Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

The ability of polemicists to correctly formulate questions and skillfully answer them largely determines the effectiveness of public debate. A correctly posed question allows you to clarify your opponent’s point of view, obtain additional information from him, and understand his attitude to the problem under discussion. A successful answer strengthens the polemicist’s own position.

In Chapter 2, we examined in some detail the types of questions that allow us to obtain the necessary information in business conversations and negotiations. Here we will once again dwell on this problem in order to show what role questions play in a dispute, which of them are used most often and how they are used to achieve victory.

The German philosopher I. Kant wrote:

“The ability to pose reasonable questions is already an important and necessary sign of intelligence or insight. If the question itself is meaningless and requires useless answers, then in addition to shame for the questioner, it sometimes also has the disadvantage that it prompts the imprudent listener to absurd answers and creates a funny spectacle: one (as the ancients put it) milks a goat, and the other holds a sieve under it."

Correct and incorrect questions. The questions also differ in form. If their premises are true propositions, then the questions are considered correct(properly placed).

Incorrect(incorrectly posed) questions are considered that are based on false or vague judgments.

For example, during one discussion, a certain girl was asked the following question:"70 What problems do you most often have to quarrel with your peers?" The incorrectness of this question lies in the fact that first it was necessary to find out whether the girl quarrels with her peers at all, and then, if the answer is positive, to clarify what problems.

The hero of one of the stories by M. Saltykov-Shchedrin says:

“I have a friend, a judge, a very good man. The housekeeper came to him with a complaint that such and such a scribe had hurt her: when he met her on the street, he did not take off his cap... Bring the scribe here.

- By what right did you not bow to Anisya?

-

-

- Have mercy, your honor...

- No, you answer, by what right did you not bow to Anisya?

- Have mercy, your honor...

- Tell me: will your hands fall off? A? Will they fall off?

- Have mercy, your honor...

–No, don’t fidget, but answer directly: will your arms fall off or not?

La question ainsi carrement posee *, the scribe is silent and shifts from foot to foot. My friend in all the splendor of a well-deserved celebration.

- Why are you silent? You say: will they fall off or not?

- No,” the defendant answers with some kind of angry hiss.

- Well, therefore... "

As we can see, the judge’s reasoning is not distinguished by strict logic. By substituting one question for another, he puts the scribe in an awkward position and forces him to agree with him, although the defendant does this with obvious displeasure. The question: “Are your arms going to fall off or not?” is essentially incorrect and has nothing to do with the subject of the conversation. We encounter similar situations in public disputes.

In addition, the questions reflect the attitude towards the speaker, the desire to either support or discredit him and the judgments he expressed in the eyes of those present.

Let us remember one of the heroes of S. Antonov’s story “It Was About Penkov,” whose main interest in attending lectures was the opportunity to ask visiting learned people questions.

“Whether the conversation was about a new novel, about the planet Mars or measures to combat worms, he always asked the same thing at the end: “What is a nation?” Grandfather knew the answer by heart and rejoiced like a little one if the lecturer answered in his own words or in general under various pretexts he evaded the answer. “I cut it,” grandfather joyfully boasted, “look, he has a portfolio full of books, but I still cut it!”

Neutral, favorable and unfavorable questions. By nature the questions are neutral, benevolent and unbenevolent (hostile, provocative). That is why it is necessary to determine the nature of the question by the wording of the question, by the tone of voice, in order to correctly develop tactics of behavior. Neutral and benevolent questions should be answered calmly, trying to explain this or that stated position as clearly as possible. It is important to show maximum attention and respect to the person asking, even if the question is formulated

inaccurate, not entirely correct. Irritation and a dismissive tone are unacceptable.

However, we must not forget that in a discussion or polemic, questions are sometimes raised not in order to find out the essence of the matter, but in order to put the opponent in an awkward position, to express distrust of his arguments, to show one’s disagreement with his position, in a word, to defeat the opponent.

When answering unfavorable questions, you should reveal their provocative essence, expose your opponent’s position and give open battle.

