Provide some common sense about the debate?

Argument-making tactics in debate

Debate is composed of two basic links: argument-making (defense) and refutation. Argument-making is to prove one's basic position and is the basis for refutation. and necessary stairs. If there is no necessary argument in the debate, the rebuttal will appear to be unreasonable and weak. Moreover, if your argument is unstable during the debate, you will naturally be attacked by the other party and can only parry, let alone attack the other party. It can be seen that the quality of the argument is directly related to the success or failure of the debate. Therefore, special attention should be paid to strengthening the argument during the debate. The following is a brief introduction to several argument-making tactics:

Strong logic and strict framework

In making an argument, use rigorous logical thinking to build a rigorous theoretical framework to make your argument solid. . Being rigorous and leaving no loopholes is the key to a successful debate. For example, in the "Macro Cup" TV debate competition, the debate topic between the Peking University team and the School of International Relations team was: "my country should encourage private individuals to purchase cars at this stage." The key to this topic is "cars", "encourage" and "my country's current situation" These three words "stage". How to find the logical relationship between these three to form a strong argument is the key to building a strict offensive and defensive system. Finally, the Peking University team, as the positive party, derived this idea based on its internal logical connection: the development of the car industry at this stage is one of the leading directions of my country's industrial development. Due to the "three highs and one fast" characteristics of the automobile industry, the automobile industry has proven to be the most powerful booster of economic take-off. The quality and output of automobiles are also a symbol of a country's development level. Our country is no exception. To promote industrial development, the car industry must be developed. Secondly, the key to the development of the automobile industry lies in the market. How to expand the car market, the most convenient way is to make cars "fly into the homes of ordinary people". Therefore, there is an inevitable connection between the automobile industry and encouraging private purchases. On this basis, they fully demonstrated the realistic possibility and necessity of "encouraging purchases" based on its inevitable logical connection, and fully considered the issues that may be raised in the opponent's argument (namely, the congested situation of highway traffic in our country). , whether the private consumption of cars will be a luxury and advanced consumption tendency), and have made careful and reasonable preparations for this one by one. Because the Peking University team fully used rigorous logical thinking to establish its own argumentation system and ensured the rigor and thoroughness of the system, their arguments were both solid and defensible in practice, and achieved good results. .

Surprise, seek "establishment" in "destruction"

Debating is, in the final analysis, a contest of knowledge and resourcefulness. If one party to the debate can make full use of his or her knowledge when making an argument, And resourcefulness, based on a thorough analysis of the debate topic, breaks through the defense line of the opponent's argument, cleverly proposes a brand-new concept, and catches the opponent off guard, which can greatly weaken the opponent's attack power. For example, in the 94 Changhong Cup National College Debate Competition, the Nanjing University team faced the Jilin University team. The Jilin University team's position as the affirmative was that the primary criterion for college graduates to choose a career is to use their personal expertise. As the opponent, the Nanda Brigade has many ideas for argumentation. For example, it can say that "the primary criterion is social needs", it can also be said that "it is a good income", "it is interest", etc., but all of these are too common and may fall into the Ji Brigade A fierce attack was prepared in advance. You said "social needs", but he said that career choice is a subjective behavior, and "making full use of personal expertise" is to better meet "social needs". You said "rich income", and he said: The other debater needs it most in the motherland where he raised himself. When you put your own selfish interests first and bargain with the people, how sad and disappointing it is! In this way, the South University team will be difficult to resist. Finally, after careful thinking, the NTU team put forward an extremely bold concept: career choices for college students are complex and diverse, and there is no and should not be a unified primary criterion! He also pointed out that without proving that there should be a unified primary criterion for college students to choose a career, to emphasize that this primary criterion is "to develop personal expertise" is undoubtedly to build a building on quicksand. As soon as these words came out, everyone was shocked.

