone will undertake to refute their own arguments. Or another option: if your opponent is in some society or organization where there are some rules or dogmas that you can use to reinforce your position, do it. The opponent will not refute the postulates in which he himself believes or must believe.

Use foundation anticipation

foundation anticipation- an error in proof, in which a judgment is given as an argument, which itself needs to be justified.

Example:

We cannot approve your project because you are irresponsible.

At first glance, everything is in order: an understandable causal relationship, a good reason. But in such cases, you also need to prove that the person is really irresponsible.

You can use this technique, but make sure that the error in your anticipation of the reason is difficult to notice, otherwise the trick will be easily revealed. It will also be useful to have some kind of false argument for your defense.

Let's continue our example:

"What makes you think I'm irresponsible?"
You were late for work several times.
- But this is not true. I have always been on time and have never allowed myself to be delayed.
We may have confused you with another employee. But even if you are not irresponsible, then ...

Proof of one through alleged evidence of the second

Let's say you have a two-part proposition. The first part follows directly from the second. In that case, if you can different ways forced admission the second, then the first will also be true, and it will no longer be possible to disprove it.

How can one force a thesis to be accepted?

1. The phrases “everyone knows that ...”, “it is obvious that ...”, “it is foolish to argue with the fact that ...”, etc.
   Example:
   Obviously, this film was not successful at the box office and few people appreciated it. It's a bad movie because no one liked it.
   Nobody likes the movie, so it's bad. Logically. But the fact that no one likes him is not necessary to confirm.
2. Reference to authority. Expose your second part of the judgment for the opinion of any authority in this field.
   Example:
   This film is bad, it was criticized by many film critics.
   Here, too, everything is logical. Film critics understand this matter, if they did not appreciate the film, then the film is really bad. And it is unlikely that you will be asked to name these film critics or show the sources where they expressed their opinion. It is more likely that you will be taken at your word.

To prove a subject in general, force to agree with its parts

If you fail to convince your opponent of the truth of your judgment, break it down into particulars and force them to agree with each of them.

Example:

Let's talk about cinematography. What makes a movie good? A large number of viewers who watched it positive reviews film critics and viewers, a famous cast, an eminent director, a big budget, huge box office, etc. You may disagree with some points, but it does not matter. Eristika aims at any victory in an argument, not just an honest one.

That is, you can say the following: this film was made by a famous director (if this is true, it is better to give his name), Hollywood stars starred in it (again, if this is true, you can list the most famous ones), in the United States he made a huge amount of money at the box office (even if he collected not so much, you can name the amount, because few people understand this and will be able to understand a lot or a little). If a film meets the criteria of a good film, then it is good. It is unlikely that this will be disputed.

People enter into arguments to defend their point of view, as well as to show the shortcomings of the opponent's arguments. To win the dispute, you should prepare the facts that will prove you are right. It is also necessary to identify the weak points of the arguments of the opposite side. Use reliable sources of compelling facts and relevant examples to find solid evidence. Don't get inflamed during arguments, as this is a sure way to defeat! Try to always keep yourself in hand.

Steps

Develop your argumentation skills

Use facts, not emotions. Most effective method win the argument - build your evidence on facts. It is important to show that you are a well-informed, prepared and impartial debater. Heated disputes that affect your beliefs or feelings are more likely to end in favor of your opponent.

• If you use a lot of first-person statements, your opponent may ask why people would trust your opinion. Do not translate the emphasis on yourself to avoid such situations.
• This does not mean that it is absolutely impossible to use arguments or examples that touch on the emotions of other people. For example, you could tell a story about a child who got sick from the tap water if you are arguing about the quality of the tap water. Such ethical examples should be combined with statistics, historical examples and other evidence.

1. Formulate your arguments in a logical, clear and simple language. Speak in a way that everyone present can understand. Do not overload arguments with unnecessary cumbersome words and especially complex concepts. Express a logical and consistent point of view that will definitely not confuse others.

   • An example of complex language: “The introduction of a global online voter register, as well as the ability to vote online, ceteris paribus, will mobilize voters and dry up bureaucratic swamps electoral system to strengthen democratic processes.”
   • The same argument can be put more simply: “The ability to register and vote online from anywhere in the world will simplify the election process. Many will want to participate in electoral process. It will also be possible to save on paper documentation.”
   • To assess the complexity of words and concepts, you should consider whether a ten-year-old child will understand your argument. If the answer is yes, your point of view will be understood by any audience.

2. Consider your arguments in advance and make a plan. This is The best way prepare logical and consistent arguments. The structure of the evidence part may resemble an essay. First, present the topic and state your position, then give at least 3 reasons. Let your opponent respond. Finally, in conclusion, challenge (or reflect) other people's arguments.

   • Even if you don't have time to write a plan ahead of time, there's always a moment to think about the structure of your answer. Consider the possible arguments in your head, and then enter into an argument.

3. Try to understand your opponent's arguments. Such “two-sided disputes” are always more effective than “one-sided presentation of facts”. The ability to see a topic from different angles will allow you to better prepare. You will also have good reasons to choose one of the sides, since you will consider various options in advance.

   • Do not make a decision on a particular issue until you have considered the arguments of all parties. Do not miss the opportunity to read the news every day in order to stay up to date.

