Joke Collection Website - Cold jokes - Argumentation and Skills in Debate Competition

Argumentation and Skills in Debate Competition

Argumentation and Skills in Debate Competition

What is the general standard debate? What are the skills of debate? The following are my collected arguments and skills. Welcome to reading. Please continue to pay attention to the debate column for more information!

Debate statement

Pro: Money can not only make a splash in the commodity field, but also commercialize non-commodities. It is not only a symbol of material wealth, but also a chip of spiritual value.

Objection: Money is not the root of all evil. Because money can't cover up all the evils in the world. According to anthropological research, we know that the forms of evil are mainly divided into four categories, three of which have nothing to do with money.

(Positive argument): The story of Paradise Lost in the Bible and the teaching of China sage Mencius show that evil is not caused by nature, but by the temptation of the outside world, which makes people lose their conscience. So there are so many temptations from outside, why is money the root of all evil? First, money has the realistic legitimacy of equivalent exchange with any commodity.

Second, money can not only make a splash in the commodity field, but also commercialize non-commodities. It is not only a symbol of material wealth, but also a chip of spiritual value.

Third, people's worship of money also alienates the relationship between people and money. Money was originally a tool to promote social and economic development, but in reality it is worshipped as a god.

(Counterargument): Another debater just told us that money is the root of all evil, because she equates money with purpose. Then I want to ask you a question. I legally pursue money today. Has money become the root of all evil? Second, the other debater told us that money is sometimes not the root of all evil, because it is bound by law. Is the law the norm that binds our behavior? If it is the norm that binds behavior, is money still the root of all evil? In our opinion, money is not the root of all evil.

(Two arguments): Other students have a wrong premise. They told me that "ten thousand" is everything in Ci Hai, but we have also checked Ci Hai, and whether it is Ci Yuan or Shuo Wen Jie Zi, "ten thousand" has never meant everything. In fact, money is the root of all evil, that is to say, money can produce a large number of complex evils. This has long been proved by history. Back in those days, the Roman Empire dominated and conquered, which brought glory and endless wealth to the empire. But soon, the original simple Romans fell at the feet of money and indulged in debauchery, and the empire finally fell apart in this decay.

Facts speak plainer than words. The ancients said, "Take history as a mirror and know the rise and fall". Facing the history of the East and the West, we should not just ask, money, how many sins were born to you and how many sins were died to you?

(Refuting the other side's argument): Since the other side has given many examples, there is actually only one, and that is greed for money. And is there really only one evil in the world, the love of money? Moreover, the other party said that today's "10,000" is not all, so I would like to ask the defense friend of the other party. Today, I said that you must disagree with my position. Does that mean that you disagree most of the time and can agree occasionally?

(Three affirmative arguments): First of all, the other party told everyone not to show everything. No , you 're going the wrong way. Absolute wanzi is an adverb, and the wanzi we are talking about today is an adjective. When you compare adverbs and adjectives, do you mean putting a horse's mouth on a cow's head?

(Three arguments against): First of all, "Wan" is an adverb, not an adjective. There are many adjectives. What is a foolproof strategy? What is the case of a thousand miles, the soul of all things? Don't these "10 thousand" represent all, or do they represent exceptions? Second, the logic of the other party today is actually very simple. He told us that money is the root of all evil, because it is attractive. Third, the other side told us all kinds of evils from one debate to three debates. Actually, in a word, there is only one greed for money. But greed, is the sin greed or money? If the evil lies in money, then I tell you that human beings are not only greedy for money, but also greedy for food and sleep. So is eating and sleeping the root of all evil?

abstract

Leon: There is always a power that can make us lose our nature, and that is the magic of money. But at the same time, there is also a force that makes us return to our original heart, and that is the eternal light of human nature in our hearts.

Objection: Some people do evil for money, while others do good for money. If this root of all evil is good at one time and evil at another, how can it be the root of all evil?

(Four Arguments Against the Party): In fact, a series of arguments just now all originated from several key mistakes made by the other party in the course of the argument. First of all, he told us that everything today doesn't mean everything. The other debater took the word "Wan" out of context and didn't look at the word "the root of all evil". Isn't that a little off topic? Another debater's second hypothesis is to tell us that people today are not vicious. Where does this evil come from? This is an external temptation, and then they tell us how important money is and how to lure people to do evil things. Excuse me, where does the animal nature of human beings come from?

(Four Debates): To sum up the views of other students today, it is nothing more than saying that evil originates from human nature. But please think about it, what is human nature? We all have right and wrong, compassion, respect and humiliation. This is our nature. External temptations are impurities in our hearts, and money, as a universal equivalent, is the abstract embodiment of these external temptations, so we say that money is the root of all evil.

The judges stressed:

The positive interpretation of the word "Wan" means that it does not represent everything, and it is pointed out from the dichotomy of strategic mastery that the opportunity is missed. From the beginning, the opposing side separated money from greed. Money and ideas are different, not the same thing. When money does not exist, ideas still exist, perhaps before the tool of money was created. On the positive side, thought is defined as a beast, but it still acquiesces in the existence of thought. The opposition has always stressed that money is not a problem, but a problem of human greed, not to mention that greed does not represent all evil deeds. The opponent also stressed that evil deeds caused by faith, love or reputation are also evil deeds, not money. But the positive side emphasizes that there is money behind every example. In order to deal with this situation, the square puts forward that "10 thousand" does not mean everything, but only proves that many do not mean everything.

The referee ruled that the opponent won.

Debate Skills (1) Leverage your 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.

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.

(2) grafting

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.

(3) Go with the flow

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.

(d) root causes.

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.

(5) cut the bottom wages.

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. 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.

(6) attack its key points.

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.

(7) Using 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.

(8) "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.

(9) 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. 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.

(10) plan to slow down the troops.

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.

;