The moderator first announced the topic of this debate. The first link is the presentation stage. The debate between the pros and cons showed our own views. The second link is the questioning stage. Both sides can ask each other questions. The third link is free debate. The pros and cons are free to debate and express their opinions. Tell each other your reasons. Finally, the two sides summarized the four debates and re-emphasized their respective views. Finally, the experts judged the winner who got the most votes.
Debate Chairman (1) Professional debater (4) Counter debater (4) Timekeeper (2, one for the pros and one for the cons) Audience jury (to be determined)
1. In the free debate stage of time prompt, when each party has 30 seconds left, the timekeeper will remind it with a short bell; Time's up. End the speech with a bell. In the summary stage of attack and defense, when each side has 10 seconds left, the timekeeper will remind you with a short bell, and when the time is up, he will end his speech with a bell. At other stages, when each player has 30 seconds left, the timekeeper will remind him with a short bell, and when the time is up, he will stop speaking with the bell. When the bell rings, the speaker must stop talking, otherwise it will be dealt with in violation of regulations. 2. Demonstration advocates impromptu demonstration and appropriate quotation. 3. Opening argument If the topic of the debate is full of life, there is no need to dwell too much on the theoretical level. Argumentation requires clear logic and conciseness. 4. Attack and defense (1) Attack and defense starts with two arguments, and the pros and cons alternate. (2) The pros and cons participate in the debate. A summary of the debate between the pros and cons. Two or three arguments must be used as an attacker once; The defense is arbitrarily designated by the attacker, and the number of times is not limited. Both the offensive and defensive sides must complete this round of attack and defense independently, and cannot be replaced in the middle. (3) Both sides must answer each other's questions directly, and the questions and answers should be concise and clear. Repeated questions and evasive questions will be deducted. In each round of attack and defense, the roles of attack and defense shall not be exchanged, the defense shall not ask questions, and the attacker shall not answer questions. (4) The pros and cons have completed the first round of attack and defense. When either side is seated, it is deemed that it has completed its own attack and defense, and the other player can play at will (make a statement or continue to ask questions) within a limited time. (5) The stage of each round of defense is 1 minute and 30 seconds, and each question of the attacker shall not exceed 10 second, and more than three questions must be asked in each round. The defense cannot answer for more than 20 seconds at a time. Don't talk with the bell when the time is up. If both sides have not finished asking or answering questions, no points will be deducted. (6) After four rounds of attack and defense, the team will summarize the attack and defense by the positive side and then by the opposing side, with a time limit of 1 minute and 30 seconds. Both sides should summarize the situation and content involved in the offensive and defensive stage, and it is strictly forbidden to recite the manuscript from the actual situation of the game. At this stage of free debate, the pros and cons automatically take turns to speak. The speaker's seat marks the beginning of the other speaker's speech at the end of the speech, and the other debater must speak immediately after it; If there is a gap, the accumulation will proceed as usual. There is no limit to the order in which the same debater speaks. If one party runs out of time, the other party can continue to speak or signal the chairman to give up speaking. Free debate advocates active confrontation, and the party who avoids confrontation more than twice on important issues will be deducted, and the questions that the other party has clearly answered will be deducted appropriately. Seize each other's loopholes. 6. The performance of the pros and cons in the audience questioning stage is included in the competition results. The questions raised by the audience can only be answered after more than two judges have judged them valid. The pros and cons each answer questions raised by two spectators, and both sides answer any debater except the four debates. The answer time of a question is 1 minute. If one debater's answer time is not full, other debaters can supplement it. 7. Both sides of the closing debate should make a summary statement on the overall situation of the debate; Be divorced from reality, recite the manuscript prepared in advance, and deduct points appropriately.
