From the author: We continue the conversation about the features of argumentation - I invite you to discuss Hello, friends! Our conversation about one of the most interesting genres of oratory - persuasive speech - continues. In the last issue, we found out how a speaker's speech can be influenced by the degree of public disagreement with his position. Today we will deal with the details of this disagreement. “What details are we talking about? What is there to deal with if these (insert the correct word) are fundamentally wrong?”, you may say. And most likely you will be wrong. Disagreements between opponents can be of different natures. And, before arguing with reason, we need to understand this nature. Collision points. So, if we want to achieve the goal with greater probability and less effort, it is important to start with the right choice of the point of their application. It turns out that if we take a closer look at the position we oppose, it turns out that we are most often not dealing with a solid wall of wrongness. In this position there are key points of disagreement between the speaker and the audience or opponent - points of collision. Identifying these points and targeting them can make our argument truly convincing and our speech successful. Experts talk about three main types of disagreements and, accordingly, three types of collision points: 1. Facts: Arguments over facts are designed to convince listeners of what is and what is not, what happened and what never happened. Some facts may be completely indisputable and obvious (for example, “today is Tuesday”), while the recognition of others may require serious evidence - like, say, the fact of committing a crime in criminal law. Scientific disputes also often arise over the proof or refutation of certain facts - whether Hicks' bason exists, whether people descended from monkeys, whether American astronauts actually walked on the Moon. Accordingly, great discoveries in science are the establishment or substantiation of certain facts. - But is this a fact? - No, this is not a fact. - This is not a fact?! - No, this is not a fact. This is much more than a fact. This is how it really happened. Film “The Same Munchausen”2. Procedures. In procedural debates, people decide what they should do, what actions to take (for example, in connection with certain facts). The difficulty in resolving such disagreements is that we are trying to anticipate (and “sell” to the public) the consequences of these actions. That is, in fact, we are trying to predict the future - and the degree of uncertainty in such a thankless task, of course, is much higher. In addition, any actions to solve some problems lead to the emergence of others. And it is impossible to do what will be good for everyone - someone will always remain dissatisfied. On the one hand, this will give such and such advantages, on the other hand (in English literally - “on the other hand”) – such and such disadvantages. “Give me a one-armed economist!” Mr. Truman, US President 1945 – 1953.3. Values ​​When discussing values, people aim to determine what is good and what is bad, what is appropriate and what is not, what is considered valuable and what is thrown away. And resolving such issues becomes especially difficult, because many judgments in these areas are based not on specific facts, but on very unstable matters - public opinion, beliefs, moral and religious norms, cultural and ethical characteristics of various social groups. Discussions about allowing or prohibiting abortion, drawing the line between erotica and pornography, debates about the beauty and ugliness of modern art - these are all disputes, first of all, about values. The matchmaking scene aroused the greatest interest in the audience. At that moment, when Agafya Tikhonovna began to descend on a wire stretched across the entire hall, the terrible orchestra of Kh. Ivanov made such a noise that from him alone Agafya Tikhonovna should have fallen into the audience. But Agafya behaved perfectly on stage. She was wearing flesh-colored tights and a man's bowler hat. Balancing green.