Since the NTU team's views fundamentally shaken the opponent's well-crafted argument, the JiDa team was unprepared and was immediately thrown into disarray, so much so that they barely refuted it in their normative speeches. While defeating the opponent with unprecedented innovative courage, the NTU team also further clarified its own proposition: College students should choose careers based on personal self-improvement and promotion of social progress. As a result, the Nanjing University team quickly took the initiative on the court and received very obvious effects on the court.

Find a different approach, Li Daitao Zong

When you encounter some logically or theoretically difficult debate topics in the debate, you have to use "Li Daitao Zhan" in the argument process. ” approach, introducing new concepts to resolve difficulties. For example, the argument "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem" is very difficult to argue because AIDS is both a medical problem and a social problem. From a common sense point of view, it is difficult to clearly separate these two problems. When Fudan University dealt with this problem, they first made the following assumptions: If they were asked to argue the right side, they would introduce the new concept of "social impact" and thus affirm that AIDS has a certain "social impact." But it is not a "social problem", and the meaning of "social impact" must be strictly determined, so that it will be difficult for the other party to invade. Later, during the debate, they drew the opposing side and wanted to explain that "AIDS is a social problem. It is not a medical problem." In this case, it would be unreasonable to completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem. Therefore, they The concept of "medical approach" was introduced in the debate, emphasizing the need to use a "social systems engineering" approach to solve AIDS, and in this project, the "medical approach" is one of the necessary parts. In this way, Their room for maneuver is greater, and the opponent has to spend a lot of effort to dwell on the concepts they propose, and their attack power is greatly weakened. The significance of the tactic "Li Daitao Zong" is to introduce a new concept to deal with the opponent. This ensures that certain key concepts in our argument are hidden behind and are not directly attacked by the other party.

Less definitions, more descriptions

In argumentation (defense), we We often encounter the unavoidable fact that defining a concept is the main way to clarify our basic views and clarify our basic positions. But we must pay special attention to it if we are enthusiastic in the debate. If you fail to give a clear definition to each concept, you may provide the other party with many unexpected bombs. Moreover, if you explain the topic and concepts clearly, there will be no room for maneuver in the debate, such as "food and clothing". If this concept is defined as a state: "In this state, most people in society have no need for food and clothing", then the other party can immediately ask: "What is the connotation of your social concept? It refers to a group. A nation or a country? ” You can also ask: “What do you mean by ‘most people’?” Is it 60, 70 or 80% of the population? "If you continue to answer these questions, you may expose many new problems and fall completely into a passive response situation. Therefore, when explaining a concept, you must say what you must say and what must be hidden, that is, use the descriptive method Methods to prevaricate. The so-called "description" does not reveal the essential meaning of the concept, but only describes the concept from the perspective of the phenomenon, even a tautological description, such as the question of "what is food and clothing", the Fudan University team did this. The answer is: "Eating and clothing means having enough food and warm clothes." This oral answer is actually a tautology and does not provide anything new, but it gives the impression that they have clearly explained this concept, but the other party cannot catch it. In this way, during the subsequent debate, when the Fudan University team made new additions and explanations to the concept of "food and clothing", they appeared to be more flexible and free, and would not be caught by the other party. .

In general, we should pay attention to the appropriate use of description and definition methods in debates. We should not neglect the two, but we should use descriptions as much as possible to clarify some issues while concealing others. The realm of the problem prevents the other party from quickly judging and seizing the fundamental elements of one's own point of view to attack.

Argumentation in debate is a flexible and changeable process, and the tactics that can be used in this process are also flexible and diverse. The above listed are just a few of the most important and commonly used tactics in practice, and there are many more. Good tactics also require us to continuously accumulate and summarize in practice, so as to ensure that we achieve better results in debates

The skills of focusing on the guest in the debate

The original meaning of anti-guest is: the guest becomes the host in turn. The metaphor changes from passive to active. In debates, passivity is a common disadvantage and often a precursor to defeat. In the debate, the main thing is to be anti-objective. In layman's terms, he means to change from passive to active in debate. Below, this article attempts to introduce to you several techniques based on techniques and theory combined with the analysis of actual arguments.

