Types of arguments. The use of arguments of different types in judicial speech

“I contend that too much work has been done in the world, that the belief that work is a virtue has done great harm, and that ideas very different from those that have long been preached should be preached in modern industrial countries.”

Philosopher and mathematician, Nobel Prize winner in literature, Bertrand Russell, in his essay "Praise of Idleness", writes that after the industrial revolution, people can live in such a way that work does not take up most of their time.

“The right use of leisure is a product of civilization and education. A person who has worked most of his life will get bored if he suddenly stops working. However, without leisure, a person will be deprived of many good things.

Work to live. Don't live to work

When Russell talks about work in his essay, he is referring to the manual and bureaucratic work that takes up most of our time. We believe that work is a necessity, and this attachment to it is so strong that we don't think twice about over-committing ourselves. For the most part, this is a societal problem, not the fault of individuals. Even today, 80 years after this essay was written, we often see people who are so absorbed in their work that they forget to live.

For many, work is a source of meaning. In our culture, it is not customary to sit back, waste time and not make plans. However, without these things, you won't be able to get the most out of your work.

Leisure breeds creativity

The modern concept of leisure is associated with a simple waste of time. In our free hours, we watch movies, go to a bar or go for a walk. Certainly, there is something pleasant in this type of recreation, but we are afraid that in a world where people will work less, such leisure in excess will be less attractive. We just won't know what to do.

According to Russell, this is not the case. We just forgot that there is not only passive leisure. We can't imagine what we'll do with a huge amount of free time because we've never tried it. In reality, throughout history, much of our creativity has come from leisure.

If you give yourself time to rest, you will soon discover the spontaneous burst of creativity that you usually suppress while working. It is through this power that what we value comes into being.

Russell writes:

“This force cultivated art and science; wrote books, invented philosophies and perfected social relations. Without leisure, we would have remained barbarians.”

There is nothing difficult in freeing up a day off a month or an evening a week for rest. Everyone can and should do this.

Conclusion

Criticism of a work-obsessed society seems ironic at first glance. However, if you take a closer look, you will see that Russell had a different attitude towards his work. He freed time and cultivated leisure when he could. He could discuss analytic philosophy and logical positivism one day and talk about social problems of his time. On the third day, he could write about what lessons we can learn from history.

It's easy to call the idea of making time for idleness "lazy" or "a waste of time," but don't lose sight of the creativity that comes from relaxing. We evolve and invent when we play.

Today we are in a hurry to fill our schedule with some things. Maybe it's time to take a breath?

The third lesson of the course is devoted to argumentation and its practical features. But before we move on to the main material, let's talk a little about why in general, from the position of critical thinking, it is necessary to be able to argue one's opinion, and also to trust only reasoned opinions.

What is argumentation and why is it important

The term "argumentation" comes from the Latin word "argumentatio", which means "bringing arguments". This means that we give any arguments (arguments) in order to arouse confidence or sympathy for the thesis, hypothesis or statement put forward by us. The complex of such arguments is the argumentation.

The task of argumentation- make sure that the addressee accepts the theory put forward by the author. And by and large, argumentation can be called an interdisciplinary study of conclusions as a result of logical reasoning. Argumentation takes place in the scientific, and in everyday life, and in the legal, and in the political spheres; always used in conversations, dialogues, persuasion, etc.

The ultimate goal of argumentation consists in persuading the audience of the truth of any situation, inclining people to accept the author's point of view, prompting reflection or action.

Argumentation is a phenomenon of a historical nature, and it changes over time. For its expression language tools, such as spoken or written statements. These statements, their interrelationships and influence on a person are studied by the theory of argumentation.

Argumentation is a purposeful activity, and it can either strengthen or weaken someone's beliefs. It is also a social activity, because when a person argues his position, he influences those with whom he contacts. This implies a dialogue and an active reaction of the opposite side to evidence and evidence. In addition, the adequacy of the interlocutor is assumed, and his ability to rationally weigh the arguments, accept or challenge them.

It is thanks to argumentation that a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm its truth with strong arguments, and eliminate misunderstanding. Competently reasoned judgments minimize doubts, speak about the veracity and seriousness of the put forward hypotheses, assumptions and statements. In addition, if a person is able to make strong arguments in his favor, this serves as an indicator that he has more than once critically evaluated all the information he has.

For the same reason, it is worth trusting only those information that can be adequately argued. This will mean that they are verified, proven and true (or at least an attempt was made to do so). Actually, this is the goal of critical thinking - to question something in order to find confirming or refuting facts.

From all that has been said above, we can conclude that argumentation is the most correct and open way to influence the opinions and decisions of other people. Naturally, in order for teaching critical thinking to give a result, and for argumentation to be effective, it is necessary to know not only its theoretical, but also its practical foundations. We will continue with them.

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

The scope of the concept of "argumentation" is very deep. Given that this is perhaps the most difficult of the stages of persuasion, it requires a person to have knowledge and possession of the material, endurance and skill, assertiveness and correctness of statements. At the same time, it must be remembered that the author of the arguments always depends on his interlocutor, because the latter will decide whether the arguments are acceptable to him or not.

