Any statement has value if it is substantiated. Not every person is capable of a clear, reasoned, logically coherent, exhaustive conversation with an interlocutor. When it comes to an argument, the quality of the dialogue often doesn't improve. The reasons for this problem lie in ignorance of the rules and techniques of dispute and in the absence of the practice of discussing serious issues.
Is there any point in arguing?
When starting a conversation, discussion of an exciting or acute topic, you should first think carefully. Is there any point in such a risky event? After all, a peaceful and friendly conversation can develop completely different turns, take on the character of a dispute, a verbal conflict. A warm conversation can turn into a heated discussion. An intellectually and mentally hardened person will cope with an unusual situation. But a person who is not accustomed to protecting his interests and beliefs will be forced to retreat, weaken his position, thereby hurting his own and amuse someone else's pride. If, nevertheless, you got involved in an argument, then, taking into account its nature and degree, apply the appropriate techniques.
Classification of disputes
All disputes can be classified according to two main criteria:
There are disputes only with acceptable negotiation techniques and disputes in which unacceptable methods are used. The latter include: substitution of the initial thesis, the use of unverified or false arguments and facts, deliberate confusion, clouding the situation, argumentation to the public, authority, pity, avoiding the topic, etc.
Also, disputes are divided into those in which the participants in the conversation strive to establish the truth, and those in which the main thing is to demonstrate their mental or oratorical advantage.
If we consider in aggregate these two divisions of controversial processes, then we can get four of their main varieties:
Characteristics of disputes
Discussion contributes to the solution of many problems, and, moreover, it is an original method of obtaining and analyzing knowledge. Even if full agreement cannot be reached in the course of a peaceful discussion, the benefits of such disputes are undeniable: a previously clouded issue is clarified, mutual understanding improves, and new ways of studying the indicated problem are outlined.
In polemics, although the methods of discussing the controversial issue are quite correct, nevertheless, no one sets a strict framework and limits for the permissibility of their use. Therefore, each participant in the dispute uses those techniques that he considers beneficial and most optimal for himself. If we figuratively compare polemics and discussion, then the following concepts are suitable: discussion is a "war game", and polemics is military action.
Eclecticism in its essence is a combination of dissimilar and, possibly, incompatible ideas, styles, concepts. Eclectic controversy can be found even in science. Galileo Galilei, for example, defending at one time the heliocentric system of the structure of the world of Nicolaus Copernicus, won not only thanks to his brilliant mind. He wrote not in the outdated, once widespread, Latin language, but in Italian, and communicated with people directly, using the usual propaganda arguments. Eclectic controversy should be resorted to only as a last resort.
Here it is appropriate to use all the methods, just to appear on the head smarter and stronger than the opponent. However, such a dispute does not deserve much respect, like the person who openly hosts it. Controversies with a bias towards sophistry were especially popular in earlier times in Greece, where mastery of the techniques of oratory was considered one of the main advantages of a free citizen.
