1, the debate must not be "of course". In any good debate, the pros and cons must have basically equal debate space, so we can't have the mentality of "of course", otherwise it will be beaten to pieces. The correct way to choose sub-arguments should be: each sub-argument should be extracted from our own debate and meet two conditions. One is that there must be enough arguments to ensure the correctness of the sub-argument, and the other is that the sub-argument must support our own debate most directly and clearly. Generally no more than three, forming a tripartite confrontation. Too many arguments are established, it is easy to fight on multiple lines, the firepower is not concentrated and exhausted, and too little is not enough to support the point of view. Sub-arguments are very important, so we must fully demonstrate them with strict logic and sufficient arguments. Otherwise, as long as the other side catches the fatal wound of one of the arguments, the whole game will be lost.
Debate is a collective competition, and each player's point of view must be unified. Because the debate is decided by lot, the debater can't choose his own point of view. During the discussion, everyone can express their opinions freely, but during the competition, everyone must be highly unified with their own argumentation outline. You can't be maverick, and the sword goes sideways, otherwise you will fail.
So much for the preparation of the debate. The key is to accumulate more at ordinary times, so as to learn from others and improvise.
3. During the debate, the debater should be clear in attack and defense. Take the traditional four-person competition system as an example. Generally, one debate and four debates are the main defense, while two debates and three debates are the main attack. Of course, there is no clear division of labor, as long as each has its own emphasis. The first speech in the debate must be clear and concise, as long as it is concise. Don't write a long and gorgeous speech, and your tone is gentle and smooth. You know, listening to articles and reading articles are two different things. The written words are gaudy and complicated in logic. Who can remember them? In the second and third debates, we should concentrate on seizing each other's loopholes. Common loopholes include trial and error (resolutely letting go, pointing out that the other party's trial and error can effectively hit the other party's confidence), conceptual error, logical error, inconsistency (generally the contradiction between debaters, which is the result of inadequate preparation and inconsistent thinking before the game), as well as sophistry, sophistry, stealing concepts and answering irrelevant questions. These will all require some skills, and maybe they will be caught. Four debates are the soul of a debate team, commonly known as "big debates" ... take stock of the overall situation, sum up opinions, make the finishing point, and even turn defeat into victory. If the inventory is not good, it is redundant.
Nonsense without head or tail. Ask me what the landlord wants to know. Welcome to communicate.
If it's not over yet, you can cut in from the following points:
1- In the era of market economy, money is the most effective way to measure value.
2- artistic value can also be measured by money (the other party must say that his decoration is warm and so on).
3-"Good or bad" in this debate mainly refers to the quality of decoration, because personal feelings are subjective and cannot be distinguished by good or bad. This refutes that the other party's own decoration is warmer, which shows that they misinterpreted the debate. )