1. Borrowing force to fight against force

There is a trick in martial arts novels called "borrowing force to fight against force". It means that a person with deep internal strength can use the opponent's attack power to counterattack the opponent. . This method can also be applied to debates.

For example, in the debate on "Easy to Know, Easy to Do", there was this round:

Opponent: We have to ask the other side to identify friends. Today, basically any Chinese or It is said that people of any race know that murderers die, or that killing is wrong. "Knowing" is so easy, so why are so many people still unable to restrain their inner desires and kill people? That’s why it’s “difficult to go”! (Applause)

Zheng Fang: Yes! Those people only knew the power of the law because they were on the execution ground and faced death. The dignity of the law can be said to be "knowing the difficulties" and recognizing the other party as a friend! (Warm applause)

When the opponent used the example of "It is easy to know the law but difficult to abide by the law" to demonstrate that "it is easy to know but difficult to do", the advocate immediately turned to the other side and strengthened his own point of view from the perspective of "it is difficult to know the law" , gave the opponent a powerful counterattack.

Here, the reason why the positive side was able to use the negative side's examples to counterattack was because he had a series of reinterpretations that were not expressed verbally. The theory of words serves as a strong backing: the "knowledge" in the argument is not just the "knowledge" of "knowing", but also the "knowledge" based on human rationality; obeying the law is not difficult, as an act. It is not difficult to kill people, but it is difficult to know how to maintain one's rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill in one's heart. In this way, the positive side's broad and high-level definition of "knowing difficulty" and "doing easy" are used by the other side to be narrow and narrow. The low-level definition of "easy to know" and "difficult to do" effectively struck back the opposition, causing the opposition's argumentative framework based on the superficial levels of "knowing" and "doing" to collapse.

2. Substituting the other side's arguments

Eliminating the flawed parts of the other party's arguments and replacing them with viewpoints or materials that are favorable to us can often achieve the miraculous effect of "making a difference". We call this technique "transferring flowers and trees".

For example. The following example appeared in the debate on "Knowing Difficulty and Doing Easy":

Opposition: The ancients said that "Sichuan is in trouble, it is difficult to reach the sky", which means that the road to Shu is difficult to walk, and "walk" means "walk" Well! If it's not difficult, why isn't Sun Xingzhe called Sun Zhizhe?

True: Sun Dasheng’s nickname is Sun Xingzhe, but does the opponent’s friend know that his Dharma name is Sun Wukong? Does “enlightenment” mean “knowledge”?

This is a very beautiful example of "transferring flowers and grafting new ideas onto others". The counter-example seems to be clear-cut, but in fact it is a bit far-fetched: "Why is Sun Xingzhe not called Sun Zhizhe" as a refutation, although it is an almost unreasonable initiative, but after all, it has the upper hand in momentum. The positive party keenly discovered the one-sidedness of the opponent's arguments, and decisively started from the "Sun Wukong" side, questioning the opponent on the basis that "enlightenment" means "knowledge", making the opponent's reference to "Sun Dasheng" become a waste of money to put out the fire and cause trouble.

The technique of substituting others' ideas is a strong attack in debate theory. It requires the debater to have the courage to accept and counterattack, so it is also a difficult and highly confrontational technique. Very persuasive argumentation skills. It is true that in reality, there are eloquent arguments and changes in the situation, and ready-made materials such as "Sun Xingzhe" and "Sun Wukong" are not always available for use. In other words, there are more "transfers".

The debater needs to accurately summarize or deduce the other party's views and our position at the time.

For example, in the debate on "Covering poverty is more important than curing stupidity", the affirmative made this statement: "...the other debater measures importance by urgency, then I want to tell you , I am very hungry now, and I urgently need food to satisfy my hunger, but I still want to continue arguing, because I realize that arguing is more important than satisfying my hunger." As soon as he finished speaking, applause broke out. At this time, the opposition calmly argued: "Friends from the other side of the debate, I think 'not eating when you have something to eat' and 'having nothing to eat' are two different things..." The opposition's reply aroused even more enthusiastic applause. The positive side uses "having food to eat" to argue that poverty is not enough to fear and the relative importance of controlling stupidity. The negative side immediately summarizes the gist of "having no food to eat" from its own point of view, and clearly compares the essential differences between the two. The difference is huge, effectively curbing the other party's tendency to change concepts secretly.

