The theme of the debate is very important. Generally choose neutral topics. For example, "companies should formulate more systems to strengthen management", "the authority of leaders comes from the authority itself" and "Is money everything?" Wait a minute.
The method is as follows:
Firstly, the candidates are divided into pros and cons by drawing lots, with 3-4 people in each group. Discuss and brew in two groups; Each member of each group will express his own views in turn, that is, speak personally, and finally summarize his own views. Free debate will disrupt the order and ask each other questions. The time distribution is generally as follows: What kinds of cherry blossoms are there? ⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀⒀. BR> judges should observe the following aspects: whether the candidates pay attention to the views stated by the other party; Whether it is consistent with the examples cited when expressing opinions; Whether to pay attention to internal cooperation during the debate; Whether the debate deviated from the theme; Can you keenly grasp the loopholes of the other party to refute; Who is the central task of the debate and so on.
Debate strategy in debate
Debate consists of two basic links: argument (defense) and refutation, in which argument is to prove one's basic position and is the basis and necessary ladder of refutation. If there is no necessary argument in the debate, the rebuttal will appear unreasonable and pale. Moreover, if your argument is unstable in the debate, you will naturally be attacked by the other side, not to mention attacking the other side. It can be seen that the quality of the argument is directly related to the success or failure of the debate. Therefore, we should pay special attention to strengthening argumentation in the debate. The following briefly introduces several argumentation strategies:
Strict logic and strict framework
In argumentation, we use strict logical thinking and build a strict theoretical framework, thus making our argumentation solid. Rigorous, without any loopholes, this is the key to winning the debate. For example, in the "Wan Jiale Cup" TV Debate Competition, the topic of the debate between the Peking University team and the Institute of International Relations is: "At this stage, China should encourage private cars." The key to this topic is the words "car", "encouragement" and "the present stage of our country". How to find out the logical relationship among them and form a strong argument is the key to build a strict attack and defense system. Finally, the team of Peking University, as the square, according to its internal logical connection, deduces the idea that developing automobile industry in the emerging stage is one of the leading directions of China's industrial development. Due to the characteristics of "three highs and one fast", the automobile industry has been proved to be the most powerful booster for economic take-off, and the quality and output of automobiles are also signs to measure the development level of a country. China is no exception. In order to promote industrial development, we must develop the automobile industry. Secondly, the key to the development of the automobile industry lies in the market. The most convenient way to expand the automobile market is to let cars "fly into the homes of ordinary people". Therefore, there is an inevitable connection between the automobile industry and encouraging private purchase. On this basis, according to their own inevitable logical connection, they fully demonstrated the realistic possibility and necessity of "encouraging purchase", and fully considered the possible questions raised in the other party's argument (that is, whether the road traffic congestion in China and the private consumption of cars will be a luxury consumption tendency), and made careful and reasonable preparations for them one by one. Because the team of Peking University has established its own argumentation system by making full use of strict logical thinking and ensuring the rigor and thoroughness of the system, their argumentation is both tenable and defensible in practice and has received good results.