Skills of editing this debate
This paper attempts to introduce several anti-object-oriented technologies on the basis of technical theory and practical demonstration and analysis. (1) There is a trick in martial arts novels called "borrowing". It means that people with deep internal forces can use the strength of their opponents' attacks to fight back. This method is also suitable for argument. For example, in the debate on "easy to do despite difficulties", there is a round: 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! (Applause) When the other side 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 side immediately turned to strengthen its point of view from the perspective of "knowing the law is not easy" and gave the other side a strong counterattack. Reversed the passive situation. Here, Fang Zhengzhi is able to use the example of the opposing side to confront his body because he has a series of theories that are not verbally expressed and reinterpreted: the "knowledge" in the debate is not only the "knowledge" of knowledge, but also the "knowledge" based on human rationality; 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 the difficulty" and "doing the easy" of the opposing side, and the attack of the narrow and low-level definitions of "knowing the easy" and "doing the difficult ..." effectively hit back at the opposing side, and the argumentation framework of the opposing side based on the superficial level of "knowing" and "doing" collapsed. (2) Replacing the defective part of the opponent's argument with favorable opinions or materials can often achieve the miraculous effect of "four or two". We call this technique "grafting" For example, in the debate about how to make it easy despite difficulties, there has been such an example: on the contrary, the ancients said that "Shu Dao is difficult to pass through the sky", which means that Shu Dao is difficult to pass through, and "Xing" means "Xing"! 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, which is the "knowledge" of "enlightenment"? 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. The positive side keenly discovered the one-sidedness of the other side's argument, and started with the "the Monkey King" side decisively, and retorted the other side by "knowing" or "knowing", which turned the other side's quotation about "Sun" into carrying firewood to put out the fire, 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 about "it is more important to cure poverty than stupidity", one sentence is affirmative: "... the debater of the other side measures the importance by urgency, so I want to tell you that I am hungry now and need food badly, but I still want 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 side calmly argued: "My opponent, I think that' not eating with food' and' not eating with food' are two different things ..." The other side's answer caused more warm applause. On the positive side, it advocates that poverty is not enough to fear and the relative importance of treating stupidity with "no food to eat", while on the negative side, it immediately summarizes the essence of "no food to eat" 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 the concept. (3) On the surface, agree with the other party's point of view, follow the other party's logic, and set some reasonable obstacles in the derivation according to your own needs, so that the other party's point of view cannot be established under additional conditions, or come to a conclusion that is completely opposite to the other party's point of view. For example, in the argument between a foolish old man moving a mountain or moving a house, the opposing party: ... should ask the other party to distinguish between friends. The silly old man moved to solve difficulties, protect resources and save 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, we must not let the opposing side tell the truth, otherwise, the "methodology" of the opposing side that conforms to the modern value orientation will certainly stand. Judging from the above argument, the other party's argument on this matter is well-founded and solid. On the positive side, it is affirmed that "moving is a good way to solve the problem", and then everyone "can hardly get out of the place where Yu Gong is", which naturally leads to the question of "how to move home", and finally comes 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! (4) Thoroughly cleaning up The so-called thorough cleaning up, in this article, metaphorically speaking, is to point out that the other party's argument is not closely related to or runs counter to the topic, fundamentally correct the foothold of the other party's argument, and bring it into our "sphere of influence" so that it can just serve our point of view. Compared with the method of "pushing the boat with the current" of forward reasoning, this skill is just the opposite of its thinking. For example, in the debate on whether job-hopping is beneficial to talents, there is such a passage: Founder: Zhang Yong, the national table tennis champion, jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, and the other debater also said that he did not 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. 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 opponent immediately pointed out that the specific example cited by the other side was wrong: Zhang Yong could not go to the sports team through the irregular talent flow mode of "job-hopping", but only "reasonable flow" under the principle of "fairness, equality, competition and merit", which was highly credible, convincing and shocking, and received obvious anti-customer effect. (5) Selective questioning is one of the offensive moves 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 debate on "Ideological morality should adapt to (surpass) the market economy", there was the following round of confrontation: the opposing party: …… I asked whether Lei Feng's spirit was selfless dedication or equivalent exchange spirit. Advantages: ... the opponents here misunderstand the exchange of equivalence, which means that all exchanges should be equivalent, but it doesn't mean that everything is exchange. Lei Feng hasn't thought of exchange yet. Of course, Lei Feng's spirit is not the same. (Applause) Since there is no reciprocity, it can't be the spirit of reciprocity. The opposing side should immediately hit the snake with the stick, point