Debate is an activity that can improve thinking ability, enrich after-school life, cultivate team spirit and exercise thinking expression. The following are my collected arguments. Welcome to reading.
Debate Skills Counterparty 1 "Li Jiang"
When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically, we have to adopt the method of "replacing peaches" 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", thus affirming that AIDS has a certain "social impact", but it is not a "social problem", and strictly determining the meaning of "social impact" will make it 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.
Graft a branch from one tree to another-secretly substitute one thing for another.
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 through the road, but it is difficult to go to heaven", which means that it is difficult to get through the road, and "doing" 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, 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.
Attack its key
In debates, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions, and the result seems to be a lively debate, but in fact it is irrelevant to 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.
Thoroughly reform
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 skill 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 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.
Remove the firewood from the pot ―― Solve the problem fundamentally.
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. The correct way is to take a preset option from the other party's multiple-choice questions and carry out a strong backchat to fundamentally frustrate the other party's spirit. This skill is to grasp the root cause 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 whether Lei Feng's spirit was selfless dedication or equivalent exchange.
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)
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 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. However, the debater of the positive side jumped out of the frame setting of the "either-or-another" of the negative side and went straight to the subject, leading to "equivalent exchange" from two preset options, so as to completely overthrow the correctness of it as a preset option. His tone is calm, his language is sharp, and his flexibility and skills are 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.
Debate skills opposition party 2 uses its strength
There is a trick in martial arts novels, which is called "using force to fight". 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 about "it's easy to do things despite difficulties", there was such a round:
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 expressed in words and reinterpreted the discourse as a strong backing: the "knowledge" in the debate is not just the "knowledge" of "knowing". It should be based on human rational "knowledge"; 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.
Push the boat with the current-seize the opportunity to pursue your goals
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 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!
Take advantage of contradictions
Because the two sides of the debate are composed of four players, these four players often have contradictions during 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 party initially regarded "food and clothing" as the basic state of human existence, and then under our fierce offensive, talked about the state of "hunger and cold". This is contradictory to the previous view. Our "spear of children, shield of attack" makes the other side anxious and speechless.
Debate skills opponent 3 debate principles
Correctly treat the result of the debate
Respect the opponent's personality in the debate.
Sophistication is not equal to importune.
Debate skills
Hit the nail on the head, if necessary, use the method of "avoiding reality and being empty"
Use contradictions, expand contradictions, try our best to expand each other's contradictions, expand the cracks in each other's views, and push each other into a dilemma. Make it unable to attack itself. "With the spear of the child, the shield of the attack" made him anxious, and he was speechless.
To lure the snake out of the hole, we can take a roundabout way, starting with seemingly irrelevant questions, and induce the other party to talk nonsense or answer indiscriminately.
Li Jiang, the so-called Li Jiang is to use vague concepts to deal with the other party in the debate, and hide some unclear or ambiguous views so that he will not be directly attacked by the other party.
The method of debate
We must pay attention to the logic of the debate. In the debate, the logic of the debate plays an extremely important role, which makes the debate appear rigorous and orderly, and makes one's own views appear unbreakable.
Try to make the debate lively and interesting. If vivid, vivid and funny language is incorporated into the debate, the debate of the whole forum will be full of vitality and the popularity of the forum will be strong.
Pay attention to the accumulation of knowledge when participating in the debate.
1. Read each other's articles and related materials carefully.
Analyze the content of the topic theoretically, avoid vulgarization and poverty of the defense, and enrich the defense from theory and knowledge. Absolutely avoid using vulgar examples and gimmicks with poor taste to debate, or replacing theory with emotions and posturing to win sympathy or applause from oil stains.
2. Pay attention to the accumulation of daily comprehensive knowledge.
The theme of the forum is variety, and attention should be paid to the accumulation of knowledge in all aspects of daily life. If a person only has enthusiasm for debate, but lacks knowledge and few things to mobilize, he will fall into the dilemma of "a clever woman can't cook without rice", and no matter how enthusiastic he is, he will not achieve the ideal effect. The so-called words are not full of meaning, and words are not full of meaning. Knowledge is like a pyramid. If you don't know the extensive knowledge background and only know your own professional knowledge, it is impossible to use it freely and answer questions in the forum.
Debate skill counter 4 1. The first is the argument.
The most important thing about the argument is the definition of the concept. At the extreme, all the controversial topics can be summed up as a definition dispute. Behind the debate between the two sides are different definitions of some keywords. A good definition is the basis of debate. A debate should be about the two sides discussing some issues on the basis of reaching a certain level of understanding. Definition can help define the scope of our own debate, which should be recognized by both sides and need to be discussed emphatically. At the same time, the definition should also give the scope of application of the debate, neither too big nor too small. Too big is easy to refute, too small is meaningless.
After the main argument is given, a sub-argument should be given. The main argument is simply what our proposition is, and the secondary argument is simply why this proposition is right. It is enough to put forward three sub-arguments. Too little is thin, and we are often boring and weak. Too many flaws are easy to expose and can't highlight the key points.
2. Second, arguments and arguments.
Sub-arguments are used to support the main argument, and arguments and arguments are used to support sub-arguments. "Enrichment" here means learning to use various methods and levels. For example, logical argument, value judgment, feasibility judgment, quoting classic literature, examples, laws and regulations, data and so on can be used. Of course, it doesn't mean to apply every method above and choose a few appropriately. If your argument is supported by both theory and data, it is logical and practical. That's certainly very convincing.
3. Finally, writing and rhetoric.
Find out what to say and how to say it at the same time. There must be a concept of serving the audience. It doesn't matter how much you say, what matters is how much the judges heard, understood and remembered, which is the most important thing. If many people don't have this awareness, they will suffer big losses. So you must try your best to create convenience for the audience and let them accept the information you output. First of all, the organizational relationship of the full text should be clear. My suggestion is five paragraphs:
The first paragraph gives a definition and points out our main arguments;
The second to fourth paragraphs respectively demonstrate our three sub-arguments;
The fifth paragraph summarizes the full text and points out that the sub-argument can support the main argument well.
At the same time, in writing, we should make good use of words such as "first", "second", "because" and "so" to show the logical relationship between words and present a good context to the audience, which can help them better understand and remember the information you provided and produce a better impression.
Rhetoric is also a way to strengthen the tone and attract the attention of the audience. However, due to the limited position of the argument, it is required to be as objective and authoritative as possible, and not too personal and emotional. Therefore, rhetoric can be moderate, such as giving a range where it needs to be emphasized, adding parallelism at the end of the summary, and using one or two metaphors in the argument to make boring concepts easy to understand.
In a word, writing and rhetoric are for the audience. Whether it can attract the audience's attention to us, help the audience to understand us better, win more impression points for us, and become the ultimate criterion for judging writing.
;