The argument has its own structure. It looks like this:

Proposing a thesis - the formulation of one's position, proposal or opinion
Bringing arguments - this includes evidence, evidence and arguments through which the author substantiates his position (arguments should explain why the interlocutor should believe or agree with you)
Demonstration - meaning the demonstration of the relationship of the thesis with the arguments (it is at this stage that conviction is achieved)

With the help of argumentation, you can partially or completely change the opinion and point of view of the interlocutor. However, to be successful, you need to follow a few important rules:

It is necessary to operate with convincing, precise, clear and simple concepts.
The information must be truthful (if the reliability of the data is not established, then you do not need to use them until everything has been verified)
In the process of conversation, you need to select a certain pace and specific methods of argumentation, based on the characteristics of your character and temperament.
All arguments must be valid; no personal attacks are allowed
It is recommended to refrain from using non-business statements that make it difficult to understand the information; it is better to operate with visual arguments; when covering negative information, its source must be indicated without fail

For a person who is well acquainted with what he is talking about, it will not be difficult to find good arguments. But most often, if there is a task to convince your interlocutor, it is better to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. For example, you can sketch a list of them, and then analyze and determine the most effective ones. But here you should know how to identify strong and weak arguments. This is done using the criteria for their evaluation:

Effective arguments are always based on facts. Based on this, from a list compiled in advance, you can immediately discard information that cannot be supported by facts.
Effective arguments are always directly related to the subject of discussion. All other arguments must be excluded.
Effective arguments are always relevant to the interlocutor. For this reason, it is necessary to find out in advance what interest the arguments will be for the addressee.

If you are sure that your arguments meet the proposed criteria, you can proceed directly to the argument. Based on this, the development of critical thinking involves the development of the main methods of argumentation.

Basic argumentation methods

Argumentation theory proposes to use a lot of argumentation methods. We will talk about the most effective of them from our point of view. They are suitable for both business and everyday communication.

fundamental method

The meaning of the method is to directly address the person to whom you want to acquaint the facts that represent the basis of your conclusions.

Highest value here has numerical and statistical information that serves as an ideal background to support the arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.

But one should not be too zealous in applying such information. Too much a large number of numbers is tiring, so that the arguments lose their effect. It is also important that incorrect data can mislead the listener.

EXAMPLE: A university teacher gives statistics about first-year students. Based on it, 50% of female students gave birth to children. The figure is impressive, but in reality it turns out that in the first year there were only two girls, and only one gave birth.

Ignore method

Most often, ignoring is used in disputes, disputes and conversations. The point is, if you can't disprove a fact your opponent is offering you, you can successfully ignore its meaning and value. When you see that a person attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not of particular importance, you simply fix it and let it pass by.

contradiction method

For the most part, this method can be called defensive. Its basis is to identify contradictions in the opponent's reasoning and focus attention on them. As a result, if his arguments are unfounded, you will easily win.

EXAMPLE (the dispute between Pigasov and Rudnev on the topic of the existence of beliefs, described by I. S. Turgenev):

"- Perfectly! Rudin said. “So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?”

- No, it doesn't exist.

- Is that your belief?

How can you say they don't exist. Here's one for you, for the first time. Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.

"Yes, but" method

The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is biased towards the topic of the conversation. Considering that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method makes it possible to see and discuss alternative ways problem solving.

EXAMPLE: “Like you, I am well aware of all the benefits you have listed. However, you did not take into account some shortcomings ... ”(Further on, the one-sided opinion of the interlocutor is consistently supplemented by arguments from a new position).

Comparison Method

This method is highly efficient, because. makes the author's speech bright and impressive. Also this method can be called one of the forms of the method of "drawing conclusions". Thanks to him, the argument becomes weighty and explicit. For reinforcement, it is recommended to use well-known analogies with phenomena and objects.

EXAMPLE: "Life in the Arctic Circle can be compared to being in a refrigerator whose door never opens."

Boomerang Method

"Boomerang" allows you to use his own "weapon" against the opponent. The method lacks probative power, but despite this, it affects the listener in the most serious way, especially if wit is used.

EXAMPLE: During a speech by V. V. Mayakovsky to the residents of one of the Moscow districts about the solution of problems of an international nature in the USSR, someone from the audience suddenly asked: “Mayakovsky, what nationality are you? You were born in Baghdati, so you are Georgian, right?”.

Mayakovsky looked at this man and saw an elderly worker who sincerely wants to understand the problem and just as sincerely asks his question. For this reason, he kindly replied: "Yes, among Georgians - I am Georgian, among Russians - I am Russian, among Americans - I would be an American, among Germans - I am German."

At the same time, two guys from the front row decided to make fun of: “And among the fools?”.

To this Mayakovsky replied: “And among the fools I am for the first time!”.

Partial argumentation method

One of the most popular methods. Its meaning boils down to the fact that the opponent’s monologue is divided into clearly distinguishable parts using the phrases “this is clearly not true”, “this question can be looked at in different ways”, “this is for sure”, etc.

