The judges’ comments on the debate competition

About the judges’ comments on the debate competition

1. Opening remarks

The debate competition is also called a debate competition and a debate meeting. In form, it is a competition in which the two participating parties debate a certain issue. In fact, it is a competition of knowledge, a competition of thinking reflection ability, a competition of language expression ability, and a comprehensive ability around the debate issue. competition.

The core vocabulary of the debate is the word "bian". Just like this debate, there is a "yan" in the middle and a "xin" on both sides. The debaters on both sides are evenly matched, and each side has a With their own arguments and arguments, the views of both sides cannot be completely subjective to judge who is right and who is wrong. Both are reasonable. The debaters on both sides rely on their own eloquence and thinking ability to win this debate. victory.

2. Text

The comments must focus on the arguments, arguments, arguments, argumentation methods, evaluation expressions, etc. of both parties on the debate topic. It does not have to be exhaustive, but it should be objective, fair, and persuasive. Strength, not only points out its successes, but also points out its shortcomings or areas that need improvement. Debate analysis:

Today’s debate is a bit difficult. The opposition between the pros and cons is not very obvious. It is easy for either party to lose its position, and may even make a wedding dress for the opponent.

Performance of both sides:

Judging from the entire process of the debate, both sides performed very well, argued brilliantly, and had a good grasp of their own positions and debate strategies. The debaters had clear ideas and quick responses, fully demonstrated their talents and gave full play to the spirit of team cooperation. However, there were still some omissions and errors, which sometimes caused the debate to deviate from the topic and fall into unnecessary arguments. Judging from the initial argumentation, compared with the negative side, the positive side is clear in terms of conceptual definition and argumentation ideas, has a strong sense of hierarchy, and is able to grasp the core issues of the debate. It should be said that it has indeed created a lot of pressure for the negative side. , but the other side seems a bit confusing. The second and third points are actually repeated explanations of consumers’ ability to identify fakes, and they are not raised until the fourth point. Therefore, in terms of argumentation, the positive side performs better than the negative side. Of course, there are some problems in the affirmative's argument, mainly in terms of conceptual definition. The affirmative chose a definition that is not conducive to its own position, a relatively narrow definition of "fake". The advantage of the affirmative side does not seem to be maintained. During the defense and free debate stages, the affirmative side repeatedly used methods of substituting concepts, arbitrarily changing its own definition, and deliberately misunderstanding the other party's intentions. Although technically it would produce a certain refutation effect, in practice However, they are constantly changing their positions, especially on the meaning of several basic concepts.

During the debate, both sides can grasp the main issues and debate around their own positions and arguments. However, sometimes the direction of the spearhead can be adjusted better. For example, the affirmative can completely The proposition that "anti-counterfeiting should mainly rely on law enforcement officers" is placed in a general and universal sense, thereby getting rid of the opposition's questioning on the "specific realistic background". The opposition can also adjust its perspective and expose the limitations and possible drawbacks of "mainly relying on law enforcement" in a universally applicable sense. ,

Debates must be conducted through language. I don’t think they all have the same style. As the affirmative said before the game, the language does not have to be aggressive. I remember that there was a debater in the International College Debate Competition. His speech was not fast, but he was very difficult to deal with. I feel that the four debaters have this potential.

During the debate, the members of both sides exchanged words, quoted from other sources, and quoted classics. Everyone had a heated debate on issues such as what is "diligence", what is "beauty", and what is considered "better". , both sides can discuss these core issues on the basis of arguments, which is worthy of recognition.

In the defense and defense summary sessions, when the second defense of the affirmative side asked questions and the second defense of the negative side, they were asked: In the closing speech, both the pros and cons first summarized the shortcomings of the other party. , and then talk about the overall performance of the two teams and the situation of the players. We are pleased to see that in this competition, both sides really started to debate, and both showed a certain level of proficiency. Especially in the free debate stage, the two sides faced each other tit for tat, and it was both audible and visible.

Specifically, from a linguistic perspective, the affirmative and first arguments are very literary, and the language of the third and fourth arguments is quite impactful, and more of them use metaphors as an argumentative technique; while the negative arguments His words were sharp and aggressive, especially the opposition's performance of three and four arguments, which left a deep impression on the judges. From the perspective of material selection, the arguments selected by both sides can basically prove their own views, and there are many points to note. Third, judging from the debating skills, both sides are equally matched. In the three and four debates, both sides even noticed the use of techniques such as "digging, pulling, chasing, and hitting" that are commonly used in debates.

On this issue, our debaters conducted a full debate. Many arguments, examples and data were quoted, giving us ample room for thinking. For example...

Judging from the entire process of the debate, both sides performed very well, argued brilliantly, and were able to better grasp their own positions and debate strategies. The debaters had clear ideas and quick responses, fully demonstrated their talents and gave full play to the spirit of team cooperation. However, there were still some omissions and errors, which sometimes caused the debate to deviate from the topic and fall into unnecessary arguments.

