How to win an argument and know when to back down

Paul Graham is an American entrepreneur and business angel who became familiar to a wider audience after publishing a series of bold essays. One of the most famous works by Paul Graham is How to Disagree, written in 2005. In this essay, the author has provided a hierarchy of arguments in a dispute that helps to understand whether it can be won and whether it is worth continuing at all.

I want to introduce you to the main steps of Graham's pyramid and tell you how they can help you benefit from any controversy.

1. Direct insults

Example: "You are a complete idiot!"
Purpose of use: provoking emotions.

When a person insults you instead of arguing in favor of their point of view, it means that their goal is to evoke responses in you. He has no proof of the rightness on the indicated issue, and now he is trying to drag you into the abyss of misunderstanding.

There is no point in discussing behavior strategies in this case. Just do your best to avoid getting into such an argument.

2. Transition to personalities

Example: "Only a redneck like you would make such arguments."
Purpose of use: changing the theme.

People at the second stage of the pyramid in disputes turn to the personal characteristics of the person with whom they are arguing: his social status, gender, appearance, and so on. Unfortunately, this way of conducting a dialogue has become especially dangerous with the advent of social networks, where it is easy to find information about the interlocutor and make it an object of discussion.

The reason for the transition to personalities is similar to the previous paragraph. The person has no other arguments, and he is trying to transfer the topic to another plane, pointing out your features as disadvantages. Experienced speakers simply acknowledge the imperfection of their personality and continue the dialogue without being confused.

However, it is better for a novice debater to immediately end the conversation and leave the opponent alone with his words.

3. Complaints about the tone of the dialogue

Example: “Don't raise your voice at me! How are you talking to me!"
Purpose of use: an attempt to end the dispute, so as not to lose.

A tone complaint means paying close attention to how you speak or write, your terminology, and your phrases. And since this perception is subjective, it will be difficult to continue the dialogue with such a person. What he actually counts on.

This technique suggests that the person was cornered, but he does not want to admit that he is wrong. Unlike the previous two steps, this one gives you a chance to win the argument, or at least reduce it to a compromise. To do this, accept subjective complaints and state your arguments consistently.

In the face of the facts, the opponent will have nowhere to run.

4. Bickering

Example: “What kind of nonsense? You didn't understand anything at all! So, what is next?"
Purpose of use: an attempt to end the dispute in a draw.

The bickering strategy is used by those who understand that their battle has already been lost, but if they confuse the opponent, then it will be possible to offer a draw.

To do this, they use empty arguments, which may not be relevant at all to the topic of the conversation. They simply ignore your arguments. To describe such a situation, a well-known phrase is suitable - "a conversation between a deaf and a dumb".

If you want to win the argument at the bickering stage, regularly return to the topic of discussion and persuade your opponent to argue for your conclusions.

5. Counter-argument

Example: “But my mother (boss, friend, famous actor) says something completely different! I did everything differently from what you say, and I succeeded!"
Purpose of use: an attempt at constructive dialogue.

Using counterarguments is the first sign that the other person wants to negotiate. The problem is that people often do not take into account the views and experiences of the other person.

A person gets a positive result in one situation and takes this as a standard. Only it may turn out that in this discussion his experience is not applicable.

The main rule when it comes to counterarguments is to let the person talk. First, there may be a grain of truth in his words. Secondly, this way you will establish contact with him and will be able to convey your ideas.

6. Refutation in essence

Example: “You say this is x and this is y. And that's why…"
Purpose of use: search for truth, exchange of knowledge and experience.

The main difference from the counter-argument strategy is that here you and your interlocutor are on the same wavelength. The arguments that you both give are related to the same topic, and through them you mutually enrich each other's knowledge.

If you're using substantive rebuttal, don't be afraid to admit that you agree with some of the other person's arguments. He will definitely do the same if he has all the signs of a healthy discussion. As a result of such a dialogue, you can also remain unconvinced. In this case, both of you will be heard and learn something new about the subject of discussion.

7. Refutation in its purest form

Example: "Here are the facts that prove otherwise."
Purpose of use: objective evidence.

Just don't think that proof is about throwing facts in your face. Those who use the last rung of Graham's pyramid strategy do not just cite facts as arguments. This dialogue has three features.

First, the interlocutors treat each other with respect, allowing them to express their point of view.
Secondly, everyone puts forward arguments not head-on, but consistently, so that they do not look like an accusation of stupidity.
Third, they are sincerely interested in the search for objective truth and therefore are grateful for the communication, even if they turned out to be wrong.

One should strive for such discussions, and for this one should work both on the argumentation and on the culture of communication.

Winning an argument does not mean defeating or humiliating your opponent. To win is to enrich yourself by understanding the other person's point of view.

When discussing any issue, strive to speak about the issue, and not about the person with whom you are discussing it. This simple rule is enough to improve the quality of the discussion. And then - use the memo from this article and move along the Graham pyramid only up.