Surprise, seeking "standing" in "breaking"
Debate, in the final analysis, is a contest between knowledge and intelligence. If one party in the debate can give full play to his knowledge and intelligence, break through the defense line of the other party's argument on the basis of thoroughly analyzing the purpose of the topic, and skillfully put forward a brand-new concept to surprise the opponent, it can greatly weaken the aggression of the other party. For example, the 94 Changhong Cup National Debate Competition for College Students, and the Nanjing University team played against the Jilin University team. As a positive side, the position of Jilin Brigade is that the primary criterion for college graduates to choose their jobs is to give full play to their personal specialties. As the opposing party, Nanlv has many ideas, such as "the primary standard is social demand", "rich income" and "interests". But these are all too common and may fall into the fierce attack prepared by Kyrgyzstan. You said "social needs", he said that choosing a job is a subjective behavior, and "giving full play to one's personal strengths" is only to better meet "social needs", and you said "rich income". He said: when the opposition party needs to support its motherland most, it is sad and disappointing to bargain with the people first for its own interests! In this way, the South Brigade will be unable to cope. Finally, after careful consideration, Nanlv put forward an extremely bold concept: college students' job selection is complex and diverse, and there is no and should not be a unified primary standard! It also points out that if there is no evidence to prove that college students should have a unified primary standard in choosing a job, it is undoubtedly Gai Lou on quicksand to emphasize that this primary standard is "giving full play to one's personal specialties". When this language came out, it caused an uproar. Because Nanlv's point of view fundamentally shook the other side's carefully designed argument, Jilv was caught off guard and suddenly lost its foothold, so that it was hardly refuted in the normative speech. While breaking each other with unprecedented innovation courage, NTU further clarified its argument that college students should take personal self-improvement and social progress as their career choice direction. In this way, Nanlv quickly took the initiative on the field and received very obvious results on the field.
When Li found another way, he froze.
When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically in the debate, we have to adopt the method of "substituting people" and introduce new concepts to solve the difficulties in the argumentation process. For example, the debate about "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem" is very difficult to argue, because AIDS is both a medical problem and a social problem, and it is difficult to completely separate the two problems from common sense. When dealing with this problem, Fudan University first made the following assumptions: if they were allowed to debate the case, they would introduce the new concept of "social impact", thus affirming that AIDS has a certain "social impact", but it is not a "social problem", and strictly determining the meaning of "social impact", so that it is difficult for the other party to attack. Later in the debate, they drew a gesture of opposition, explaining that "AIDS is a social problem." This is not a medical problem. In this case, it is unreasonable to completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem. Therefore, they introduced the concept of "medical approach" in the debate, emphasizing the use of "social system engineering" to solve AIDS, and in this project, "medical approach" is one of the necessary components. In this way, their room for manoeuvre will be large, and the other side will spend a lot of effort to entangle in the concept put forward by itself, and the attack power will be greatly weakened. The significance of this tactic is to introduce a new concept to deal with the other side, so as to ensure that some key concepts in your argument are hidden behind and not directly attacked by the other side.
Less definition, more description.
In argumentation (defense), we often encounter an unavoidable fact, that is, to define the concept. It can be said that definition is the main way to clarify our basic views and clarify our basic positions. However, we should pay special attention to the fact that if we are keen to give a clear definition to every concept in the debate, it is likely to provide many unexpected shells to the other side. And if the topics and concepts are clearly explained, there is no room for manoeuvre in the debate. For example, if the concept of "food and clothing" is defined as a state: "In this state, most people in society have no difficulty in food and clothing", then the other party can immediately ask: "What is the connotation of your social concept? It refers to a group. A nation or a country? " You can also ask, "What do you mean by' most people'? Is it 60%, 70% or 80% population? " If we continue to answer these questions, many new problems may be exposed, thus completely falling into a passive response situation. Therefore, when explaining the concept, we should not only say what, but also hide what, that is, use descriptive methods to prevaricate. The so-called "description" does not reveal the essential meaning of the concept, but only describes the concept from the phenomenon, even tautology. For example, the Fudan University team answered the question "What is food and clothing?" "Food and clothing means eating and wearing warm clothes." . This oral answer is actually tautology, which doesn't provide anything new, but it gives the impression that they have explained the concept clearly and the other party can't grasp any handle to carry out the attack. In this way, in the later debate, when Fudan team made a new supplement and explanation to the concept of "food and clothing", they were more flexible and free, and would not be caught by the other side.
Generally speaking, we should pay attention to the proper use of descriptions and definitions in debates. Both should not be neglected, but descriptions should be used as much as possible to make some problems clear and others hidden, so that the other party can not quickly judge and grasp the fundamental things in their own views to attack. Argumentation in the debate is a flexible process, and the tactics that can be used in this process are also flexible and diverse. The above tactics are only the most important and commonly used in practice, and there are many good tactics that we need to accumulate and summarize in practice to ensure that we can achieve better results in the debate.
