Obviously, in the daily debate, we should avoid losing control of the debate and try to soften the opposition. The most fundamental way to soften the opposition is to have the psychology of "talking without arguing". This kind of psychology can be divided into "no argument" psychology, "nothing" psychology and "equality" psychology.
First, the mentality of "not arguing"
Debate is the psychology of "arguing". If you can't argue, you must argue, try to find opposition as much as possible, intensify opposition, and defeat each other in opposition. The daily debate is different, its purpose is to soften the opposition, and both sides will resolve the opposition. Therefore, we need a "no argument" mentality, and we can't argue without arguing.
1. Never forget to simplify opposites. In the daily debate, we should always pay attention to whether the opposition still maintains its original content. It will be difficult to soften too many new opposing views into the debate. My daughter didn't come home until late at night. Mom scolded: "can't you go home early?" My daughter was very tired and upset because of temporary overtime, and said, "I always talk a lot." Mom was angry: "Well, I care about you, and you actually say that I talk too much." Just like your father, deliberately against me. "The daughter loves her father very much and says," What's wrong with my father? How can you go shopping all day like nothing? "... the initial opposition between mother and daughter is whether the daughter should go home early. This opposition is easy to soften. A mother cares about her daughter, and her daughter has a legitimate reason to go home late. Just make it clear. However, as the two sides constantly introduce new opposites: whether the mother talks too much and who the parents are, the problem is complicated.
2. Pay attention to withdraw from the debate in due course. Since the purpose of daily debate is to soften the opposition rather than defeat it, we should withdraw from the debate at an appropriate time. For example, when one party has nothing to say, when one party's emotions overwhelm reason, when too many new opposites complicate the problem ... For example, when Party A and Party B get on the bus, it is agreed in advance that Party A will buy tickets. Who knows that A habitually only bought one ticket. The conductor came to B and asked B to buy a ticket. B thought the conductor made a mistake because there were too many people and said, "Didn't A buy it?" The conductor said, "No way." B was a little unbelievable. "Didn't you say he would buy it?" The conductor was angry: "Who do you think you are? Others have to buy tickets by car! " Hearing the quarrel, A quickly said, "B, I forgot to buy it." When B heard that he had to pay for the ticket, the conductor said, "Is this a helpless move? Isn't it a dollar? Escape what escape! " The two sides quarreled at once. In this debate, the initial objection was whether to buy tickets. Just as the objection softened, when B was preparing to buy a ticket, the conductor did not withdraw from the debate at the right time, but introduced a new objection: whether B wanted to evade the ticket. The argument got out of hand.