Hot questions. During the discussion of problems, thorny questions are often raised, i.e. questions are relevant, vital, fundamental. Answering such questions requires a certain amount of courage and appropriate psychological preparation from the polemicist. A polemicist should not blur the questions posed or evade them; he must give a truthful and honest answer.

Of course, a directly asked question often puts the opponent in a difficult position and can cause him confusion and embarrassment.

In the process of discussing a controversial problem, as a rule, one has to deal with all of the listed types of questions. That is why it is very important to take into account the advice of the famous English philosopher F. Bacon:

“He who asks a lot of questions learns a lot and receives a lot, especially if his questions concern subjects that are especially well known to those people whom he asks, for by doing so he presents them with an opportunity to please himself in conversation, and he himself constantly enriches his mind with knowledge. However, his questions should not be too difficult, so that the conversation does not resemble an exam. He should also act in such a way that all other people are given the opportunity to speak in their turn." *

Types of answers.“What is the question, is the answer,” says popular wisdom. The answers are also classified differently. For example, the content distinguishes between correct and incorrect answers. If the answer contains true judgments and is logically related to the question, then it is considered correct. TO wrong Answers related to the question, but essentially incorrectly reflecting reality, are considered erroneous. If the answer is not related to the question, then it is regarded as an “irrelevant answer” and is not considered.

In addition, the answers are highlighted positive(containing a desire to understand the issues posed) and negative(expressing a refusal to answer a particular question). The reason for refusal may be the speaker’s lack of competence on the issues raised or poor knowledge of the material being discussed.

Regardless of the type and nature of the questions, the polemicist should strictly adhere to the basic principle - answer the question only if its essence is completely clear and when you know the correct answer.

The famous Syrian writer-encyclopedist Abul-Faraj, who lived in the 13th century, can find the following parable:

“Someone told about his teacher that he was once asked more than fifty questions, which he refused to answer without unnecessary embarrassment, citing ignorance. “I don’t know,” he said, even when he knew, but doubted something. he was in the habit of answering only- on those issues in which he was impeccably versed."

In a dispute, a witty response is highly valued. The resourcefulness of a polemicist, his ability to navigate the situation, find the most accurate words for a given situation, and speed of reaction help to get out of a difficult situation.

*
Kant I. Works: In 6 vols. - T. 3. - M., 1964. - P. 159.

*
To the question so directly posed (French)

*
Bacon F. Works: In 2 volumes - T. 2. - M., 1972. - P. 427.

Instructions

First of all, each participant must remember well the main rule: under no circumstances should you look confused, embarrassed, or doubtful. Viewers should be left with a strong impression that this candidate is a tough nut to crack. He knows what he’s talking about, he knows how to defend his position, you can’t take him with your bare hands.

You should also not lose your composure, raise your voice, much less resort to abuse or threats. Yes, in the fight all means are good, so be prepared in advance for the fact that your opponent or his supporters may make unfounded claims against you, unconstructive criticism, bordering on insult, even false accusations. The first and natural human reaction is to give a sharp rebuff. But restrain yourself, do not give in to provocation. After all, this is exactly what your opponent wants from you. He wants the audience (potential voters) to get the impression that you are unrestrained, easily lose your temper, and take criticism painfully.

Keep calm and refute your opponents' words. Convincingly demonstrate their deceit. By doing this you will achieve a double benefit - you will demonstrate self-control and make your opponent look very unfavorable.

Go into the debate well prepared. Try to think in advance about what your opponent might talk about, what arguments to put forward, what “pain points” to focus on. Pick up more statistical material, try to remember it well. Accordingly, think about what you will talk about. Of course, under no circumstances try to talk about something you have little understanding of.

Video on the topic

A debate is a type of public discussion in which two teams discuss a topical issue from opposing positions in the discussion. Participation in debates contributes to the development of oratorical abilities, the ability to convincingly prove your point, logical thinking and the acquisition of self-confidence. And in order to feel all the advantages of these mind games, you need to know how to properly prepare for a debate.

Instructions

Practice and articulate clearly. The main responsibility of the speaker is to clearly and convincingly convey his position to the audience. Naturally, with unintelligible speech, victory is not in sight in the debate. Therefore, when preparing for a speech, pronounce tongue twisters, watch the tempo of speech, the pitch and volume of your voice.