Anti-object-oriented skills in argumentation
The original intention of going from customer to customer is that the customer in turn becomes the master. Metaphor turns passivity into initiative. In the debate, passivity is a common disadvantage in this field, and it is often a harbinger of failure. In the debate, the object of opposition is the main thing. What he said is to change passivity into initiative in the debate. Next, this paper tries to introduce several anti-customer skills to you by combining skill theory with practical argument analysis.
First, use the Force.
There is a trick in martial arts novels called "fighting with martial arts". It means that people with deep internal forces can fight back against each other's attacks. This method is also suitable for argument.
For example, in the debate of "easy to do despite difficulties", there is such a round:
Opposing party: Ask the other party to distinguish between friends. Today, almost any Chinese or people of any race know that the murderer is dead, or it is wrong to kill. It's so easy to "know", so why are there so many people who can't control their inner desires and kill people? That's why it's "difficult"! (Applause)
Professor: Yes! Those people did not know the power of law until they went to the execution ground and died. The dignity of the law can be described as "retreat from difficulties", and the other side distinguishes friends! (warm applause)
When the other party used the example of "knowing the law is easy, but obeying the law is difficult" to demonstrate that knowing the law is easy and obeying the law is difficult, the positive party immediately turned to strengthen its point of view from the perspective of "knowing the law is not easy" and gave the other party a strong counterattack. Reversed the passive situation.
Here, Fang Zhengzhi was able to attack his body with the example of the opposing side because he had a series of theories that were not verbally expressed and reinterpreted: the "knowledge" in the debate was both "knowledge" and "knowledge" based on human reason; It is not difficult to obey the law. As a course of action, it is not difficult to kill people, but it is very difficult to know how to keep people's rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill people. In this way, the broad and high-level definitions of "knowing difficulty" and "doing easy" effectively hit back at the opponent with the attack of the narrow and low-level definitions of "knowing easy" and "doing difficult", making the opponent's argument framework based on the superficial level of "knowing" and "doing easy" collapse.
Second, replace trees with flowers.
Removing the defective part of the other party's argument and replacing it with our favorable views or materials can often receive the miraculous effect of "four or two". We call this technique "grafting"
For example, in the debate about overcoming difficulties, there have been the following examples:
Counterparty: The ancients said that "it is difficult to get to the sky through the Shu Road", which means that it is difficult to get to the Shu Road, and "going" means "going"! If it's not difficult, why doesn't the monkey call him Sun Zhiren?
Founder: Sun's nickname is Monkey Sun, but does his opponent know that his legal name is the Monkey King and "enlightenment" is "knowledge"?
This is a very beautiful argument of "replacing trees with flowers". The example of the opposing side seems to be well-founded, but it is far-fetched: it is difficult to refute "why Sun Walker is not called Sun Zhiren". Although it is almost unreasonable, it has the upper hand in momentum. Positive and keen to find the one-sidedness of the other side's argument, decisively starting from the "the Monkey King" side, tracing back to the other side with "enlightenment" as "knowledge", making the other side's quotation about "Sun" become a firewood fire fighting, which backfired.
The technique of replacing flowers with wood is a strong attack in argument theory, which requires debaters to be brave in making moves and fighting back, so it is also a kind of difficulty and high antagonism. Persuasive argument skills. It is true that the actual scene is eloquent and changeable, and there are no ready-made materials such as "Monkey Walker" and "Monkey King" available at any time, that is to say, more are "body double Flowers". It is necessary for debaters to accurately summarize or deduce each other's views and our position at that time.
