Objective

To assert one’s own viewpoint and refute the opponent’s argument, aiming for a constructive outcome.

To find faults in the opponent’s argument without necessarily proposing an alternative view.

Approach

Dual-focused: presents a positive proposition while also addressing and contradicting the opponent’s viewpoint.

Critical and negative: focuses solely on discrediting the opponent’s argument without a constructive counter-proposal.

Outcome Orientation

Seeks to establish the superiority of one’s own argument and reach a conclusion or mutual understanding.

Primarily aims at undermining the opponent’s position, not necessarily leading to a constructive conclusion or mutual understanding.

Presence of a Positive Stance

Yes, involves stating one’s own view clearly in addition to critiquing the opponent’s view.

No, lacks a positive stance from the participant engaging in Vitanda, focusing instead on critiquing the opponent’s viewpoint.

Strategic Focus

Balanced between defense and offense, promoting a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

Defensive, emphasizing the identification and exposure of flaws in the opponent’s arguments.

Role in Discussion

Contributes to the constructive development of knowledge by encouraging critical thinking and exploration of ideas.

Serves as a method for testing the robustness of arguments and ensuring that only the most tenable positions withstand scrutiny.

Intellectual Skillset Emphasized

Requires knowledge assertion, logical reasoning, and the ability to synthesize and present coherent arguments.

Demands sharp analytical skills, quick identification of logical fallacies, and a keen understanding of the subject to challenge views.

Cultural and Educational Role

Encourages a comprehensive debate culture, fostering skills in argumentation and presentation of ideas.

Promotes intellectual rigor and critical thinking, preparing individuals for robust defense of their views against criticism.

Negotiations

Contract negotiations

Using rhetoric and selective evidence to secure favourable terms

Challenging the opponent’s position without offering alternatives

Meetings

Project or strategy meetings where progress is hindered by argumentation

Employing tactics to sway opinions or gain support

Criticizing proposals without offering constructive alternatives

Performance Reviews

Evaluation sessions where feedback may be influenced by argumentative tactics

Justifying ratings or promotions with selective evidence

Highlighting flaws or inconsistencies in performance feedback

Decision-making Processes

Discussions about strategic decisions or resource allocation

Using persuasive techniques to gain support for preferred options

Resisting change by focusing on potential risks or drawbacks

Conflict Resolution

Resolving conflicts between team members or departments

Using tactics to deflect responsibility or minimize impact

Criticizing actions or decisions without seeking resolution

Sales Presentations

Pitches or meetings where sales professionals aim to persuade clients

Exaggerating benefits or downplaying drawbacks of products

Challenging client objections without addressing concerns

Budgeting Discussions

Planning sessions where department heads vie for resources

Justifying budget requests with persuasive arguments

Opposing budget allocations without proposing alternatives

Change Management

Implementing organizational changes

Encountering resistance from stakeholders to maintain status quo

Criticizing proposed changes without suggesting alternatives

Performance Improvement

Addressing performance issues with employees

Deflecting responsibility or minimizing impact of feedback

Resisting feedback by highlighting flaws without improvement plan

Strategic Planning

Developing strategic plans or initiatives

Encountering resistance from stakeholders to embrace change

Challenging strategic initiatives without proposing alternatives