How to Improve Debate Skills

Take advantage of

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.

Fang Zhengzhi was able to treat himself with examples of opposing sides because he had a series of theories that were not expressed orally and reinterpreted words as a strong backing.

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"

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 many "substitute flowers". It is necessary for the debater to accurately summarize or deduce the other party's views and our position at that time.

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.

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.

Remove the firewood from the pot ―― Solve the problem fundamentally.

Drill's 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.

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.

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.

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 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. Our "spear belt, shield belt" made the other side speechless.

"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, the other side only responds with a few words. If we still adopt the method of frontal attack, it will 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.

"Li is stiff"

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. 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.

delaying/dilatory/stalling tactics

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 so that the other party can explain the situation correctly.

To correctly use the method of "winning by slow" in argumentation, we should at least pay attention to the following three points:

First, take a slow standby preemptive strike.

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.

Second, the implementation is slow, weak and strong.

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. Third, slow down anger, slow down cold and heat.

"Slow" is still a good skill to "control anger" in debate. 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. Although it takes a long time to walk slowly and spend slowly, it is often a shortcut to victory, although there is a big bend.