It is interesting that the well-known thesis serves as the basis of the method: if something dubious or unreliable can always be found in any argument and conclusion, then confident pressure on the interlocutor makes it possible to clarify even the most difficult situation.

EXAMPLE: “Everything that you told us about the principles of operation of wastewater treatment plants is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice, serious exceptions to the rules often have to be made” (The following are reasonable arguments in favor of your position).

Visible Support Method

Refers to the methods for which you need to prepare. You need to use it in situations where you are the opponent, for example, in a dispute. The essence of the method is as follows: suppose the interlocutor voiced his arguments to you about the problem under discussion, and the word goes to you. This is where the trick lies: at the beginning of your argument, you do not express anything in opposition to the words of your opponent; you even bring new arguments in support of it, surprising everyone present with this.

But this is only an illusion, because a counterattack will follow. It goes something like this: “But…. in support of your point of view, you forgot to cite several other facts ... (list these facts), and that’s not all, because ... ”(Your arguments and evidence follow).

Your ability to think critically and argue your position will be seriously developed, even if you limit yourself to mastering the above methods. However, if your goal is to achieve professionalism in this area, this will not be enough. To start moving forward, you need to explore other components of the argument. The first of these is the rules of reasoning.

Argumentation rules

The rules of argumentation are quite simple, but each of them differs in a set of its own features. There are four of these rules:

Rule One

Use persuasive, precise, clear and simple terms. Keep in mind that persuasiveness is easily lost if the arguments being made are vague and abstract. Also take into account that in most cases people catch and understand much less than they want to show.

Rule Two

It is advisable to select the method of argumentation and its pace in accordance with the characteristics of your temperament (you can read about the types of temperament). This rule assumes:

Evidence and facts presented individually are more effective than those presented together.
A few (three to five) strongest arguments are more powerful than many average facts.
Argumentation should not take the form of a "heroic" monologue or declaration
With the help of well-placed pauses, you can achieve a better result than with the help of a stream of words.
Active rather than passive construction of statements has a greater impact on the interlocutor, especially when evidence is needed (for example, the phrase “we will do it” is much better phrase“it can be done”, the word “conclude” is much better than the phrase “conclude”, etc.)

Rule Three

The argument must always look correct. It means:

If the person is right, admit it openly, even if the consequences may not be good for you.
If the interlocutor accepted any arguments, in the future try to use them.
Avoid empty phrases that indicate a decrease in concentration and lead to inappropriate pauses to gain time or search for a thread of conversation (such phrases may be: “it was not said”, “you can do this and that”, “along with this”, “otherwise saying", "more or less", "as I said", etc.)

Rule Four

Adapt the arguments to the personality of the interlocutor:

Build an argument, taking into account the motives and goals of the opponent
Remember that so-called "over-persuasiveness" can cause rejection on the part of the opponent.
Try not to use wording and expressions that make it difficult to understand and argue.
Strive for the most visual presentation of your evidence, considerations and ideas with examples and comparisons, but remember that they should not diverge from the experience of the interlocutor, i.e. should be close and understandable to him
Avoid extremes and exaggerations so as not to distrust your opponent and not to question your entire argument.

Following these rules, you will increase the attention and activity of the interlocutor, minimize the abstractness of your statements, link arguments much more effectively and ensure maximum understanding of your position.

Communication between two people, when it comes to disputes and discussions, almost always takes place according to the "attacker - defender" scheme. Obviously, you can end up in either the first or the second position. Argumentation structures are formed according to this principle.

Argumentation constructions and argumentation techniques

In total, there are two main constructions of argumentation:

Evidential argumentation (used when you need to justify or prove something)
Counterargumentation (used when you need to refute someone's statements and theses)

To use both structures, it is customary to operate with the same techniques.

Argumentation techniques

Whatever your persuasive influence, you should focus on ten techniques that will optimize your argument and make it more effective:

Competence. Make your arguments more objective, credible, and deep.
visibility. Use familiar associations to the maximum and avoid abstract formulations.
Clarity. Link facts and evidence and beware of understatement, confusion and ambiguity.
Rhythm. Intensify your speech as you get closer to the end, but don't lose sight of the key points.
Orientation. When discussing anything, stick to a specific course, solve clear problems and strive for clear goals, in advance in in general terms introducing them to the opponent.
Suddenness. Learn to link facts and details in an unusual and unexpected way, and practice using this technique.
Repetition. Focus the interlocutor's attention on the main ideas and provisions so that the opponent perceives the information better.
Borders. Define the boundaries of reasoning in advance and do not reveal all the cards in order to maintain the liveliness of the conversation and the active attention of the interlocutor.
Saturation. When presenting your position, make emotional accents that force your opponent to be as attentive as possible. Don't forget to lower your emotionality as well to reinforce your opponent's thoughts and give him and yourself a little breather.
Humor and irony. Be witty and joke, but don't be overbearing. It is best to act this way when you need to fend off the interlocutor's attacks or make arguments that are unpleasant for him.