Determine the range of terms that you will use in your speech. Each person must be informed about the topic of discussion before the debate. In school and student debates, the theses that the teams defend are distributed in advance. When preparing to argue such a thesis, your task is to collect as much information as possible and clearly define the terms that relate to it. By using them in your speech, you will demonstrate your understanding of the main topic and subject of the debate.

Build a plan to argue your team's main thesis. It should include: greeting the audience, introducing yourself and the team, justifying the relevance of the topic, putting forward a team thesis, presenting arguments, concluding with a summary of what was said and thanking you for your attention.

Practice delivering your speech against time. Each speaker has a strict speaking schedule, which is usually limited to five minutes. During this time, you must have time to deliver your entire pre-prepared speech and do it in such a way that those listening understand you.

Video on the topic

note

Remember that debates are intellectual games and the use of vernacular, jargon, slang, or, especially, obscenities in the speaker’s speech is unacceptable. Treat your opponents with respect and be polite in your speech. Interrupting the speaker of the opposing team is also prohibited; you can ask questions, but either at a specially designated time or with the consent of your opponent.

Sources:

• Debate Rules

Debate- this is not only a political tool that allows representatives of one or another party to win the sympathy of the electorate. This is also a form of learning to communicate, the ability to express one’s point of view. This practice is very common in European educational institutions, and today it is becoming increasingly popular in Russia.

Instructions

The debate organizer, first of all, needs to decide on a topic, which is the “foundation” of the game. This can be a controversial thesis statement, for example: “Television destroys morality”, “The media should be under state control”, etc. However, you should avoid formulations that contain the particle “not”. The topic can also be a variable statement: “Censorship or freedom of speech,” “Conscript service: a school of courage or a waste of time.” The main thing is that it is clearly formulated and promising for further discussion.

Preparing a debate begins with familiarizing the participants with the initial thesis and assigning roles. First of all, teams of debaters are created, consisting of 3-4 people, who are called speakers. They must defend their position, trying to convince others that they are right. The debate is judged by a panel of judges. It includes an odd number of judges who fill out a special protocol during the debate, evaluating the arguments and methods of proving them. Judging criteria: content, fairness of thesis, reliability of facts, eloquence, diction, gestures, ability to ask questions and interest the audience, literacy, etc. The Debate Timekeeper monitors whether the players comply with the regulations and rules of the game. It warns that the speaker has 1 minute or 30 seconds left in his speech and also signals the end of debate preparation.

The next step is developing cases. This is the name of the set of concepts, arguments, counterarguments and supports that the team will use in their presentation. Supports are quotes, facts, statistics that can support one of the team's arguments. This category also includes graphs, diagrams, diagrams, collections of aphorisms or even proverbs. It is also better to think through the questions that the team will ask opponents who support a different point of view in advance.

The speaker's speech should not be very long. Typically, time is distributed as follows: 6 minutes are allocated for the speech of the first speaker, the rest get the floor for five minutes. Between performances, players answer questions from the audience and their opponents from other teams. However, each speaker must confront his opponents’ arguments on his own: the rules prohibit asking the team for help. During the entire debate, a team can take only three timeouts, no longer than 2 minutes each, to confer with each other. After everyone has spoken, a vote is taken. Players must support the chosen position. It is noteworthy that viewers who join the defenders or opponents of the thesis can also take part in the voting.

Video on the topic

Once you've tried starting a debate once, especially in a real competition, you'll want to win it. Here are some techniques that will help you succeed.