For example, in the debate on "Curing poverty is more important than ignorance", one sentence is affirmative: "... another debater measures importance by urgency, so I want to tell you that I am hungry now and need food badly, but I will continue to debate because I realize that debate is more important than hunger." As soon as the voice fell, there was applause. At this time, the opposing party argued calmly: "Friend, I think' food without food' and' food without food' are two different things ..." The other party's answer caused more warm applause. On the positive side, it advocates that poverty is not enough for fear and the relative importance of treating fools, while on the negative side, it immediately summarizes the essence of "no food" from its own point of view, clearly compares the essential differences between the two, and effectively curbs the tendency of the other party to steal concepts.
Third, push the boat with the tide.
On the surface, we agree with the other party's point of view, follow the other party's logic, and set some reasonable obstacles according to our own needs in the derivation, so that the other party's point of view can not be established under additional conditions, or draw a conclusion completely opposite to the other party's point of view.
For example, in the debate about whether Gong Yu should move mountains or move houses:
The other party: ... We should ask each other to distinguish our friends. Gong Yu solved the difficulties, protected resources and saved manpower and financial resources. What's wrong with that?
Positive: Gong Yu's moving is a good way to solve the problem, but it is difficult for Gong Yu to go out where he is. How can he move home? ..... Obviously, we can consider moving, and we have to move after moving the mountain!
Myths and stories are only meaningful if they are exaggerated, and their essence lies not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, the positive side must not let the negative side spin in fact, otherwise the "methodology" that conforms to the modern value orientation of the negative side will certainly get started. Judging from the above arguments, the other party's arguments are practical, well-founded and well-founded. Opponents first affirmed that "moving is a good way to solve the problem", and then everyone's condition that "it is difficult to get out of the place where Yu Gong is" naturally led to the question of "how to move home", and finally came to a series of theories such as "moving mountains first, then moving". It runs through one after another, and it beats the other side's matter-of-fact with an overwhelming attack. It's really wonderful!
Fourth, the original source.
The so-called radical, for example, this paper points out that the other party's argument is not closely related to the topic or runs counter to it, and fundamentally corrects the standpoint of the other party's argument and pulls it into our "sphere of influence" to make it just serve our point of view. Compared with the method of "pushing the boat with the current" of forward reasoning, this technique is just the opposite of its thinking.
For example, in the debate about whether job-hopping is conducive to the role of talents, there is such a defense:
Pro: Zhang Yong, the champion of the national table tennis championship, just jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The debater of the other side also said that he didn't contribute to the people of Shaanxi, which was really chilling! (Applause)
Counterparty: May I ask if the sports team may have jumped ship? This is the reasonable flow direction that we advocate here! (Applause) The opponent wears job-hopping glasses to see the problem. Of course, the world is as black as a crow, and all actions are job-hopping. (Applause)
Take Zhang Yong as an example. It is a fact that he has gained better space to develop himself after he moved from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The opposing party immediately pointed out the mistake of the other party in citing specific examples: Zhang Yong could not have gone to the sports team by "job-hopping", which was an irregular way of talent flow, but a "reasonable flow" under the principle of "fairness, equality, competition and merit", which was highly credible, convincing and shocking, and received a relatively obvious anti-customer effect.
Fifth, the bottom salary.
Clever and selective questioning is one of the offensive means used by many debaters. Usually this kind of question is premeditated, which will make people fall into a "dilemma". No matter which choice the other party makes, it is not good for them. A specific skill to deal with this kind of problem is to take out a preset option from the other party's multiple-choice questions for a powerful backchat, which will fundamentally defeat the other party's spirit. This technique is to solve the root of the problem.
For example, in the argument that "ideology and morality should adapt to (surpass) the market economy", there is the following round of confrontation:
Counterparty: ... I asked if Lei Feng's spirit is selfless dedication or equivalent exchange spirit?
Pro: The other party misunderstood the equivalent exchange here. Equivalence exchange means that all exchanges should be equivalent, but it does not mean that everything is an exchange. Lei Feng hasn't thought of the exchange yet. Of course, Lei Feng's spirit is not the same. (Applause)
Counterparty: Then I want to ask another debater, is the core of our ideology and morality the spirit of serving the people or the spirit of seeking profits?