With the use of these techniques, your argumentative arsenal will be replenished with serious weapons. But, in addition to the methodological aspects, which for the most part include the technique of argumentation, the art of critical thinking and consistent reasoning is excellently developed by the tactics of argumentation.

Argumentation Tactics

Mastering the tactics of argumentation is not as difficult as it might seem. To do this, you just need to learn its basic provisions.

Using Arguments

Arguments must begin confidently. There should be no hesitation. The main arguments are stated at any suitable moment, but it is better to do it constantly in a new place.

Choice of technique

Technique (methods) should be selected taking into account psychological characteristics opponent and your own.

avoidance of confrontation

In order for the argumentation phase to proceed normally, one should strive to avoid, because different positions and a tense atmosphere, like a flame, can spread to other areas of communication. And here we must point out a few nuances:

Critical questions are considered either at the very beginning or at the very end of the argumentation stage.
Delicate questions are discussed in private with the interlocutor even before the start of the conversation or discussion, because. tête-à-tête achieved much greater results than with witnesses
When the situation is difficult, there is always a pause, and only after everyone has “let off steam”, communication continues.

Maintain interest

It is most effective to offer the interlocutor options and information to arouse his interest in the topic in advance. This means that the current state of affairs is initially described with an emphasis on the likely negative consequences, and then the possible solutions and details their benefits.

Bilateral Argumentation

With it, you can influence a person whose position does not coincide with yours. You need to point out the pros and cons of your proposal. The effectiveness of this method is affected by the intellectual abilities of the opponent. But, regardless of this, it is necessary to present all the shortcomings that could become known to him from other people and from other sources of information. As for one-sided argumentation, it is used when the interlocutor has formed his own opinion and when he has no objections to your point of view.

Sequence of pros and cons

Based on the conclusions, the main formative effect on the opponent's position is provided by such a presentation of information, where first they list positive sides and then negative.

Personified Argumentation

It is known that the persuasiveness of facts depends on the perception of people (people, as a rule, are not critical of themselves). Therefore, first of all, you need to try to determine the point of view of the interlocutor, and then insert it into your construction of the argument. In any case, one should try not to allow contradictory arguments of the opponent and one's own argumentation. The easiest way to achieve this is to directly refer to your counterpart, for example:

What do you think about this?
You're right
How do you think this issue can be resolved?

When you recognize the correctness of the opponent and show attention to him, you will encourage him, which means that he will be more receptive to your argument.

Drawing conclusions

It happens that the argument is excellent, but the desired goal is not achieved. The reason for this is the inability to generalize information and facts. Based on this, for greater persuasiveness, it is imperative to independently draw conclusions and offer them to the interlocutor. Remember that the facts are not always obvious.

Counterargument

If suddenly you are presented with arguments that seem to you impeccable, there is no need to panic. On the contrary, you should keep your cool and apply critical thinking:

Are the given facts correct?
Can this information be refuted?
Is it possible to identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts?
Are the proposed conclusions wrong (at least in part)?

The presented tactics can be the final element of your entire argumentation strategy. And by and large, the information that you got acquainted with is quite enough to learn how to professionally argue your point of view, position and arguments. But still, this lesson will not be complete unless we give a few more recommendations.

We want to conclude the third lesson of our course with a small talk about persuasive arguments - another important element of influencing the opinion of a person and a group of people.

A few persuasive arguments

What is persuasion? If you do not understand the mass of various interpretations and interpretations, persuasion can be called the use of such words that will incline a communication partner to accept your point of view, believe your words or do as you say. And how can this be achieved?

The famous American radical organizer and public figure Saul Alinsky created a completely simple theory of persuasion. It says that a person perceives information from the standpoint of personal experience. If you try to get your point across to another without taking into account what he wants to tell you, you may not even count on success. To put it simply, if you want to convince someone, you need to give them arguments that match their beliefs, expectations, and emotions.

Referring to this, there are four main options for action when arguing:

Factual data. While statistics can sometimes be wrong, the facts are almost always undeniable. Empirical evidence is considered one of the most persuasive tools for building the basis of an argument.
emotional impact. As one of the best American psychologists Abraham Maslow said, people respond best when we address their emotions, i.e. we touch on such things as family, love, patriotism, peace, etc. If you want to sound more convincing, express yourself in such a way as to hurt a person to the quick (naturally, within reason and preferably in a positive way).
Personal experience. Stories from own life and information verified by personal experience, are wonderful tools for influencing the listener. Actually, you yourself can see this for yourself: listen to a person who tells you something “according to the textbook”, and then listen to someone who himself has experienced or done what he is talking about. Who do you trust more?
Direct appeal. Of all the existing words, you can choose the one that people will never get tired of listening to - this is the word "You". Everyone asks himself the question: “What is the use of this for me?”. Hence another one: when trying to convince someone of something, always put yourself in his place, and when you understand his way of thinking, contact him with the help of “You” and explain what you need in “his” language.