Steps

Part 1: Persuade

1. 1 Be convincing. The path to victory is very clear: convince the jury that your plan (proposed solution) is the right choice.
2. 2 If you argue with someone, there are three ways to win the debate:
   • 1. Prove that the problem for which the solution is proposed does not actually exist.
   • 2. Prove that the proposed solution is not capable of solving the problem.
   • 3. Prove that the proposed solution is not an appropriate way to resolve the problem and/or that the proposed plan will have 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 applauds you at the moment, then this suppresses your opponents, which in turn opens the way to 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 stated in the form of a question, it can be used for almost any purpose.
   • For example, to: clarify, disrupt someone's speech, highlight flaws, or get 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 To ask a question, you need to stand with one hand on the top of your head and the other raised 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 a speech that 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 steadfast throughout the discussion. If you start to get nervous, you may forget something, such as some of the evidence that you are right.
• Even your opponent's correct speech does not always win. Having a large vocabulary is still a great idea; this approach can make your opponent feel discouraged and will interfere with his ability to think clearly.
• SPP: State your argument - Explain your argument - Illustrate your argument
• State your arguments using S.P.E.R.M.N.! Social, political, economic, religious, moral, scientific. (In case you're wondering where that acronym comes from: speakers tend to have depraved imaginations.)
• List your arguments, explain them, and explain again what you just said.

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 wholeheartedly share, as it is much easier to make a compelling argument for ideas that you are truly passionate about. Make sure you understand not only your position, but also that of your opponents. This will allow you to anticipate objections and respond to them more effectively.

Find someone you can discuss with. Before you begin, you should become familiar with the concept of the “impossible person.” If you want to have a chance of winning a discussion and achieving productive results, you need to argue with someone who is at least partially reasonable and reasonable. If your debate partner is not one, save yourself the trouble and find someone more suitable to debate with.

Start by stating your thesis. This is simply a brief overview of the claims of your position and the reasons why you hold it. For example, you could say, “I believe that the Moon was once part of the Earth for the following reasons,” and give a quick overview of why you believe that. If possible, try to use reasonable premises that have evidence. For example, "Information from geologists shows that rocks on the Moon are very similar to rocks on Earth" is much better than "The Moon was blown into space by an impact. I think that's a great idea."

Answer objections. In most cases, your opponent will respond to your points with an objection to one or more premises, which is why you need to provide a rationale for your position. If you are well informed about the strengths and weaknesses of your position, then most of the objections should already be known to you. Use logic and evidence to show your opponent why their objections are invalid. You can refute objections in two main ways: by showing that the evidence does not support such objections, or by revealing logical errors in the premises of the stated objections.

• To counter the idea that refined white flour bread is healthier because it's processed, you can cite as evidence studies showing that mice fed only white bread all died (fact). This will be an evidence-based answer.
• You might respond, "Just because white bread is more processed does not mean it is healthier. There is no established connection between highly processed foods and their health benefits, so your objection does not follow from the premises." This will be a logical answer.

The art of arguing is equivalent to the art of maintaining peace. Convincing a person that he is wrong almost always means acquiring an ill-wisher. The truth can be established without damaging the pride of all those disputing.

“Truth is born in a dispute” - these words are attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher. During a dispute, different opinions and positions collide, when each participant in the dispute expresses his understanding of the issue and tries to convince the other that he is right, giving weighty arguments and.

The subject of dispute is both small everyday issues and deep philosophical and scientific ones. Is coffee harmful, should you give up meat, should your child watch TV, were offensive words said intentionally or not, what comes first - the chicken or the egg? You can argue about anything.

However, most disputes end with everyone not only maintaining their own opinion, but becoming even more confident that they are right. Few people succeed in doing anything else; more often than not, the disputants end up almost as enemies. At least their desire disappears for a long time. It also happens that for some of them the dispute ends with the provision of emergency medical care.

In such disputes that end in quarrels, there is no winner - there are only losers. Obviously, this is why Socrates’ expression was playfully altered: “In a dispute, truth is not born, but is buried.”

One day a journalist was talking with a centenarian and became interested in the secret of his longevity. “I never argued,” said the elder. "Never?!" - the journalist was surprised. “This can’t be true!” “Well, it can’t, it can’t,” the old man agreed, without entering into an argument.

Psychologists advise that before challenging someone else’s opinion, you should ask yourself: “ Do you want to be right or happy?».

So maybe we should really avoid arguing? After all, in essence, each debater is right in his own way, because he sees the subject of the dispute from his own “bell tower”, based on his own knowledge and life experience. There is also an expression: “Everyone has their own truth.”

However, if in unprincipled issues it is permissible to make concessions, then when solving scientific, state, and social problems, it is sometimes necessary to show the will in the correctness of one’s point of view. But we need to do this wisely - so that no one doubts that we are right.