3. Go with the flow

On the surface, we agree with the other party's point of view, follow the other party's logic to deduce, and in the derivation, according to our needs, set up some reasonable obstacles to make the other party's point of view It cannot be established under the added conditions, or a conclusion that is completely opposite to the other party's point of view can be drawn.

For example, in the debate of "Should Yu Gong move mountains or move a house":

Opposite side: ...We have to ask the other party to identify friends. Yu Gong moving solved the difficulty and protected It saves resources and saves manpower and financial resources. What’s wrong with this?

Fang: Yugong moving is a good way to solve the problem, but it is difficult to get out of the place where Yugong lives, so how can he move his home? ...It can be seen that moving can be considered for the time being, but it must be done after moving the mountain!

Mythological stories are all exaggerated to show their truth, and their essence is not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, the pros must not let the counter-parties get around to talking about things. Otherwise, the counter-parties will be in line with the modern value orientation. "Methodology" must prevail. Judging from the above argument, the opponent’s argument is based on the facts, with sufficient grounds and a solid foundation. The affirmative side first takes advantage of the situation and affirms that “moving is a good way to solve the problem.” Since the average person said, “It is difficult to even get out of the place where Yu Gong lives.” One condition naturally led to the question "How to move a house?", and finally it came to a natural conclusion, "First move the mountain, then move the house." Such a series of theories are intertwined. It goes through every step, using overwhelming attack power to defeat the opponent's matter-of-factness. It is really wonderful!

4. Correcting the source

The so-called "correcting the source", in this article's metaphorical sense, means pointing out that the opponent's argument is not closely related to the topic or runs counter to it, and fundamentally corrects the footing of the opponent's argument. , pull it into our "sphere of influence" and make it serve our point of view. Compared with the "go with the flow" method of forward reasoning, this technique is exactly the opposite of its train of thought.

For example, in the debate on "whether job-hopping is conducive to the development of talents", there is such a section of the debate:

Pro: Zhang Yong, the champion of the National Table Tennis Championships, is He switched jobs from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, and his fellow debater said he had not made any contribution to the people of Shaanxi. It was really disappointing! (Applause)

Opponent: Is it possible that you switched jobs to the sports team? This is exactly the reasonable flow we advocate here! (Applause) The friend on the other side is looking at the problem through job-hopping glasses. Of course, the world is as dark as crows, and all activities are job-hopping. (Applause)

Zheng Fang takes Zhang Yong as an example. After he moved from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, he gained space to better develop himself. This is a fact. The opposing party immediately pointed out that the other party made a mistake in citing specific examples: Zhang Yong could not have gone to the sports team through an irregular talent flow method such as "job hopping", but precisely under the principles of "fairness, equality, competition, and merit selection." "Reasonable flow" is highly credible, persuasive, and shocking, and has achieved an obvious anti-customer-oriented effect.

5. Drawing firepower from the bottom of the cauldron

Tricky selective questions are one of the common offensive moves used by many debaters. Usually, this kind of question is premeditated. It can put people in a "difficult" situation. No matter which choice the other party makes, it will be detrimental to you.

A specific technique for dealing with this kind of questioning is to extract a preset option from the other party's selective questions for a powerful counter-examination, which fundamentally frustrates the other party's energy. This technique is to draw fire from the bottom of the cauldron.

For example, in the debate on "Ideology and morality should adapt to (beyond) the market economy", there was the following round of confrontation:

Opponent:... I asked Lei Feng's spirit what is selfless dedication? Spirit or spirit of equivalent exchange?