Surprisingly, these four simple techniques are not used in life and work by a huge number of people, in particular those who, for some reason, downplay the merits of personalization, appeal to emotions and direct communication with people. But this is a gross mistake, and if you want to become convincing in your words, you should by no means allow it. Combine everything stated in this lesson into a single whole - and you will be amazed at how easily and quickly you can learn to be persuasive in any life situation.

Developing critical thinking and reasoning skills will provide you with a huge number of advantages in family, daily and professional life. But then again: there are things that can get in your way. What are these obstacles? We will answer this question in the next lesson, where we list most of the potential interference and give a lot of interesting examples.

Do you want to test your knowledge?

If you want to test your theoretical knowledge on the topic of the course and understand how it suits you, you can take our test. Only 1 option can be correct for each question. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question.

In the process of argumentation, certain relationships are formed between the speaker and the audience: the image of the speaker is formed in the audience's mind (see paragraph 8.2), the speaker himself creates the argument based on the goals, values and properties of a particular audience.

As already mentioned, the image of the speaker manifests itself in three aspects: intellectual (rhetorical logos), emotional-volitional (rhetorical pathos) and ethical (rhetorical ethos). Argumentative impact on the audience is carried out in accordance with different aspects image of a rhetor. Paphos, logos and ethos determine different mechanisms of influence on listeners, and therefore the arguments can be divided into three groups: logical, psychological and ethical. Let us present those types of arguments that play a significant role in modern judicial speech.

Boolean Arguments

Logical methods of argumentation implement the speaker's logos, influence the rational sphere of the listeners' consciousness. Allocate:

argument-fact (to the point);
argument to experience;
argument to judgment;
proof by contradiction;
argument for meaning/value;
argument to composition;
argument to circumstances;
argument to reasons;
argument from the absurd (reduction to the absurd);
argument to concession (argument rotation);
maneuver strategy;
return argument (boomerang reception);
argument for ignorance;
argument from silence.
1. Argument-fact (to the point) - an argument based on considerations concerning the substance of the subject. Such arguments are among the most influential because they are difficult to refute, like, for example, scientific axioms. AT judicial practice such arguments are conclusions confirmed experimentally, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, descriptions of physical evidence.

Witnesses claim that the victim was sober, that on the day of the incident he did not drink alcohol at all, or for about 6-8 hours. Before the incident, he drank about 100 grams of weak dry grape wine. However, these testimonies are not credible.

The materials of the case undeniably established that the victim was drunk, and very drunk. To establish the truth, science came to our aid. A photometric study revealed the presence of 2.55% ethyl alcohol in the victim's blood and 1.85% in the urine. Forensic expert Maslov testified in court that such a concentration of alcohol indicates a severe degree of intoxication To

2. Argument to experience - practical argument - worldly, private, or historical.

The profession of a doctor of any specialty is difficult, but perhaps the most difficult was and remains the profession of a surgeon.<.. .="">And over whom is the punishing sword of Themis most often raised? Practice shows that mainly representatives of those medical specialties that deal with radical surgical methods of treatment are brought to justice.

Notice, according to Smerdyakov, the money was under the bed, under the mattress; the defendant had to pull them out from under the mattress, and yet, the bed was not wrinkled at all, and this was carefully recorded in the protocol. How could the defendant not at all wrinkle anything in bed and, in addition, with his hands still bloodied, not soil the freshest, thin bed linen?

4. Proof by contradiction - an argument based on the analysis of an alternative assumption, after which a conclusion is made about its inconsistency. In court speeches it is used as a kind of refutation.

The court refers in the verdict to the expert's opinion, which states that if the driver had not maneuvered to the left, but applied braking or even moved without braking, the collision would not have occurred, since the pedestrian would have moved away from the car's lane at a distance of 5 m.

The starting point for such a conclusion? The pedestrian did not stay still, but ran. What if he continued to stand? Here is the conclusion of the expert in this case: “If Mikhailov had applied braking and the car would have moved in a straight line, and the pedestrian was standing, then the collision would still have occurred, since there was no technical possibility to stop the car. But in this case, there would be no violation of the Traffic Rules on the part of Mikhailov.

So, Mikhailov is guilty of the fact that he decided to save the pedestrian, and not to run over him "in accordance with all the rules" 1 .

5. Argument for meaning/value- an argument containing the definition of the subject of speech by including it in a wider area of content as a part, type, means, by comparing and contrasting, describing the functional, spatial, temporal or hierarchical framework. This establishes the value of this item (or its absence).

Should I sort out the rest of the evidence?<...>

But best of all - a clogged window ... What's the point in it? What was it used for arson? In fact, it turns out that the window was boarded up to prevent a fire, but a fire of a different nature - from the flame of passions, because it led to secret place for dressing factory workers.

6. Argument to composition- an argument in the form of a coherent narrative depicting the action and giving it a description. In a court speech, this is one of the most important arguments underlying the proof of the degree of guilt of the defendant, since the assessment of his acts depends on the light in which they were presented.

