Changes

Vitanda is generally described as a destructive type of argument or squabbling that descends to the level of quarrel and trickery. Here, the sole aim of each participant is not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. Therefore, the debater who employs Vitanda, known as a Vaitandika, is basically a refuter.

Vitanda is generally described as a destructive type of argument or squabbling that descends to the level of quarrel and trickery. Here, the sole aim of each participant is not only to inflict defeat on the opponent but also to demolish and humiliate him. Therefore, the debater who employs Vitanda, known as a Vaitandika, is basically a refuter.

* He relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says.  

* He relentlessly goes on refuting whatever the proponent says.  

* He is aggressive and goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis. In fact, it is said that, he has no thesis of his own – either to put forward or to defend.

* He is aggressive and goes on picking holes in the rival’s arguments and destabilizes his position, without any attempt to offer an alternate thesis.  

* He might sometimes, pick up a thesis just for argument’s sake, even though he may have no faith in the truth of his own argument.  

* He may at times, pick up the opponent’s thesis (though he himself might not believe in it) and argue in its favor just to demonstrate that the opponent is not doing a ‘good job’. And rebuke him saying that the thesis itself might not be as bad as the opponent is making it out to be due to his arguments. By that, he tries to effectively undermine the credibility of the opponent and demonstrate to him that he is neither competent nor qualified to discuss the subtleties of the logic.  

* He may also, pick up the opponent’s thesis (though he himself might not believe in it) and argue in its favor just to demonstrate that the opponent is not doing a ‘good job’. And rebuke him saying that the thesis itself might not be as bad as the opponent is making it out to be due to his arguments. By that, he tries to effectively undermine the credibility of the opponent and demonstrate to him that he is neither competent nor qualified to discuss the subtleties of logic.  

* He makes it a point to disagree with the other, no matter what the other says. It is a way of saying, 'You are wrong, not because your statement by itself is wrong. It is wrong because you said it.'  

* He makes it a point to disagree with the other, no matter what the other says. It is a way of saying, 'You are wrong, not because your statement by itself is wrong. It is wrong because you said it.'  

In other words, the debater here, tries to ensure his victory simply by refuting or demolishing the thesis put forward by the other side; by browbeating, misleading or ridiculing the opponent. The whole purpose of the exercise seems to be to prove the opponent wrong and incompetent, and to humiliate him. Therefore, the major part of Vitanda is spent in denying the opponent’s views, in discrediting him or in quarreling. Thus, there is no place for either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in such type of debate.<ref name=":3" /> In that sense, Vitanda is some what peculiar.<ref name=":1" /> Hence, Nyaya-Sutra describes Vitanda as,<blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /> ''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>This definition of Vitanda becomes clearer as the difference between Jalpa and Vitanda are enumerated.

In other words, the debater here, tries to ensure his victory simply by refuting or demolishing the thesis put forward by the other side; by browbeating, misleading or ridiculing the opponent. The whole purpose of the exercise seems to be to prove the opponent wrong and incompetent, and to humiliate him. Therefore, the major part of Vitanda is spent in denying the opponent’s views, in discrediting him or in quarreling. Thus, there is no place for either ‘valid knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in such type of debate.<ref name=":3" /> In that sense, Vitanda is some what peculiar.<ref name=":1" /> Hence, Nyaya-Sutra describes Vitanda as,<blockquote>सः प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनः वितण्डा ।।१.२.३।।<ref name=":6" /> ''saḥ pratipakṣasthāpanāhīnaḥ vitaṇḍā ।।1.2.3।।''</blockquote>This definition of Vitanda becomes clearer as the difference between Jalpa and Vitanda are enumerated.

It is mentioned here that the Wrangler does not establish the view (that which he himself holds), but only goes on to criticize the other person. Hence, it seems as though a disputation without a counter conception is Vitanda. However, according to Tatparya Tika, when the wrangler confines himself to merely criticizing the opponent's view, he does so with the idea that when the opponent's view has been rejected as wrong, it would follow as a necessary consequence that his own view is right, so he does have a view of this own; but it is stated in wrangling, only in the form of the attack on the other view, this criticism, being figuratively spoken of as his 'view'. So, the meaning is that though the wrangler has a view of his own, yet he does not make any attempt at establishing it, apart from the attack that he directs against the other view. Hence, it is only right to speak of there being no establishing of his own view but it would be wrong to say that there is no other view.<ref name=":4" />

It is mentioned here that the Wrangler does not establish the view (that which he himself holds), but only goes on to criticize the other person. Hence, it seems as though a disputation without a counter conception is Vitanda. However, according to Tatparya Tika, when the wrangler confines himself to merely criticizing the opponent's view, he does so with the idea that when the opponent's view has been rejected as wrong, it would follow as a necessary consequence that his own view is right, so he does have a view of this own; but it is stated in wrangling, only in the form of the attack on the other view, this criticism, being figuratively spoken of as his 'view'. So, the meaning is that though the wrangler has a view of his own, yet he does not make any attempt at establishing it, apart from the attack that he directs against the other view. Hence, it is only right to speak of there being no establishing of his own view but it would be wrong to say that there is no other view.<ref name=":4" />

Also, both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead the opponent by fallacies (hetvabhasa), attack the opponents statement by willful misrepresentation (Chala) and ill-timed rejoinders (Atita-kala), etc. He tries to effectively silence the opponent, though what he says might be irrational or illogical. In fact, it is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. Thus, ethereal values such as truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here. Therefore, in terms of merit, Vitanda is rated inferior to Jalpa.<ref name=":3" />  

Also, both the participants in a Vitanda are prepared to resort to mean tactics in order to mislead the opponent by fallacies (hetvabhasa), attack the opponents statement by willful misrepresentation (Chala) and ill-timed rejoinders (Atita-kala), etc. The participants try to effectively silence the opponent, though what they themselves say might be irrational or illogical. In fact, it is virtually akin to a ‘no-holds-barred’ sort of street fight. Thus, ethereal values such as truth, honesty, mutual respect and such others are conspicuously absent here. Therefore, in terms of merit, Vitanda is rated inferior to Jalpa.<ref name=":3" />  

==== Role of a Madhyastha ====

==== Role of a Madhyastha ====

In a Vitanda, where both the parties employ similar tactics, the debate would invariably get noisy and ugly. The Madhyastha or the Judge plays a crucial role in regulating a Vitanda. He has the hard and unenviable task of not merely controlling the two warring debaters and their noisy supporters, but also to rule on  

In a Vitanda, where both the parties employ similar tactics, the debate would invariably get noisy and ugly. The Madhyastha or the Judge plays a crucial role in regulating a Vitanda. He has the hard and unenviable task of not merely controlling the two warring debaters and their noisy supporters, but also to rule on