If you want to convince a person to something, he must believe, and in order to believe, he must see what you offer him as truth. Therefore, the art of dispute, to prove your right and truth, to make the client believe in it is very important, even crucial.

The art of dispute, in such a way as to keep the appearance of being right, even when you are not right (people like to always be right, they don’t like to be wrong), by permitted or forbidden means.

Therefore, the art of successful litigation finds its place in successful selling. All the statements made (in conversations, negotiations) and unspoken (what the client thinks and feels) for not taking advantage of the offer are a dispute that must be refuted in such a way that he can take advantage of the offer. Any doubts, reservations or objections should be refuted, whether in talks, negotiations or offers. Because he does not buy, because he has his reasons, his truth and beliefs that should be refuted, perhaps not destructively, but to the extent that he can achieve his goal.

Method 1: Generalization.

Extend the opponent’s statement beyond its natural limit, treat it in a general manner and attack it in the broadest sense and treat it with exaggeration. Respond by expanding your opponent’s speech, delve into the details and present it in a concrete way

In other words, when you see that the opponent answers vaguely, expand his speech in detail, the more specific your speech will be, the less room for attacks you leave for the opponent, it is possible that he will have nothing to say and you will win the dispute.

It is important to stick to what is actually being argued when replying, the opponent, noticing a specific extended statement, may surrender and say that you are right, because you explained everything clearly and concretely.

Method 2: Don’t let him discover what game you pulled him into.

Don’t let your opponent discover your true purpose until you provide them with the necessary premises, that is, information, facts and evidence. Because if he finds out, he will be able to use various tricks against you. If it is doubtful that the opponent will agree to it, we put forward small artillery, small information, facts and try to get him to accept them. If he accepts smaller premises / facts, he may also accept the final position. It’s important that he doesn’t discover what game we’re playing.

Method 3: Applying the wrong theorem.

The use of an erroneous statement that is wrong, but correct with the way of thinking of a person (his beliefs, beliefs, etc.) is based on what the opponent believes to be true or does not recognize them to be correct.

We do not convince him of our truth, we have discussions in the field as to what he believes and considers true, even when it is wrong.

Debunking erroneous claims with other erroneous claims which he nevertheless considers correct. For since you are dealing with a specific person, you must apply that person’s mindset.

Method 4: Make your opponent angry.

He is then unable to reason correctly and see to his benefits. When negative emotions enter, actual judgment is obscured by them. There are many ways to provoke anger, e.g. overt unfair treatment, harassment, impudent behavior.

Method 5: A brazen maneuver.

If our opponent is stupid or shy, we can use our confidence and add more or less insolence to it and simply talk the opponent through, even if he answered negatively to most of the questions. It is important that the last answer is positive. You must be talkative to use this method.

Method 6: Avoid a specific answer when you don’t know it

If, on the other hand, the opponent demands that we present an argument against his claim, and we have no specific arguments, we must move to the zone of generalities and refute them one by one. It’s like running away from an answer and grabbing other points to come up with a general answer.

We go to the general zone, and we refute these generalities, but we do not give specific arguments, although in the meantime, when discussing generalities, it may happen that we find a specific argument refuting the opponent’s claims.

Method 7: We make our conclusion and present it to the opponent as something we have agreed.

If during the conversation we have agreed with the opponent most of the issues, details, topics, and disputes, we do not ask him about the final conclusion, we draw this conclusion ourselves and present it to him as something that we have agreed together. Even if there are one or two smaller things that we have not covered but are not very relevant, we present our conclusion anyway.

This is the inference that results from the discussion we are having, at the end of the discussion we present our conclusion and the opponent agrees with it, because it results from our discussion.

Method 8: Refusal, a strong argument that will force the opponent not to force us to agree to something.

If the opponent asks us to agree to something that has a direct impact on the dispute, we refuse by giving a strong argument, fact, evidence. At the same time, depriving the opponent of the best argument, not to persuade us further.

Method 9: Teasing your opponent with your resistance.

Resistance and squabbles exaggerate a person and cause frustration, tension and stress, depending on how much the opponent pushes and we resist. Irritating the opponent with his resistance, so that in his assertion, which is perhaps right, he goes beyond the limits of truth. We must be vigilant and catch when he has crossed this border. Then we can counter his exaggerated statement, which may give the impression that we are also refuting the original claim. That is, this is the claim that the adversary made the first before he decided to go beyond the limits of the truth.

Method 10: Fabricating consequences.