An old worker, locksmith Semyonov will never forget that cold December day when he met an old acquaintance, respected, respected and, from his point of view, occupying a high position as the chief accountant of the head office Lyubomudrov.

Acquaintance with Viktor Ivanovich Semenov appreciated, it seemed to him even flattering.

He will not forget this meeting.

Forever remain in the memory of Semyonov and the request with which Lyubomudrov turned to him. “Gavriil Borisovich,” he said, “our typist retyped for the institution a work that was not part of her duties, but to pay her, a full-time typist, in excess wages a thousand rubles is somehow inconvenient. Will you help? What do you doubt? After all, it's quite simple. I will write money on the account to your wife in her name, you will receive it with her power of attorney, give it to me, and I to the typist. That's how you get around the bureaucratic formalities,” he sighed.

Semyonov’s heart skipped a beat, his heart beat faster: “Is it good?” But then he changed his mind.

"What's the matter, after all? I'll get a thousand rubles, I'll give it back in full, and the typist won't lose hers. What's wrong with that? And no one asks, but Viktor Ivanovich ... "

Agreed...

This conversation, as if carved in stone, will not be erased from his memory.

As promised, he did.

Polina Alexandrovna, at the request of her husband, wrote an invoice and a power of attorney, and he, having received a thousand rubles from the power of attorney made by Lyubomudrov in the name of his wife, handed them over to Lyubomudrov.

"Thank you, Gavriil Borisovich." - "What are you, for nothing, Viktor Ivanovich."

And only much later, at the investigator's, did Semyonov find out that there was no job, no typist, that an old friend, venerable, respected chief accountant of the head office, Viktor Ivanovich Lyubomudrov, had deceived him and his wife.

“I couldn't believe it. It darkened in the eyes, the legs buckled, they became like cotton wool, ”Semenov recalled here.

Everything was as it was, the Semyonovs told the investigator, and he believed both that they had been deceived by Lyubomudrov and their disinterestedness.

7. Argument to circumstances - an argument that includes data about the situation that influenced the decision or act of the subject. In a judicial speech, circumstances are usually considered that limit the liability of the subject, or the impossibility of committing an act is indicated. Such circumstances are, for example, the absence of a person at the time and place of the crime (alibi), the incompetence or incompetence of the subject, the special state of the subject.

During the consideration of the criminal case in court, it was reliably established that Ivanov Pavel Sergeevich acquired drugs for citizen Samoenko and at his expense only with the aim of not being expelled from work in the future. Samoenko was his employer and, by virtue of his official position, could easily fire Ivanov from his job.

But, dear court, Ivanov has a young daughter at home, who, due to life circumstances, got into trouble and needed expensive treatment.

Only for this purpose Ivanov took the path of committing crimes.

Dear court, these circumstances were directly confirmed in the court session both by Samoenko himself, also by the testimony of his wife, Elena Ivanova, as well as by the testimony of the workers who worked together at the construction site.

And nothing else refuted this circumstance in the course of the court session by the side of the public prosecution.

8. Argument to the reasons - an argument that includes data about the intention of the subject (his motives), which consists in the intentional setting of a goal or in reaction to the current situation or the actions of other people. The task of the court orator is to clearly substantiate the responsibility of the defendant or achieve a reduction, or even a complete removal of responsibility from the defendant.

It was Volkov's behavior that created an abnormal situation in the family, gave rise to the psychological tension in which Vasilyeva and her stepmother were daily. They lived in constant fear, waiting for something irreparable to happen.<...>Women endured - after all, Volkov is a husband, after all, a father. But a feeling of despair grew in them, and this feeling is dangerous - it is not always powerless, sometimes it makes you take up arms!

The tragedy that occurred on February 11 was prepared by Volkov's behavior for a long time. If he had behaved differently, Vasilyeva's reaction would probably not have been so sharp. She was afraid of her father, she knew that anything could be expected from him, she was psychologically prepared for violence. Violence breeds violence!

9. Argument from the absurd (reduction to the absurd)- proof impossibility or absurdities any assumptions, statements, actions.

The testimonies of Rudova and Kibalnikova are far more eloquent. Both are convinced that Pigolkin was killed by Pilipenko. Why? "And no one else."

Kibalnikova explains her position simply: Pigolkina once had several cats. And then this zoo disappeared somewhere. Where the cats disappeared, whether someone killed them or whether they themselves ran away from a hungry life, Kibalnikova does not know. She did not see Pilipenko carrying them anywhere, burying their mortal bodies or, moreover, killing them. Krutin and company, who lived in the same house, did not confirm Pilipenko's special hatred for animals. True, if there were cats, they disappeared even before Krutin, Levchenko and Gainov settled in this house. Maybe Kibalnikova is right. It seems that these cats annoyed the tenants. But the conclusion that Pilipenko dealt with the cats is based on nothing but neighborly assumptions. Moreover, Kibalnikova's testimony cannot serve as proof that Pilipenko killed Pigolkina.

10. Argument for concession (argument reversal)- an attempt to take someone at their word; the use of the observed contradiction in the words and (or) actions of the opponent.