this out and go deep into the opposing side: Then I want to ask the opposing side, is the core of our ideological and moral spirit the spirit of serving the people or the spirit of seeking profits? Professor: Isn't serving the people the requirement of market economy? (Applause) The affirmative answer is actually very inappropriate. At this point, the other party's knowledge reserve or adaptability is seriously insufficient. If you ask, "Is it the requirement of market economy for Comrade Mao Zedong to serve the people?" You will immediately push certainty to the forefront, forcing it to choose to avoid it. In the first round, the other side had the intention of "inviting you to wait for the urn" and came 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. The debater for the positive side jumped out of the box of "either-or" for the negative side, went straight to the subject, drew "equivalent exchange" from two preset options, and completely overturned its correctness as a preset option with a calm tone, sharp words, flexible response and clever techniques, which was amazing! 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. (6) Go straight to the crux of the matter In debates, it is often the case that the two sides are entangled in trivial issues, examples or expressions, and they are arguing endlessly. As a result, it seemed that the debate was lively, but actually it deviated from the topic of Wan Li. This is a taboo in argument. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issue in the opponent's argument after the first debate and the second debate, seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to completely defeat the opponent in theory. For example, the key to the debate that "food and clothing is a necessary condition for talking about morality" is: Can we talk about morality without food and clothing? Only by always grasping this key issue in the debate can we give the other side a fatal blow. In the debate, people often have the saying that "avoiding the truth is empty", and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. For example, if the other party asks a question that we can't answer, if we don't know, we will not only lose points, but even make jokes. In this case, we should tactfully avoid each other's problems and look for other weaknesses to attack. But in more cases, what we need is to "avoid the reality and be empty" and "avoid the importance and be light", that is, to be good at fighting hard on basic and key issues. If the other party asks questions, we will immediately avoid them, which will inevitably leave a bad impression on the judges and the audience, thinking that we dare not face up to the other party's questions. In addition, if the attack on the basic arguments and concepts put forward by the other party fails, it is also a loss of points. Being good at grasping the opponent's key points and attacking can win, which is an important skill in the debate. (7) Using Contradictions Because both sides of the debate are composed of four players, four players often have contradictions in the course of the debate. Even the same player may have conflicts in the free debate because of his fast speech. Once this happens, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand the contradiction between the other side so that it can't take care of itself and attack us. For example, in the debate with the Cambridge team, the Cambridge team's three arguments think that law is not morality, while the second argument thinks that law is basic morality. These two views are obviously contradictory, and we took the opportunity to widen the gap between the two debaters of the other side and push the other side into a dilemma. For another example, the other side initially regarded "food and clothing" as the basic state of human existence, and later, under our fierce offensive, it talked about "hunger and cold". This is contradictory to the previous view. We "deal with a man as he deals with you", leaving the other side in an emergency and speechless. (8) "Draw the snake out of the hole" In the debate, there is often a deadlock: when the other side insists on its own argument, no matter how we attack it, when the other side only uses a few words to deal with it, if it still adopts the method of frontal attack, it will inevitably have little effect. In this case, it is necessary to adjust the means of attack as soon as possible, adopt a circuitous method, start with seemingly insignificant issues, and induce the other party to leave the position, thus hitting the other party and causing a sensational effect in the hearts of the judges and the audience. When we argued with the Sydney team that "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem", the other side clung to the view that "AIDS is caused by HIV and can only be a medical problem" and was unmoved. So, we adopted the tactic of "luring the snake out of the hole". In the second debate, we suddenly asked, "Excuse me, what is the slogan of World AIDS Day this year?" The other four debaters looked at each other. In order not to lose too many points on the court, the other side stood up and answered randomly. We immediately corrected it and pointed out that this year's slogan was "Time waits for no one, let's act", which was equivalent to opening a gap in the other side's position, thus disintegrating the firm front of the other side. (9) "Li Jiang" When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically, we have to adopt the method of "Li Jiang" and introduce new concepts to solve the difficulties. 