1. Despicere (look down — lat.), or the first reception. It consists in the fact that the participant in the dispute must make the opponent feel his intellectual and moral superiority, in other words, make it clear that the opponent is a limited person, weak-minded, a graphomaniac, a talker, a perfect zero, an inflated value, an epigone, an illiterate swindler, a bast shoe, a chaff, a bastard and, in general, a subject unworthy of being talked to.
2. Reception of the second, or Termini (terminology — lat.). This technique consists in the use of special polemical turns. If you write, for example, that Mr. X, in your opinion, is wrong about something, then Mr. X will answer that you «treacherously attacked him.» Similarly, they say «spit» instead of «protests», «slander» instead of «notes», «sling mud» instead of «criticize», and so on. Even if you were an unusually quiet and harmless person, like a lamb, with the help of such expressions you will be visually depicted as a subject irritable, extravagant, irresponsible and somewhat deranged.
3. The third technique is known as Caput canis (here: to attribute bad qualities — lat.). It is in the art to use only such expressions that can create only a negative opinion about the beaten opponent. If you are circumspect, you can be called a coward; you are witty — they will say that you claim to be witty; you are inclined to simple and concrete arguments — you can declare that you are mediocre and trivial; you have a penchant for abstract arguments — it is advantageous to present you as an abstruse scholastic, and so on.
4. Non habet (here: to ascertain the absence — lat.), or the fourth reception. If you are a serious scientist, you can easily be defeated by the third trick, by saying that you are slow-witted, a garrulous moralist, an abstract theorist, or something like that. But you can be destroyed by resorting to the Non alphabet technique. We can say that you lack subtle wit, immediacy of feelings and intuitive fantasy. If you turn out to be just a direct person with a subtle intuition, you can be struck down by the assertion that you lack firm principles, depth of conviction and, in general, moral responsibility. If you are rational, then you are good for nothing, because you are deprived of deep feelings, if you have them, then you are just a rag, because you lack higher rational principles. Your true properties do not matter — you need to find what is not given to you, and trample you into the dirt, starting from it.
5. The fifth technique is called Negare (here: to deny existence — lat.) and consists in a simple denial of everything that is yours, everything that is inherent in you. If you are, for example, a pundit, then you can ignore this fact and say that you are a superficial talker, windbag and amateur. If you have insisted for ten years that (let’s say) you believe in damn grandma or Edison, then in the eleventh year you can be declared in polemic that you have never risen to a positive belief in the existence of damn grandma or Thomas Alva Edison. And this will do, because the uninitiated reader does not know anything about you, and the initiated one experiences a feeling of gloating from the consciousness that you are denying the obvious.
6. Imago (here: substitution — lat.) — the sixth technique. It consists in the fact that the reader is given some unimaginable stuffed animal that has nothing to do with the real enemy, after which this fictional enemy is destroyed. For example, thoughts are refuted that never occurred to the enemy and which, of course, he never expressed; they show him that he is a blockhead and deeply mistaken, citing as examples really stupid and erroneous theses, which, however, do not belong to him.
7. Pugna (beating — lat.) — a technique related to the previous one. It is based on the fact that the opponent or the concept he defends is given a false name, after which the entire controversy is conducted against this arbitrarily taken term. This technique is used most often in the so-called principled polemics. The enemy is accused of some obscene «ism» and then dealt with this «ism».
8. Ulises (Ulysses (Odysseus) — a symbol of cunning — lat.) — the eighth technique. The main thing in it is to evade and speak not on the merits of the issue. Thanks to this, the controversy is profitably enlivened, weak positions are masked, and the entire dispute becomes endless. This is also called «wearing down the opponent».
9. Testimonia (testimony — lat.). This technique is based on the fact that it is sometimes convenient to use a reference to an authority (whatever you like), for example, to state — «Pantagruel also spoke» or «as Treitschke proved». With a certain erudition, for each case, you can find some quote that will kill the enemy on the spot.
10. Quousque … (until … — lat.) The reception is similar to the previous one and differs only in the absence of a direct reference to authority. They just say, “This has been rejected for a long time,” or “This is already a passed stage,” or “Any child knows,” and so on. Against what has been refuted in this way, no new arguments are required.
11. Impossibile (here: must not be allowed — lat.). Do not allow the enemy to be right about anything. It is worth recognizing even a grain of reason and truth behind him — the whole controversy is lost.
12. Jubilare (to triumph — lat.). This is one of the most important tricks, and it consists in the fact that the battlefield must always be left with the appearance of a winner.