Socrates, who initially believed that truth can be found in dispute, chose a different way to comprehend it: he opposed dialogue, joint discussion, discussion that excludes confrontation and hostility.

How to always be on top in a dispute

1. You need to be able to argue

The argument must contain the main idea. One person expresses it as correct and gives his arguments, another (or others) refutes it with the help of his evidence or agrees with the first if his arguments outweigh.

Often people argue about nothing, that is, each about their own, perceiving the subject of the dispute subjectively. Figuratively speaking, one proves that the object is warm, and the other - soft. Or one says - sour, and the other - long.

To present undeniable arguments and win an argument, you need to be competent enough and be able to. The ancient Greek sages who lived before our era and created the science of sophistry, which deals with the issues of skillful persuasion of one or more opponents, were distinguished by their ability to cunningly conduct disputes.

For example, Socrates said that if we need to get a positive answer from our interlocutor, we must first ask him two questions to which he is guaranteed to answer “yes.” And only then - the main one, to which he will automatically agree. There may be more questions. In an argument, these questions can represent our arguments. And then the opponent himself will not notice how he recognizes our point of view as correct.

2. Respect other people's opinions

A dispute is an attempt by the parties to consider the problem as comprehensively as possible in order to make the right decision. This is not settling scores, not an intention to demonstrate that “I’m the only smart one here, and you’re all fools.”

However, there are many people who rush to be the first to express their opinion. They shout down, interrupt, and after speaking, they don’t want to listen to anyone else. “There is only my opinion and the wrong one,” they show with all their appearance.

Watching those who behave so incorrectly, you really want them to be wrong, even if their arguments are rational and logical. It is difficult to agree with their opinion, because by admitting that they are right, we will give them a reason to wave the victory flag over their defeated self.

Let's not be like them - let's listen to the opponent's opinion. Let's show him that we are interested in it. Let's ask why he thinks this way, treat his position as possible, and then together we will look for ways to achieve consensus.

3. Don't get personal

In proving, in our opinion, the fallacy of an opponent’s point of view, one cannot use his nationality, physical disabilities, profession, etc. as an “argument.”

But often people who do not have compelling arguments or the necessary knowledge, but do not want to admit that they are wrong, resort to “heavy artillery”, using forbidden techniques. “You were a fool, and still are,” “Well, you’re not an idiot to think like that” - and now the topic of the dispute has already been forgotten, a conflict flares up with mutual insults.

In no case should you mention relatives: “You are as absurd as your mother”, “You are just as bad at thinking as your father.” Such a personal shift will turn a constructive dispute into a scandalous showdown.

Words such as “always” and “never” also pose a danger in a dispute: “You have always been hysterical,” “You will never listen to me” - such “arguments” can infuriate even the most tolerant.

4. Do not resort to blackmail

Among the illegal techniques that force an opponent to yield contrary to his own point of view is blackmail. Blackmailers resort to different methods. For example, they intimidate: “If you don’t support my point of view, you will greatly regret it (big troubles await you).” They try to shame, cause a feeling of guilt: “If only your parents knew that you deceived their expectations, betrayed their ideals.” They put on the mask of a victim: “I feel so bad, but it will be easier for me if you agree with me.”

Most often, blackmail manifests itself in a hidden form, through hints.

5. Don’t insist on your own

If our opponent, after listening to our arguments, remains unconvinced, there is no need to continue to convince him. After all, the more persistently we do this, the more stubbornly he will resist. And defending his opinion will become a matter of principle for him. He will defend him, even knowing that he is wrong.

You need to present your main arguments at the beginning and end of the discussion - this will only increase their weight.

6. Use non-verbal ways to influence your interlocutor

Firstly, it is important how we look. To a sloppy man dressed like a homeless person, but convincing us that we are spending our money incorrectly, I want to ask: “If you are so smart, then why are you so poor?”

Secondly, to win a dispute, the way the disputants present themselves is also important. We do not want to admit that people with aggression in their voices, closed gestures, gloomy looks, and unfriendly facial expressions are right. And we will do this much more willingly if the person exudes friendliness, calmness, if we like him and we want to imitate him.