Correction: The other party’s friend here misunderstood equivalent exchange. Equivalent exchange means that all exchanges must be equivalent, but it does not mean that everything is exchange. Lei Feng has not yet Thinking of exchange, of course Lei Feng's spirit cannot be said to be equivalent. (Applause from the audience)

Opponent: Then I would also like to ask the other debater, is the core of our ideology and morality the spirit of serving the people, or the spirit of seeking profit?

Zhengfang: Isn’t serving the people a requirement of the market economy? (Applause)

In the first round, the opponent had the intention of "treating the king to the throne" and came prepared. Obviously, if you answer questions passively with fixed thinking, it will be difficult to deal with the "dilemma" preset by the opponent: Choosing the former just proves the opponent's view that "ideology and morality should transcend the market economy"; choosing the latter is contrary to the facts. , which is even more absurd. However, the debaters for the affirmative side jumped out of the "either/or" frame of the opposing side and went straight to the point of view, extracting "equivalent exchange" from the two preset options, completely overturning the argument by looking for the root of the tree. Its correctness as a default option, its calm tone, sharp language, its flexibility in adapting to changes, and its superb skills are breathtaking!

Of course, the actual situation in the debate field is very complicated. If you want to change from passive to active in the debate, mastering some skills of resisting the guest is only one factor. On the other hand, resisting the guest also needs to rely on It's a very good improvisation, but this one is unstructured.

Let the truth convince both parties

We know that the debate in the debate competition does not need to convince the other party, but only needs to convince the judges and the audience; as long as the judges and the audience are convinced, the debate will be successful. . Daily debate with the purpose of softening opposition is different. It not only requires convincing the other party but also requires oneself to be prepared to be convinced (this is a taboo in debate competitions). It can be said that in daily debate, it is not one party who is persuaded. The other party is persuaded, but both parties are convinced by reason. In debate, only when both sides are reasonable and can find the real opposition can the opposition be truly softened.

Therefore, the requirement for daily debate is: strive to let the truth convince both parties. To do this In this regard, you must make your own position clear, listen to the other party's position clearly, analyze the positions of both parties clearly, and change your position skillfully when possible.

1. One's own position must be clear. Make it clear

Speak clearly about your position, including your arguments and arguments (especially arguments), and make your position clear so as not to cause the other party to misunderstand you and trigger unnecessary new confrontations. For example:

Xiao Liu from Sichuan and Xiao Yang from Zhejiang are good friends. They often spend their pocket money together. Once, they bought a bag of Sichuan mustard. Xiao Yang was very unhappy. Happy: "Why don't you buy Zhejiang Zulai? "Xiao Liu: "How can Zhejiang mustard taste as pure as Sichuan mustard? Xiao Yang: "You really don't know how to eat." The taste of Zhejiang mustard is pure! "Xiao Liu: "I don't know how to eat? I grew up eating pickled mustard and have been eating it for decades. I’m afraid you don’t know how to eat it. "...

Neither side made their positions clear. What is "purity"? This is a word with a vague meaning. Perhaps the real opposition between the two sides is: Xiao Liu is from Sichuan and likes to eat spicy food. Xiao Yang is from Zhejiang and is accustomed to eating sweet mustard. Because he did not explain his position clearly, it caused a new conflict: Who is better at eating mustard?

2. Listen to the other party’s position. To be clear about the other party's position, the key is to "listen". Being a good listener and hearing the other party's position will help you to understand the other party correctly and avoid misunderstandings.

1. Pay attention to the meaning of what the other party has said.

Being obedient means hearing out the other person's meaningful subtext (such as a pun), which is not difficult to do. The difficulty is that on the other hand, it is necessary to hear the meaning that the speaker himself is not necessarily aware of. For example:

In the match between China and Bahrain in the Asian top nine in the Olympic Games, Li Jinyu scored two goals to let China win. 2:1 win. But he missed two more single goals, making it difficult for the Chinese team to surpass the Korean team in goal difference. A, who often watches football, debates with B, who often plays football. A: "Li Jinyu can't do it, the Chinese forward can't do it." B: "Li Jinyu can't do it? Go up and give it a try. Don't talk nonsense if you haven't played football." A: "I haven't played football, so don't I think I haven't watched football?" ...