In her very first testimony, she (Turkina), true to her manner of challenging the accusation, which no one had yet brought forward, began to assure: “I didn’t lure Berdnikov.”

Is it so? Let us recall once again the invention of Natalia Fedorovna about the death of her husband.<...>She realized that if anything could get Berdnikov through, then only one thing: sympathy for grief. I am burning, similar to what fell to his lot. Berdnikov will certainly sympathize, so to speak, with his "sister in misfortune." And, without bothering herself with various moral prohibitions, she “revealed” to Berdnikov: her grief is bitter, she buried her young husband, she is a widow, poor thing!

"To lure - did not lure," God forbid, but to invent that she is a widow and needs consolation in her widowhood - she invented it!

11. Strategy of maneuver(a kind of argument for concession) - recognition by the speaker (genuine or imaginary) of the position (views, moods) of the audience, opponent, supporting this position with some arguments, and then showing its inconsistency, convincing oneself that one is right (according to the scheme “yes, you are right in ... but ... ").

The prosecutor sees in the sharp change in Berdnikov's attitude towards Turkina, sees only one thing in the reduction of her earnings and the deterioration of her working conditions - coercion to cohabitation.

Yes, there was everything: both a decrease in earnings and a deterioration in working conditions. But this is not all that can be put forward against Berdnikov. The prosecutor should have also said what was indisputably established: Berdnikov survived Turkina from the factory, did everything he could and had no right to, so that she left her job.<.. .="">Recognizing that Berdnikov is surviving Turkin from the factory - and it is impossible not to admit it - the prosecutor understands that this means recognizing as established that Berdnikov deliberately deprived himself of the means of coercion (to cohabitation).

12. Reflexive argument (boomerang technique)- turning the evidence, argument or accusation of the opponent against him; the opponent's words are not refuted, he is accused of the same.

Here is the whole logic of the accusation: who killed if not him? There is no one, they say, to put in his place ... Therefore, the defendant and Smerdyakov remain, and now the accuser exclaims with pathos that the defendant points to Smerdyakov because he has no one else to point to ... But, gentlemen of the jury, why not I couldn't conclude quite the opposite? There are two people standing: the defendant and Smerdyakov - why shouldn't I say that you accuse my client solely because you have no one to accuse? one

13. Argument to ignorance- an indication of the opponent's lack of knowledge of the subject of speech and the protected position, as well as an emphasis on the fact that the asserted position is difficult or impossible to verify.

The conclusion of a young forensic expert, who had little experience practical work and who conducted the study of the corpse, discovered 20 days after the incident. It was an erroneous conclusion that a hematoma of an intravital nature was found on the corpse, in the region of the left eye.<...>The formidable conclusion of an incompetent expert remained in the case. It created confidence among the victims that Ranov was the killer...<...>Highly qualified experts - candidates of medical sciences Shirman and Konin - convincingly showed the fallacy of the young expert's conclusion.

14. Argument from silence- evidence derived from the silence of the opponent or other persons: what was silent about may not be in favor of the opponent or the fact was not known to him.

The prosecutor should have also said what was indisputably established: Berdnikov survived Turkina from the factory, did everything he could and had no right to, so that she left her job. Why did the prosecutor keep silent about this? After all, this should have caused the greatest anger of the accuser: a diligent worker is being rescued from the factory! Thunder! Brand! Bring down the accusation with all your might! But the accuser is silent. However, silence is not so mysterious. The more clearly Berdnikov's desire for Turkina to leave the factory is revealed, the less reason remains to accuse him of forcing cohabitation, using her official dependence. Indeed, with the departure of Turkina from the plant, her service dependence disappears, Berdnikov loses the only way impact on her

People are quick to believe either the obvious or the completely unbelievable. These well-known truths are quite often used in a dispute to convince people that they are right. But there are other similar arguments against which there is nothing to object to, so the opponent will still have to agree in any dispute with you. How to use them correctly to win in any ambiguous situation and convince anyone of anything when your opinion does not coincide with the opinion of the interlocutor?

Parts of Arguments

Any argument is two-part. The first is its unconditional basis: it is simply impossible to argue with it on the fact. The second can be logically substantiated, scientifically confirmed or logically tied to the basis of a general thought. How to convince anyone of anything? Use the base and tie what fits to it in the best way meaning to reinforce it.

For example, a mother tells her daughter not to put her fingers in the socket. The reason in this case is the fact that the mother is an authority for the girl. Secondly, the parent personally says not to do this, talking about an example from her childhood, which is an obvious link or provides basic knowledge about the effect of current on a person.

12 Arguments of Aristotle

There can be an infinite number of arguments, and they change depending on situations - as in the above example about mom and a socket, and even more can be given. But the arguments are few. Knowing the basics will help build a speech so that it becomes truly convincing and allows you to win in any dispute. Aristotle also brought out this golden dozen - we talk about all the main bases of any arguments. What is the most compelling?

