Techniques for Effective Technical Discussions and Debate
Technical Discussion and Debate Techniques
Effective communication is crucial in technical fields. This document outlines various techniques for fostering productive discussions and debates, as well as strategies for sound argumentation.
Presence of Hearing: Frameworks for Information Delivery
These frameworks allow the public to reflect on a theme and form an opinion:
- Free Discussion: Requires only participants.
- Addressed Discussion: Involves participating partners and a coordinator. This format requires more formality.
Specific Discussion Techniques
- Simultaneous Dialogue or Whisper: A free theme is discussed to solve a problem or answer a pre-defined question. The topic should be specific.
- Colloquia: Spontaneous discussion among participants, where each person contributes and discusses their theories and those of others.
- Small Group Discussion: Maximum of 15 people. The discussion is informal and spontaneous but controlled by a coordinator who draws conclusions after 15 minutes, based on agreement or advice, which a designated person records.
- Forum: Many participants informally discuss a topic, with free participation for all attendees. A coordinator, separate from any symposium, manages the forum.
- Panel: A small group of experts converses with the audience on a specific, potentially controversial topic. A coordinator may be present.
- Debate: A formal discussion where two or more experts present opposing views on a controversial issue. The key characteristic is the controversy, and participants act as opponents. A coordinator controls the issue.
- Roundtable: A group of experts presents on a topic from different points of view, which need not be opposed but should be divergent. A coordinator summarizes the main ideas and invites a final symposium or forum where the audience can ask questions. This differs from a panel, which focuses solely on dialogue.
- Fishbowl: A simple and dynamic technique for dialogue and discussion in small or medium-sized mixed groups. The public is present but only offers opinions at certain stages.
Argumentation: Resolving Differences of Opinion
Argumentation aims to resolve differences of opinion. A “critical discussion” is a dialogue for resolving controversies, consisting of four stages:
- Confrontation Stage: The protagonist presents a point of view that is questioned by the antagonist.
- Opening Stage: The protagonist and antagonist decide to resolve the dispute through argument.
- Argumentation Stage: The protagonist defends their point of view, and the antagonist, if in doubt, asks for further arguments. In a mixed dispute, the antagonists must also defend their point of view. Arguments and counterarguments are presented.
- Closing Stage: Determines whether the dispute is resolved. The protagonist and antagonist may maintain new and different points of view. If the protagonist gives up, they may take the opposite point of view, amend their original view, or adopt a neutral one. If the antagonist desists, they must accept the protagonist’s point of view.
Principles of Sound Argumentation
- Use reasons, not emotional manipulation.
- Counter-attack arguments, not the person.
- Use clear language and avoid misunderstandings.
Evaluating Arguments: Identifying Defects
A strong argument should meet the following criteria:
- Acceptability: Arguments should be credible, readily acceptable, and based on solid evidence.
- Relevance: Arguments must be consistent with the point of view.
- Sufficiency: The number of arguments should be sufficient to defend the point of view.
Fallacies: Errors in Argumentation
Fallacies are voluntary or involuntary errors in argumentation. Examples include:
- Ambiguity: Using expressions in one context with different meanings.
- False Premises: Building on false facts.
- Contradictory Premises: Using affirmations that are incompatible with other supporting statements.
- Hasty Generalization: Making a generalization based on insufficient evidence.
- Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): Using the same principle being argued as the basis for the argument; repeating the same idea with different words.
- Stereotypes: Characterizing a group of people based on extreme cases.
- Complex Question: Using questions that obscure the response to an unasked question.