When fan A says that Li Jinyu is not good, he may be comparing himself with a world-class striker; when player B says that Li Jinyu is good, he is obviously comparing himself to himself. In this sense, the two sides have no real meaning. of opposition. The bad thing is: because each other did not understand the meaning of the other's words, a false confrontation led to a new confrontation: who is qualified to commentate on football - those who often watch football or those who often play football.

2. Don't rush to judge for the other person if they haven't said it out loud.

First of all, if the judgment is relative to the other party’s affirmative words, the other party may not necessarily deny it; if the judgment is relative to the other party’s negative words, the other party may not necessarily affirm it. Because relative judgment is not opposite judgment. For example, the teacher scolded Xiao Ming: "Why don't you use periods where periods should be used in the composition?" In daily debates, people often think that the teacher's words include this meaning: Xiao Ming did not use periods where periods should be used in the composition. In fact, this is not true. Definitely, the teacher may have said this sentence because there is no period in Xiao Ming's composition, or he just used other punctuation marks where a period should be used. This type of mistake is also common in everyday debates. For example:

The host treats guests. Ding never came, and the master waited impatiently: "Why hasn't the one who should have come come yet?" A thought that the master wanted to say, "The one who should not have come has come," so he turned around and left. When the owner saw this, he said, "The ones who shouldn't have left are gone." When B heard this, he wasn't happy and said, "The ones who should have gone are gone?" Then he got up and left. The owner became anxious and chased him out: "I didn't say anything about you." When B heard this, he thought he was talking about me and went home.

People generally draw lessons from this widely circulated joke (in which the debate is not continued and the language form is incomplete) to be careful when speaking; but on the other hand, it does not lead to What about the lesson about being careful and obedient? If A, B and C did not make judgments for their masters, the conflict would not be out of control.

Secondly, do not expand the other party’s words arbitrarily. Arbitrarily expanding the opponent's conclusion to make it ridiculous is a common technique in debate competitions. Daily debate requires convincing both sides with reason, rather than one party defeating the other. This would be inappropriate. For example:

After A and B bought sports lottery tickets, A said: "Issuing sports lottery tickets is good. It can raise a lot of funds for sports." B said: "I don't think so. This is encouraging the masses. Gambling psychology." A: "After all, the purpose is to contribute to sports, how can it be the same as gambling?" B: "Since issuing lottery tickets can raise funds, should we issue aircraft carrier lottery tickets and moon landing lottery tickets? It’s not that my family is short of money to repair the house, why should we also issue lottery tickets?”…

In this debate, B expanded A’s argument. Just issue a lottery ticket. Person B's approach is causing trouble for softening the confrontation.

3. The positions of both parties must be clearly analyzed

By clarifying one's own position and listening to the other party's position, one can have a clear understanding of the pros and cons of both sides' views. Understanding where the real opposition lies is the key to softening it theoretically. For example:

When colleges and universities expanded enrollment in 1999, public opinion was mixed. In a live talk show on a certain radio station, a high school graduated general manager of a foreign company and a young university lecturer debated this matter. The general manager believes that enrollment expansion is meaningless. The vast majority of people do not need to go to college because they can live a good life. A few people do not need to go to college because they can have cars and houses through hard work.

University lecturers take the opposite view: higher education should open its doors to more people because people should learn more. At the end of the program, the university lecturer concluded: "The fundamental difference between me and the general manager is not actually whether we agree with the expansion of college enrollment, but whether knowledge or material life should be the goal that people pursue."

The fundamental opposition between the lecturer and the general manager is an unresolved issue. What is valuable is that the lecturer found the real opposition under the superficial opposition. Only when the real opposition is softened can the opposition be truly softened. Distinguishing the positions of both sides and finding out the real opposition is the prerequisite for softening the opposition.

Four. Change your position skillfully.