Judging from the initial argumentation, compared with the negative side, the positive side is clear in terms of conceptual definition and argumentation ideas, has a strong sense of hierarchy, and can grasp the core issues of the debate. It should be said that it really provides The opposing side has created a lot of pressure, and the opposing side seems a bit chaotic. The second and third points are actually repeated explanations of consumers' ability to identify fakes, and it is not until the fourth point that they are raised: "In a society with a lack of power checks and balances, "Public power to crack down on counterfeiting tends to be used by private individuals at will, and law enforcement officers' crackdowns on counterfeiting can easily turn into fake crackdowns, protection of counterfeiting, and support for counterfeiting." This view can provide a specific realistic background for the opposition's position. The opposition later also emphasized the importance of this background when concluding their submissions. On the other hand, doubts about the power interference of public institutions are also the key points that the opposition should focus on to demonstrate. However, the opposition raised this point last. Perhaps the opposition believes that the most powerful weapon should be revealed last. However, it should be noted that since it is the realistic basis of the theory, it should be raised from the beginning, otherwise people will think that this A specific situation is nothing more than a special case and a piece of evidence to prove one's position. Therefore, in terms of argumentation, the positive side performs better than the negative side. Of course, there are some problems in the affirmative's argument, mainly in terms of conceptual definition. The affirmative chose a definition that is not conducive to its own position, a relatively narrow definition of "fake".

The advantage of the affirmative side does not seem to be maintained. During the attack and defense and free debate stages, the affirmative side repeatedly used methods of substituting concepts, arbitrarily changing its own definition, and deliberately misunderstanding the other party's intentions. Although it may cause technical problems, It has a certain refutation effect, but in fact it is constantly changing its position, especially on the meaning of several basic concepts.

Characteristics of each debater:

The second debate is very literary; the third debate is very passionate; the emotional language of the fourth debate is quite inflammatory. The opposition and the first debate are familiar to many college students. Examples of celebrities such as Tang Jun and Kai-Fu Lee illustrate the importance of EQ. Two words can describe her: wisdom and grace; Erbian illustrates the importance of EQ by saying that perseverance is more important than one's own intelligence in a modeling competition, and To quote Socrates' famous saying, the questioning is powerful; the third argument is calm; the fourth argument is calm, concise, and to the point.

During the debate, both sides can grasp the main issues and debate around their own positions and arguments. However, sometimes the direction of the spearhead can be adjusted better. For example, the affirmative can completely "..." asked. The opposition can also adjust its perspective and expose the limitations and possible drawbacks of "mainly relying on law enforcement" in a universally applicable sense.

Disadvantages:

Finally, let’s talk about the shortcomings of both parties. This is something I don’t want to talk about, and to say the least, it’s something I’m not qualified to talk about. We believe that if the affirmative side can work harder on the impact of the tone, the effect of the debate may be better; we also hope that the opposing side can debate more based on the development of the situation on the field instead of reading the manuscript, and pay attention to controlling the speed of speech. Maybe things will be better.

The most common problem between the two sides is the typhoon problem, especially the players' gazes are very inconsistent. They focus more on the table and manuscripts, or on the other player, and basically ignore the audience. This will be a problem in future games. There are also some shortcomings in the debate that must be paid attention to. For example, both sides have loopholes, but they fail to seize them and attack them in a timely and effective manner; the thinking is not broad enough and they are too entangled in minutiae; the questions asked are unfamiliar and some words are used. Words and sentences still need to be standardized, etc., and further study, experience, and improvement are needed. However, despite its shortcomings, it was still a wonderful game. Language doesn’t have to be aggressive. I remember that there was a debater in the International College Debate Competition. His speech was not fast, but he was very difficult to deal with.

Conclusion:

Debate is erudite, wise and full of profound thinking. , is a kind of communication presented with dialectical thinking and magnanimity, or is it the expression of personality and the embodiment of team spirit. The debate competition competes with thoughts, competes with wisdom, relies on eloquence, and wins with ability. It can be said that "the more you argue, the clearer the truth, and the more you argue, the clearer the theory becomes." In the end, our judges used a pair of words to encourage the contestants of the two teams: "The fighting of words shows the youthful style, and the collision of wisdom re-creates the soul of debate."

It doesn't matter who wins. What is important is the process of us all working together for our own position. What is important is that we are harvesting together at this moment. There are wins and losses in debates, but there is no victory or defeat in life.

Once again, we propose that we give warm applause to the eight debaters on the court and thank them for bringing us this wonderful audio-visual cultural feast!

In the debate arena, the debaters try their best to debate, which is a feast of language and culture.

Through debating, you have made lifelong friends, cheerleading friends who have always supported you, as well as a critical spirit and the ability to study problems. Along the way, winning or losing is not important at all. On the road of life, you are all You are a winner and I sincerely wish you all the best! The audience gave the judges even warmer applause than the debate itself.

There will always be a winner or loser in the game. The result is important, but it is not important. What is important is to get exercise through activities. Looking back in the future, it will be a rare experience and wealth. ;