Professor: Isn't serving the people the requirement of market economy? (Applause)
In the first round, the opponent has the intention of "please wait for you" and comes prepared. Obviously, if the mindset passively answers questions, it will be difficult to deal with the "dilemma" of the cube presupposition: choosing the former just proves the view that the cube should "surpass the market economy"; Choosing the latter is contrary to the facts and even more absurd. However, the debater of the positive side jumped out of the "either-or" box set by the negative side, went straight to the subject, and drew "equivalent exchange" from two preset options, so as to completely overthrow its correctness as a preset option. He has a calm tone, sharp words, amazing flexibility and skills!
Of course, the actual situation on the debate field is very complicated. To turn passivity into initiative in debate, it is only one factor to master some anti-customer skills. On the other hand, it is necessary to improvise, which is quite in place, but there is no rule to follow.
Let reason convince both sides.
We know that the debate in the debate does not need to convince the other party, only the judges and the audience; As long as the judges and the audience are convinced, the debate will win. The daily debates aimed at softening the opposition are different. Not only need to convince each other, but also prepare yourself to be persuaded (this is the taboo of debate). It can be said that in daily debates, not one party is persuaded by the other, but both sides are persuaded by reason. In the debate, only when both sides are reasonable can we find the real opposition and really soften it.
Therefore, the requirement of daily debate is: try to convince people by reasoning. To do this, we must make our position clear, listen to each other's position clearly, distinguish each other's position clearly, and change our position skillfully if possible.
First of all, we should be clear about our position.
Make your position clear, including your argument. Arguments and arguments (especially arguments), explain your position clearly, so as not to cause the other party to misunderstand you and cause unnecessary new opposition. For example:
Xiao Liu from Sichuan and Xiao Yang from Zhejiang are good friends, and pocket money is often spent together. On one occasion, the two bought mustard tuber, and Xiao Liu bought a bag of mustard tuber. Xiao Yang is very unhappy: "Why don't you buy Zhejiang Zhalai?" Xiao Liu: "How can the taste of Zhejiang mustard tuber be as pure as Sichuan mustard tuber?" Xiao Yang: "You really can't eat. Zhejiang mustard tuber tastes pure! " Xiao Liu: "I don't eat? I grew up eating mustard tuber. I've been eating for decades. I'm afraid you won't eat. " ……
Neither side has made its position clear. What is purity? This is a vague word. Perhaps the real opposition between the two sides is: Xiao Liu is a Sichuanese and likes to eat spicy mustard tuber; Xiao Yang, a native of Zhejiang, is used to eating sweet pickled mustard tuber. Because the position is not clear, it has triggered a new opposition: who eats mustard tuber better?
Second, listen carefully to the other side's position.
For the other side's position, the word "listen" is emphasized. Being a good listener and listening clearly to each other's position will help to understand each other correctly and avoid misunderstanding.
1. Pay attention to what the other party said. Listening to the voice, on the one hand, is listening to the meaningful implication of the other party (such as puns), which is not difficult to do. On the other hand, it is difficult to hear what the speaker may not realize, such as:
In the battle between China and Bahrain in the 9th Asian Games, Li Jinyu scored twice and China won 2-/kloc-0. However, he conceded twice, which made it difficult for China to surpass the South Korean team in goal difference. There is a debate between A who often watches football and B who often plays football. A: "Not Li Jinyu, not China striker." B: "Not Li Jinyu? Go up and have a try. Don't talk nonsense if you haven't played football. " A: "I haven't played football, haven't I seen it?" ……
Fan A said that Li Jinyu could not do it, perhaps compared with world-class strikers; Player B said he was going to find Li Jinyu, obviously comparing himself. In this sense, there is no real opposition between the two sides. The problem is bad: because I don't know what the other person means, false opposition leads to new opposition: who is qualified to judge the ball-who often watches the ball or who often plays football?