Daily debates require softening opposition, so we do not pay attention to "keeping the bottom line" in debate competitions. For example, the two sides in a debate competition are two pieces of ice that refuse to melt (whoever melts loses); while the two sides in a daily debate are two burning fires (the fire of truth), and the flames only flourish when they come together. In order to soften the opposition, daily debate requires timely changes in one's views to achieve agreement with the other party. Here are two better ways to do this.

1. Attribute your own point of view to the other party's point of view, so that the positions of both parties can be transformed. For example:

The marketing manager and development manager of a company argued over the development of a new product. The marketing manager believes that before developing a new product, a detailed market survey should be conducted to see if consumers have such demand. The manager of the development department believed that the development of new products must be kept secret so that customers and competitors in the same industry can feel mysterious. The two debated for a while, but both felt that there was something wrong with their position. The marketing manager took the initiative and said: The development manager's suggestion is correct, but it is best to conduct a general market survey before development.

The marketing manager adjusted his position from detailed market research to general market research to conform to the other party's point of view (which must be kept confidential), thus softening the confrontation.

2． Attribute the other person's point of view to your own point of view to guide the other party, for example:

Currently, the incidence of myopia among school students is very high. Doctor A believes that it is mainly a hygiene problem caused by unhygienic use of eyes. . Doctor B thinks it is mainly an education issue. A: "Myopia is mostly caused by reading for too long. Incorrect reading posture and other unhygienic use of the eyes are naturally a health problem." B: "Have you ever thought about it, if students are not stressed, will students read for a long time? ?" A: "Yes, they may read extracurricular books for a long time." B: "In this case, why don't schools strengthen eye hygiene education?" B: "Maybe the education has no effect. : "Education doesn't work. Isn't this an education problem?"

In this debate, Doctor B cleverly introduced A's point of view into his own point of view: Even if it is a health issue , it is also first and foremost a health education issue, and therefore an education issue.

When sophists quote famous quotes...

There are often arguments or debates in life. Sometimes these arguments are logical, and sometimes they are mixed with sophistry. When sophists are at a loss for words, they often quote famous quotes to prove their views and topics, "raising the banner as a tiger's skin" and pretending to stand with celebrities and the truth, so as to catch the other party off guard and themselves. "Escape from desperate situations". What should you do if you encounter this situation? Here are several "tricks" to resolve it:

1. Tit-for-tat method. This means that when the sophists cite famous quotes as evidence, the refutationists will "treat others in their own way" and also quote famous names and arguments to refute. In this way, the irrefutable embarrassment that the other party has imposed on you is imposed on the other party in the same way. Once, several male and female friends got together to argue about the issue of parental responsibility in family education. The female compatriots unanimously believed that the father should bear the main responsibility as a parent, while most of the male compatriots held the opposite opinion. Both sides were at odds with each other, regardless of the host. How to "reconcile" (articulate that both are important) does not help. Suddenly a female compatriot said: "There is an old saying in our country that it is the father's fault if he is raised or not taught, not the mother's fault. It can be seen that the father shoulders the main responsibility of educating his children." The speaker was a little proud.

The male compatriots were at a loss for words, and the host quickly retorted: "This is not entirely true. We know that the famous French thinker Rousseau pointed out in his famous educational work "Emile": If the mother does not mother, the child will not have children, which shows that mothers are very important in educating their children. I am also responsible." At this time, the female compatriot was also speechless. The host went on to clarify his point of view, "We can all prove that fathers and mothers have important roles and responsibilities in educating children, but it is one-sided to only emphasize one and deny the other, or to shift the responsibility to the other. As Lu Xun said: Parents Children should be raised soundly, educated with all their strength, and fully liberated." Such eloquent rebuttal and argumentation can easily convince the other party.

2. Push to the extreme. The conclusion drawn by sophistry is absurd, and even quoting famous quotes to prove it cannot conceal its absurdity. A young couple, because they are newlyweds, the man has not changed his bachelor character. He is free after get off work, does not have much involvement in the family, and even communicates with his buddies

Reference: /read.php?tid=3571