What can be checked

In order to believe in the truth of any statement or statement, it is enough for a person to at least know that there is a possibility of verifying what was said. This minimum is quite enough for persuasion - banal laziness or lack of time most often interferes with checking. For example, you want to recommend someone to read good book. You can talk for a very long time about literary merits or famously twisted plot, or very briefly advise the interlocutor to see for himself. Even if your counterpart will not read the book anyway, he will most likely consider this book to be really good.

Unique

Name just one quality that characterizes a particular person, thing and phenomenon - and let it be unique, at least a little, but unlike all other analogues. The thinking of a modern Western person is arranged in such a way that we automatically tend to believe everything that carries any traits or qualities that differ from the usual. For example, a quote from the rarest ancient scroll will be more credible than the same information read in the yellow press.

Any pop or movie star, for example, at least somehow stands out from the rest - there is no talk of vocal abilities or the aesthetic side of music or appearance now. With the East, things are exactly the opposite - another argument is more suitable to convince the inhabitants of that hemisphere.

Habitual

Long-familiar and beloved things or people seem to us familiar and worthy of all trust - and for this reason, everything that looks like them automatically causes conviction in the truth and our sympathy and faith. For example, when meeting, both partners, as a rule, tend to emphasize their individuality and uniqueness by describing their merits, and at this time each of them subconsciously looks for the features of their beloved parents in each other.

This is what will ultimately resolve the issue of compatibility of a particular pair, and not at all unique skills and abilities. It is for this reason that in the West there are so many unusual and bright architectural structures, and in the countries of the East, traditions and things are so carefully preserved, erecting buildings of recognizable forms.

That which indicates regression

The grass used to be greener, the sky bluer, children more obedient, and the world simpler. These beliefs idealize the past. And now - prices are rising, the environment is deteriorating and in general the hair is turning gray. The idea of regression on any scale - from personal to global - is always very relevant as an argument in any dispute. This base can be further expanded as you wish.

That which confirms progress

The opposite belief is even more readily accepted by all. Any of us will readily agree with the idea, which will confirm our faith in progress and the inevitable onset of world peace. This basis is often used by politicians of any rank or leaders of any chain to convince voters of anything. It is human nature to believe in a bright future - remember, entire generations of our mothers and fathers worked real miracles in anticipation of the coming communism, where everything will be fine for everyone.

persuasive, arising from persuasive

Causal relationships at the simplest level are clear even to babies: here comes my mother, my main authority. So, now they will take me in their arms and feed me. The logical link "if - then" works almost always, and it is very convenient to use it in a dispute. Example: "If we are all reasonable people, then we will not ignore arguments that are logically proven." Or here's another: "If we are educated and reasonable people, then we will not take seriously everything that is written on the Internet." Or, finally, the last, to certainly convince: “If we already understood everything, then why give a third example of the obvious in a row?”.

Facts

The argument to the data is used very often - and just as often an endless number of over-interpretations, exaggerations and outright fakes are hung on it along the way, so they should be analyzed very carefully before being taken for granted unconditionally. For example: “Moscow is the capital of Russia, so the weekend will certainly be sunny.” The first is not subject to any doubt and is known to any child, but the second will not necessarily be exactly like that, but next to the base it looks very convincing.

Useful

This argument does its best to look fair - and, admittedly, it often succeeds. A simple example designed to convince businessmen to be honest: "Pay your taxes and sleep well." At first glance, it may seem that this is an appeal to the conscience of a businessman who certainly understands all the benefits of not having a headache from contacts with tax inspector. But in fact, of course, we are only talking about selfishness here - each of us thinks only about ourselves, and this is normal. Although paying taxes is actually very useful.

Normal

Within the framework of the norm, we usually try to put any phenomenon, thing or person with whom we have to deal or who need to be convinced of something. Naturally, the boundaries are very conditional and often changing, and everyone sets them independently. The social norm takes into service and defense of the norm a whole set of laws, customs, prescriptions and traditions - it is very convenient to rely on them when considering any issue. For example: “All women love to receive perfumes and flowers as a gift, so they will definitely like our perfume.” Convincing a man to make a purchase in this way is quite simple.

Confirmed by authority

Even nihilists, anarchists and others who rebel against traditional values and authorities, as a rule, have a certain leader whose opinion and words will not be subject to any doubt. Advertisers are very fond of resorting to this argument. For example, if Leonardo DiCaprio cheerfully announces that such and such a watch is the best in the world, a certain number of people will definitely believe him and buy exactly what he praised when it comes to choosing a brand.

Another example: “statements and quotes of great people” walking on social networks: it seems that some are ready to believe even absolutely utter nonsense, illiterately written, moreover, if they see the name of Faina Ranevskaya, Friedrich Nietzsche or Buddha Gautama in the signature.

Told by eyewitnesses

Represented true

We are what we think we are, and the brain willingly and often indulges in the free drawing of any enticing pictures and perspectives, if it is slightly stimulated and motivated to do so. Imaginative people don't exist, so the "imagine you can live here" argument in new house ads is very common and works quickly.