2. If the other party doesn't say anything, don't judge for the other party rashly.
First of all, with the opposite judgment of the other party's affirmative words, the other party does not necessarily deny it; A judgment contrary to the negative words of the other party may not be sure. Because relative judgment is not the opposite judgment. For example, the teacher scolded Xiaoming: "Why don't you use a full stop in your composition?" In daily debates, people often think that the teacher's words contain the meaning that Xiao Ming didn't use a period where he should have used it in his composition. Actually, not necessarily. The teacher may say this because Xiaoming's composition has no period, or he just used other punctuation marks where the period should be used. Such mistakes are also common in daily debates. For example:
Host's treat. Ding has never come, and the host is impatient: "Why hasn't he come yet?" As soon as the host wanted to say "the wrong person is here", he turned his head and left. The master saw it and said, "I shouldn't have left." Hearing this, B was unhappy. He said, "haven't you left yet?" Isn't it obvious? So I got up and left. The master was anxious and chased out: "I didn't say you." Hearing this, C thought he was talking about me and went home.
People generally learned a cautious lesson from this widely circulated joke (in which the argument did not last and the language form was incomplete); But on the other hand, why can't you draw a lesson that you should be careful when listening? If A, B and C are not judged by experts, the opposition will not get out of control.
Secondly, don't expand each other's words at will. It is a common skill in debating competition to arbitrarily expand the other party's conclusion and make the other party feel ridiculous. In daily arguments, it is not appropriate to convince people by reasoning, rather than one side defeating the other. For example:
After Party A and Party B bought the sports lottery, Party A said, "Just send the sports lottery. Can raise a lot of money for sports. " B said, "I don't think so. This is encouraging the gambling psychology of the masses. " A: "After all, the purpose is different. Buying lottery tickets is a contribution to sports. Can it be equated with gambling? " B: "Since issuing lottery tickets can raise funds, should we issue aircraft carrier lottery tickets and moon landing lottery tickets? Is my family short of money to repair the house and issue lottery tickets? " ……
In this debate, B expanded A's argument. A is in favor of issuing sports lottery tickets, but he is not necessarily in favor of issuing lottery tickets whenever he is short of money. In doing so, B is looking for trouble to soften the opposition.
Third, the positions of both sides should be clearly analyzed.
Only by clarifying your own position and listening to the other side's position can we have a clear understanding of the pros and cons of both sides' views and understand the real opposition, which is the key to rationally softening the opposition. For example:
1999 The enrollment expansion of colleges and universities is mixed. In a live talk show on a radio station, a general manager of a foreign company who graduated from high school and a young university lecturer discussed this matter. The general manager thinks that there is no point in expanding enrollment, and most people don't need to go to college because they can live a good life; There is no need to let a few people go to college, because you can still have a car and a house through hard work. University lecturers hold the opposite view: higher education should be open to more people, because people should learn more knowledge. At the end of the program, the university lecturer concluded: "The fundamental difference between me and the general manager is not whether I agree with the expansion of colleges and universities, but whether knowledge or material life should be the goal pursued by people."
The fundamental opposition between the lecturer and the general manager is an open question. What is commendable is that the lecturer found the real opposition under the surface opposition. Only by softening the real opposition can we really soften the opposition. Analyzing the positions of both sides and finding out the real opposition is the premise of softening the opposition.
Fourth, change your position skillfully.
The daily debate should soften the opposition, so we don't pay attention to the "bottom line" of the debate. For example, the two sides of the debate are two pieces of ice that refuse to melt (who melts and loses); On the other hand, the two sides of the daily debate are two burning fires (the fire of truth), and only together can the flame flourish. In order to soften the opposition, the daily debate needs to change one's point of view in time and reach an agreement with the other side. The following are two good practices.