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 separate the two problems from common sense. Therefore, according to our preconceived ideas, if we are allowed to demonstrate the positive side, we will introduce the new concept of "social impact", so as to affirm that AIDS has a certain "social impact", but it is not a "social problem", and strictly determine the meaning of "social impact", so that it is difficult for the other party to attack. Later, we got the opposite of the debate in the lottery, that is, "AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem." In this case, it is unreasonable to completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem. Therefore, we introduced the concept of "medical approach" in the debate, emphasizing the use of "social system engineering" to solve AIDS. In this project, the "medical approach" will give us more room for manoeuvre, and the other party will spend a lot of effort to pester our new concept, 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 our argument are hidden behind and not directly attacked by the other side. Debate is a very flexible process, in which some more important skills can be used. Experience tells us that only by combining knowledge accumulation with debate skills can we achieve better results in debate. In daily life, we can see the following situations: when the fire brigade receives a call for help, it often answers it in a slow tone. This gentle tone is to stabilize the speaker's mood and let the other side explain the situation correctly. For another example, when couples quarrel, one side is depressed and the other side is not in a hurry. As a result, the latter prevailed. For another example, political and ideological workers often adopt the method of "cold treatment" to deal with difficult problems slowly. All these situations show that "slowness" is also a good way to deal with problems and solve contradictions in some occasions. So is the debate. In some specific debate situations, fast attack and quick battle are unfavorable, but slow progress can win. For example, in 1940, Winston Churchill served as Minister of the Navy in Chamberlain's cabinet, and was respected by people because he advocated declaring war on Germany. At that time, public opinion welcomed Churchill to succeed Chamberlain as British Prime Minister, and Churchill also thought that he was the most suitable candidate. But Churchill did not rush for success, but adopted the strategy of "winning slowly". He has publicly stated many times that he will be ready to serve the motherland under the leadership of anyone in the extraordinary period when the war breaks out. At that time, Chamberlain and other Conservative Party leaders decided to recommend Lord Halifax, who supported the appeasement policy, as the prime minister candidate. However, the British people who participated in the main battle realized that only Churchill had the ability to lead the war politically. At the meeting to discuss the candidates for prime minister, Chamberlain asked, "Does Mr. Churchill agree to join the government led by Halifax?" The eloquent Churchill said nothing and was silent for two minutes. Halifax and others understand that silence means opposition. Once Churchill refuses to join the cabinet, the new government will be overthrown by angry people. Halifax had to break the silence first, saying that it was inappropriate for him to form a government. Churchill's wait finally paid off and the king authorized him to form a new government. For another example, in a shop, a customer came to the door angrily and said endlessly, "The heels of these shoes are too high, and the style is not good ..." The clerk listened to him patiently without interrupting him. When the customer stopped talking, the salesperson said calmly, "Your opinion is very straightforward, and I appreciate your personality. Tell you what, I'll go in and choose another pair to please you. " "If you are not satisfied, I am willing to serve you again." The customer's dissatisfaction was exhausted and he felt that he had gone too far. He was also embarrassed to see the salesperson answer his questions so patiently. As a result, he made a 180 turn, praised the clerk's new shoes, and said, "Hey, these shoes are good, just like those made for me." The clerk let the customers vent their anger from slow to fast and from cold to hot, so as to achieve psychological balance and resolve the dispute. From the above examples, we can sum up that to correctly use the method of "winning by slowness" in argument, we should at least pay attention to the following three points: First, as the saying goes, "haste makes waste". Acting rashly when the time is not ripe often fails to achieve the goal. The same is true of debate, and "slowness" is also necessary under certain conditions. In fact, the method of "winning slowly" is a tactic to delay the enemy's invasion. When the debate situation is not suitable for quick decision, or the time is not yet ripe, we should avoid direct confrontation between the needle and the wheat, but should delay the time to wait for the arrival of the fighter plane. Once the time is right, we can attack the enemy from behind and defeat him. For example, in the first case, Churchill was not in a hurry to succeed when the time was not ripe, but slowly stood by. At the critical moment of discussing the candidate for prime minister, he expressed his opposition with silence and finally won. Secondly, the method of "winning by slowness" is suitable for the debate occasions where disadvantages are against advantages and disadvantages are against strengths. It is a strategic means adopted by the weak to defeat the seemingly powerful side. There is a trick to "slow", and slow motion should be clever. The word "slow" here is not synonymous with slow response and inarticulate, but one of the magic weapons used by eloquent speakers who are still wise and stupid. For example, in the first case, Churchill's playing dumb and stalling in the face of Chamberlain's questioning is actually a delaying tactic. In this stubborn stalemate, Chamberlain's side finally lost his temper, and Churchill finally won by taking the measure of delaying tactics. Thirdly, it is a good skill to slow down anger, to cool down anger in debate and to heat up slowly. In an argument, people who are angry and have poor self-control are easily excited. In this case, to convince people who are overly excited, it is advisable to deal with them in slow motion and slow tone. Slowing down anger, from cold to hot, can make it "cool down and decompress". Only when the other person is calm can you accept your truth smoothly. For example, in the second case, the salesperson calmed the other party's anger and resolved the contradiction with a calm attitude and gentle tone. In short, "fast" and "slow" in the debate are also a dialectical relationship of unity of opposites. Soldiers are expensive and fast, and "fast" is of course good. However, sometimes "slowness" has its beauty. Slow can stand by, slow can make plans, and slow can control anger. Slow is a tough tactic, slow is a protracted war, and slow is a delaying tactic in the war of words. It takes a long time and a big detour, but in many cases, it is often a shortcut to victory.