When presenting a prolonged argument, it is important to take a systematic approach. Stasis allows a speaker to better understand the argument that he or she is trying to make, and thereby the best methods for convincing others to agree. When considering a paradigm shift, stasis can narrow an argument from generalities and broad concepts, getting a speaker to the heart of the matter. Making a convincing argument is simply a matter of asking the right questions.
Stasis first raises the notion of the theoretical versus the practical. A paradigm shift is, by its nature, not finite. However, a strictly theoretical argument can never be definitively settled. Therefore, it is best to argue any ambiguous concepts in terms of those things that are explicitly defined. Using concrete evidence, such as statistics that have clearly changed over time, allows one to make a convincing argument about something abstract in terms of tangible, even quantifiable qualities.
This concept is closely tied to the questions of Conjecture and Definition, as it helps make the topic more specific and reveals more of its nature than a general claim can. Arguments should, generally speaking, work toward increasing specificity in order to draw an audience along a thorough line of logic in favor of the speaker’s point.
The question of Quality, whether something is right or wrong, can be more difficult to maneuver. Quality is often a subjective matter, and even more so when considering broad or undefined arguments. However, it can often be determined without bias by examining an issue in terms of natural or widely accepted laws and moral standards. By evaluating the issue on grounds that the audience is (almost) certain to share, a speaker can avoid alienating or offending his or her audience with unfounded opinions.
Finally, when it comes to Policy, or which actions should be taken in light of the argument made, a conclusion may not be necessary. A course of action may be suggested or argued for, but none should be considered as definite for the same reason that opinion must be avoided in determining Quality. Arguing too ardently for anything subjective risks losing the support garnered by the core of a speaker’s argument.