|A Quick Look at Three Argument Styles|
|By Joe Bouchard|
Differences of opinion are large part of the workplace today. By and large, most of us are not forced to engage in defending a position on a day-to-day basis. Of course, in corrections, some offenders excel at argument techniques that can knock the coolest staff member off their square.
Right is right. And there are many different parts of the truth. What I am addressing is when someone obstinately adheres to position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Three styles that prime arguers utilize are loud, persistent, and contrary.
Loud – There is nothing like volume to dominate an argument. For this type of antagonist, where quiet truth exists, loud arguments flourish. This tactic is like a sonic bulldozer, paving the way to a goal through vociferous force.
Persistent – Some people ask the same questions multiple times, stopping only when the answer they seek is obtained. If someone needs to hear that the sky is purple, they will continue to ask – even though the correct answer is obviously blue. It does not matter that the answer blue is consistently delivered. To those who use the persistence tactic, it is just a matter of wearing down the opposing party with an identical query.
Contrary – Sometimes, the point of contention is not really addressed. Those who use a contrary method simply negate all that is offered by the opposing party this is typically a purposeful juxtaposition meant to build the stone wall of opposition. In other words, this is argument for the sake of argument. To the contrarian, it's not about being right necessarily. It is about fueling antagonisms and perpetuating argument.
There's no question that almost all corrections veterans will encounter one or all of these types. It can be conceded that not all countermeasures will work all of the time. Are there ways beyond the direct order to disarm the argumentative? Here are some suggestions:
Visit the Joe Bouchard page
Other articles by Bouchard:
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT