Patience, sharp retorts and quick reactions can drive those who try to argue with Marshall Holonia – especially not necessarily politely – to the point of insanity. However, let's not stop at the politician, because the time will come to evaluate his effectiveness. Especially since before Simon Hollowny there was another master of dispute from whom we can learn a lot. Here are some of its rules.
Do you want to read naTemat.pl without ads and customize the portal? Create your naTemat account
To be honest, probably everyone wanted him to take down his opponents like this, with calmness and a smile, and not with a grimace of stubbornness. If you belong to this group, we have good news.
Although innate inclination, sharp mind and wisdom will certainly not intervene here, there are rules that will help you dominate the discussion and, most importantly, you can learn.
These principles were developed, tested and written long ago by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. We are talking about eristics, that is, the art of arguing.
I really appreciate your comments and observations, but I also note that they are becoming a bit monothematic from my perspective. I encourage you to be more original and intelligent. You must also be able to take offense.
How to win a debate?
Argumentum ad personam – an attack on the opponent
This is where we begin, although in Schopenhauer's case it is the last method, as it should probably be resorted to finally when we feel that our defeat is approaching (though it would be better not to use it at all).
It has nothing to do with rational arguments. It is harmful and has little to do with civil discussion, but…politicians use it very often. And although it can be used skillfully, in a slightly disguised way, a large number of parliamentarians prefer the crude version.
It is about attacking the interlocutor, belittling him, mocking him, directly attacking him. This is, for example, what Przemysław Čarnek tried to play when he called Marshal Holonia a revolving marshal.
These more subtle options include highlighting the opponent's little experience in the matter at hand.
How can you handle this? You can ask the interlocutor to specify what he means and let him explain in detail what the problem is for him. You can also use irony to show the absurdity of the attack and your superiority by showing indifference to the charges, because we're not going to engage in a discussion at that level, are we?
subtle twist (fool game)
In this way, we move smoothly from what – it seems – Shimon Holavnia He has perfect self-distancing and a wry sense of humor.
Even if we make a mistake, we can admit it, but in an orderly and cheerful way. By joking about ourselves, we take the argument out of the hands of the interlocutor – he cannot use our discredit.
example? When Shimon Holownia made a mistake and called continuation instead of continuing, that woke up the opposition and he was quickly out of the situation.
– Sometimes the word “process” comes to my mind in such a way that I can't help myself – he concluded.
On the other hand, the author of “Eristics” presented the possibility of using subtle irony for his own incompetence, while suggesting the stupidity of someone else's statement: “What you are saying is beyond my weak understanding, I could not understand it.”
An angry opponent
A calm, composed interlocutor versus an angry person with clenched fists or waving hands and emotional slogans. Which of these two is the winner? The question is, of course, rhetorical.
He who can keep his nerves under control is most likely to win. Those who do not know this are unlikely to be able to score accurately and use clever techniques.
So how can you anger your opponent and throw him off balance? Of course, you can do it with insolence, but I call it rudeness. Therefore, it is better to do it with a smile, politely.
It is worth recalling the scenes from the rostrum of the Parliament, when MPs Suski, Blaszczak or Macierewicz waved their hands at Holonia and tried to insult him. For example, compared to Jaruzelski.
Marshall's reaction? Again – self-control. Calmness and retorts, funny commentary and even agreement on terms that send right-wing politicians into a frenzy.
– You act like the speaker of the Polish People's Republic of the Sejm – he said Deputy Suski to Marshall. – You can insult me, I don't mind. You have already compared me to Yaruzelski, I am waiting for you to compare me again Hitler – answered the speaker of the lower chamber.
A triumphal announcement
Arthur Schopenhauer himself claimed that it was a cheeky trick that also required… a loud voice. Even though the other side of the discussion contradicts our expectations, contradicts our thesis, even though their statements do not indicate that we are right, we still claim success.
Change topic
If you feel that the discussion is not going your way, if your opponent “takes up an argument to beat us, we must not allow him to follow through.”
We change the subject, we touch on the issue at hand, we divert attention from the topic that seemed to tip the scales of victory to the other side. You have to be careful and do it sooner rather than waiting for the last minute. We have to be careful too.
Argumnetum ad auditores
Addressing the audience instead of the opponent. Let's give an example right away, because it is not difficult, especially in this period of the Sejm's mandate, when discussions in the session hall are very popular.
Let's be honest – you have to be careful with populism here, but politicians are quite prone to it. It's about “appealing to listeners' tastes and preferences” to gain their sympathy.
“Winning the audience aims to put pressure on the opponent who will not have the courage to challenge the opinion of the audience,” explained the philosopher.
Generalization
When using this technique, you must use an argument that can be extended and generalized. The more general a statement is, the easier it is to attack it and discredit its meaning.
Kotarbinski technique
Another philosopher who also dealt with dispute techniques should not be missed in the discussion. We are talking about Polish Tadeusz Kotarbinski.
Kotarbinski argued that we can take a better position in a conversation if we speak last, first getting to know what the other party has to say.
His opinion is also worth taking the initiative from the beginning and conducting the exchange of opinions in such a way that the conversation goes in the direction corresponding to our reasoning.
Eristics, or how to consider
In eristics, it doesn't matter (unfortunately) whether you are right or wrong. Logical and persuasive argumentation is important, and this will certainly allow us to have the advantage that it is all about.
Arthur Schopenhauer gives 38 ways, tricks and tactics to counter the arguments of the opponent. Not all of them are honest, but they are worth getting to know in order to deal with those who want to win by playing dirty.
Moreover, a person who spins, deceives, arranges, cheats, ie. Behaving unethically, may claim success, but it will be temporary and obvious. Even if he wins one particular discussion, he loses credibility by using unscrupulous techniques that others find difficult.
Also read: https://natemat.pl/529894,dryjanska-holownia-odbiera-powage-sejmowi-to-chyba-zart