1. Attribute your own point of view to the other side's point of view, so that the positions of both sides can be changed. For example:
The marketing manager and the development manager of a company argued about the development theory of a new product. The marketing manager thinks that before developing new products, a detailed market survey should be conducted to see if consumers have such demand. The manager of the development department thinks that the development of new products must be kept secret, which makes customers and competitors in the same industry feel mysterious. After a while, both of them felt that there was something wrong with their position. The marketing manager offered: the idea of the development manager is right, but it is best to do a general market research before development.
The marketing manager adjusts his position from detailed market research to general market research to conform to the other party's point of view (confidentiality), thus softening the opposition.
2. Put each other's point of view down to their own point of view, to guide each other, for example:
At present, the incidence of myopia among school students is very high. Doctor a thinks it is mainly a health problem, which is caused by unsanitary eyes. Doctor b thinks it's mainly about education. A: "Myopia is mostly caused by reading for too long. Nature is a health problem caused by improper reading posture and unsanitary eyes. " B: "Have you ever thought that students would study for a long time without heavy pressure?" A: "Yes, they may read extra-curricular books for a long time." B: "In that case, why don't schools strengthen eye hygiene education?" A: "Maybe education didn't work." B: "Education is no good. Isn't this an education issue? "
In this debate, Dr. B skillfully introduced A's point of view into his own point of view: even a health problem is first of all a health education problem, so it is an education problem.
When sophists quote famous sayings, ...
There are always arguments or debates in life, which are sometimes logical and sometimes mixed with sophistry. Sophists, when exhausted, often quote famous sayings to prove their views and topics, "holding the flag as a tiger's skin", posing as standing with celebrities and truth, making the other side unprepared and "saving the day" by themselves. What should I do if I encounter this situation? Here are a few "tricks" to solve:
1. tit for tat. That is to say, when sophists cite famous sayings to prove it, the refutor "deals with a man as he deals with you" and also quotes famous sayings to refute it. In this way, the irrefutable embarrassment imposed by the other party was imposed on the other party. Once, several male and female friends got together and argued endlessly about parents' responsibilities in family education. Female compatriots agree that fathers should bear the main responsibility as parents, while most male compatriots hold the opposite opinion. Both sides are determined and deadlocked. No matter how the host "reconciles" (clarifying that both are important), it will not help. Suddenly, a female compatriot said, "There is an old saying in our country that the father does not teach and the mother does not teach. It can be seen that the father shoulders the main responsibility of educating children. " The speaker is a little proud. The male compatriots were speechless for a while, and the host quickly retorted: "This is not entirely right. We know Rousseau, a famous French thinker, who pointed out in his famous educational book Emile: If the mother is not a mother, then the child is childless, which shows that the mother also has the responsibility to educate the child. " Now, the female compatriots are speechless. The host then elaborated his own point of view, "We can all prove that mom and dad play an important role and responsibility in the process of educating children, but it is one-sided to emphasize only one side and deny the other, or to shift the responsibility to the other side. As Lu Xun said: parents should have healthy people, try their best to educate and completely liberate their children. " It is easy to convince the other side by refuting the argument in this way.
2. Push to the limit rule. The conclusion reached by sophistry is absurd, and even quoting famous sayings to prove it can't hide its absurdity. A young couple, because they are newly married, the man still hasn't changed his bachelor characteristics. After work, he is very free, doesn't contact his family very much, and even has an all-night entertainment with his buddies. His wife criticized him discontentedly, and he even said brazenly, "If the relationship lasts for a long time, will it last forever?" Although I seldom accompany you and don't do housework, I love you like a fire in winter. "The wife was annoyed and retorted," Then you don't have to go home, just wait for our relationship to last. "Although she said angry words here, she used extreme methods.
3. Shunyi backchat method. If a young worker is often late for work, the workshop director will educate him: "Why do you always love to be late?" Young worker: "overslept." Director: "Oh, will it delay the workers' time in order to sleep comfortably?" Young worker (snickering): "Didn't Lenin say that there would be no good result without a good rest?" "