4. Use counter arguments to break down your opponent's evidence. Counter-arguments give a direct rebuff to the claims of the opposite side. This is the most effective way to win the final victory. Counter-arguments (or rebuttals) will be most effective if they emphasize the lack of logical relationships between specific facts in the opponent's answer.

   Find illogical aspects of the opponent's arguments. In your answer, you need to emphasize the illogical points of the opponent's arguments. Be extremely careful to notice such aspects. You should pay attention to situations where the opponent states one point of view, but argues for other issues. Assess the reliability of its sources and pay attention to the following:

Prepare your evidence

1. Go to the library or research the subject on the Internet. Start by doing a simple Internet search on a topic of interest to find general information. Then prepare a list of relevant literature and go to the local library. Library staff will also help you find Additional information online and on bookshelves.

   • For example, if your dispute is about climate change, then first enter “climate change” in the search bar. You can then use more specialized queries: “climate change controversy” or “ Scientific research on climate change".

2. Choose reliable sources. Sometimes it's hard to know which sources to trust. As a general rule, you should rely on the most recent research (for example, the last 5–10 years). You can also study the personalities of the authors to find out their experience and achievements. Also ask your librarian for help. He knows how to find the most reliable and up-to-date sources.

   • On the Internet, things are even more complicated! Choose sites with trusted domains like .gov, .edu, or .org. Even in this case, you should double-check the information and read about the authors. You should not trust the information on sites whose texts are full of a large number of spelling and punctuation errors.

3. Use statistics to show the importance of numbers. Give statistical examples as arguments to support your words. Usually statistics allows you to show the facts in the dynamics of time. If your argument is about changes in government policy, statistics can be the key to victory.

   • If you are arguing about the laws of different states regulating the sale and use of weapons, then find the worldwide statistics of deaths involving firearms before and after the adoption of such laws.
   • When using statistics, it is important to ensure that the study was carried out impartially and objectively. As a rule, university and government research is always more reliable than research conducted by private organizations.
   • If an organization conducts paid statistical research (even for a government or a university), then beware! Such results may be biased.
   • Skillful or cunning opponents can easily manipulate statistics. If the opposite side provides statistics, then always pay attention to the sponsors, the date and duration of the study, the accuracy of the numbers, the relevance of the statistics to the subject of your dispute.

4. Use historical examples to put the argument in context. Personal and other people's examples from life will help explain how your arguments relate to events from the past. These arguments are useful if you want to show how the current situation has developed, to convey the need or lack of need for change.

   • For example, if you are arguing about the protection of the civil rights of national minorities, bring historical facts struggle for civil rights around the world. Find out exactly what laws were passed, when and for what reason, and consider the consequences of the laws passed.
   • Start looking for historical examples in trusted online sources, then look for more detailed book research in the library.

5. Quote opinions of experts and explain how they came to these conclusions. It is important to be able not only to cite the opinions of experts, but also to interpret their reasoning in defense of their arguments. For the effectiveness of their arguments, it is important to explain the train of thought of experts. Tell your opponent the essence of the study and show that the conclusions of the experts are convincing enough.

   • In disputes, only indisputable truths like 2 + 2 = 4 are considered “facts”.
   • Operate with the words of experts who have spent more than one year researching this topic. It is desirable that such research should not be sponsored by private foundations.

6. Explore the topic from all angles to prepare for counter arguments. Read all available information on the topic, not just those aspects that suit you. So you will be ready to discuss or refute particular examples or arguments of the opponent. Critically examine all sources with questions such as:

   • When did this source appear? What world events of that time could influence the author and his conclusions?
   • What is the main meaning of the author's conclusions? Does it contain contradictions?
   • What language is used in the study? Is the author exaggerating or biased?
   • Research does not cover some obvious aspects of the topic?

Decide on the position you want to argue, and find out as much information as possible in this direction. Ideally, this should be an opinion that you sincerely share, as it is much easier to make a compelling case for ideas that you are truly passionate about. Make sure you understand not only your position, but also the position of her opponents. This will allow you to anticipate objections and respond to them more effectively.

Find someone you can debate with. Before proceeding, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of "impossible man". If you want to have a chance to win a discussion and achieve productive results, you need to argue with someone who is at least partially reasonable and reasonable person. If your discussion partner isn't, save yourself the trouble and look for someone more suitable to debate.

Start by approving the abstract. It's simple short review statements about your position and the reasons why you hold it. For example, you might say, "I believe the Moon was once part of the Earth, the following reasons", and give quick review why you think so. If possible, try to use reasonable premises that have evidence. For example, the argument "Information obtained by geologists shows that the rocks on the Moon are very similar to the rocks from the Earth" is much better than the phrase "The moon flew into space due to a collision. I think that's a great idea."

Answer objections. In most cases, your opponent will respond to your thesis with an objection to one or more premises - that's why you need to justify your position. If you are well informed about the strengths and weaknesses your position, most of the objections should already be known to you. Use logic and evidence to show your opponent why his objections are invalid. You can rebut objections in two main ways: by showing that the evidence does not support such objections, or by uncovering logical fallacies in the premises of the objections voiced.

• To disprove the idea that refined white bread is healthier because it's processed, you can cite as evidence studies demonstrating that mice fed only white bread all die (fact). This will be an evidence-based answer.
• You might answer, "Just because white bread is more processed doesn't mean it's healthier. There's no established link between a high degree processing of foods and their health benefits, so your objection does not follow from the premises." This would be a logically sound answer.