Specially deliberate false inferences and misrepresentations of the opponent’s statements, formulated to lead to contradictions with the opponent’s claim, which contradict the truths and what he says So that his words contradict themselves.

Method 11: A weak point in reasoning and evoking visible anger.

If the opponent gets angry with some argument, special emphasis should be placed on this argument. This is a convenient point for us when the opponent gets angry, loses control then, but also because his weak point of reasoning has been visibly touched, it will probably be possible to do more harm to him than is shown today.

Method 12: Diversion.

If we start to lose, we can use a diversion, we suddenly start talking about something completely different, as if it belonged to the thing and was the opposite argument. This can be done in two ways:

1.This one is definitely better and the opponent will probably not notice that we are running away from the topic, because we change the topic to another, but we are still in the circle of a disputed discussion, we do not change the topic to a completely different one, we come to discuss another issue related to the topic of the dispute.

2. Cheeky way. It concerns only the argument of a personal nature, or we completely change the topic to a completely different one. This one is usually used for lack of something better. Don’t be distracted when you have victory in your hands.

Method 13: Support authority.

When people hold onto some authority, they are like sheep following their ram wherever it leads them. It is very strange how the public’s opinion is of great importance to them.

Ordinary people have many authorities, for uneducated people, anyone who has learned in any profession can be an authority.

– one can back up the claim with some authority which they follow

– quote someone famous, even make up a quote, stating that you don’t remember the author

– Quote a Bible, scripture or words from other religions

– research backed by real people and serious institutions

– real real-life examples, the existence of which is easy to check and therefore easy to believe

– in disputes with ordinary people, social insight can be used as an authority

– the authority of the law drawn up by the country

There is no view so absurd that people would not accept as their own, as long as they can be persuaded that it has been accepted by the general public. – Aristotle

Method 14: Correct in theory, false in practice.

A theorem presupposes something that is impossible, that is correct in theory, must guess in practice, if it does not, there must be some error in theory, something that has been overlooked or not taken into account. Something is therefore false in theory.

If we prove to the opponent that in practice his theory is wrong, we will also refute his theorem, his theory, thus proving that it is false.

Method 15: Attacking the enemy’s weak point.

Sometimes, someone shirks from further talking on a topic, has nothing more to say, or he doesn’t want to talk to us, or it’s his weak point that we’ve come across.

If he runs away and we attack this weak point, we increase the chance of winning because the opponent may not be able to defend this weak point for various reasons and reasons.

If we notice that the opponent does not give a direct answer or information to a question or argument, but tries to avoid it by asking, by an indirect answer, or by something that does not belong to the topic of discussion and begins to move in a different direction, this could be a sign that we’ve come across a weak point of it.

This weak point should be attacked and not let go, we may not yet see what the weak point we have hit is, but each attack will give us more information.

Method 16: Inappropriate evidence for a just cause.

If the opponent’s case is right, but fortunately for us, he chose the wrong proof to prove his claim, then we can easily refute this proof. In refuting the evidence, we are also slowly refuting the opponent’s thesis itself. Because if the evidence can be disproved, so is the whole proposition.

If the advocate wants to justify a good case (i.e. a good case, where he should win), with a paragraph that is not appropriate for him, and the correct one does not come to his mind, he will lose, because the defense attorney will reject the evidence. Find appropriate and appropriate evidence for your case that will be difficult or even impossible to dispute.

What the attacked person should do:

No wound hurts more than a wound inflicted by vanity. If we do not attack the opponent who offends us, and then calmly and with light humor show that he is wrong and false, then it irritates him more than some rude, offensive expression. So what to do?

– Cold blood, keeping calm and complete composure puts us in a winning position. We ignore his offensive words or respond to him in such a way as to effectively close the opponent’s mouth while remaining calm and composed.

– Not to argue with the first, but with those who we know has enough sense not to make such absurdities

– Discuss using arguments, not overbearing statements

– One should listen to these arguments and penetrate them

– You should discuss with people who appreciate the truth, like to hear the right arguments also from the opponent’s lips and are fair enough to be able to bear the awareness that they are wrong if the truth is on the other side

-Both participants should be more or less equal in terms of intelligence and erudition

If he lacks erudition (reading and extensive knowledge), he will not understand everything

If he lacks intelligence, it will lead him to bitterness, which will lead to dishonesty and deception, and eventually to rudeness and offense.

The article is a small part of my notes and entries from the book ‚Artur Schopenhauer – Erystyka, or the art of dispute’. The knowledge implemented after reading this book will be useful both in everyday matters and in the art of selling and in many other areas of life.