Questioning Skills in Debate Competition

Highlights of Questioning Skills in Debate Competition

How to ask questions in the debate competition to embarrass the other side? The following is a collection of questioning skills in the debate that I have compiled. Welcome to reading. I hope you like it.

Questioning skills are popular in the debate, 1, and questioning methods are in a dilemma.

No matter whether the other person answers the question in the affirmative or negative way, they are embarrassed and deviate from their own wishes and requirements. The beauty of getting the other party into trouble is to use the contradiction of the other party's views or behaviors to get him into trouble and force him to deny his own views or behaviors by asking questions.

2. Seduce the enemy for questioning.

The purpose is to make the other party fall into the trap of their own design, thus forcing the other party to admit or deny a certain point of view. In addition to using questioning method, whose concept is not clear, to trap each other, there are two ways.

One is? Complicated problem? Law. It is a question that can neither confirm nor deny the answer. ? Complicated problem? There is a default that the respondent cannot accept. Whether you give him a positive answer or a negative answer, it means that the respondent admits the presupposed premise in the question.

The second is from far to near. Step by step interrogation method. That is, when asking questions, don't immediately say what you really want to ask, but ask some questions that are far from the real content. From the small things that seem to have nothing to do with what you ask, from far to near, move forward step by step and ask questions step by step, so as to get the other person's nose involved in your ambush circle.

3. List the loopholes in the questioning method.

Sometimes it is even more powerful to ask questions before you start to refute them, let the other person say what he wants him to say, and then use this as a topic to find loopholes to refute the other person. When using questioning method to lead to the topic of rebuttal, we should pay attention to: not only make your own questions directly related to the following rebuttal, but also make the other party answer according to their own requirements. In this way, the following rebuttal can be made.

Ask directly: What do you mean? Ask directly? It's a rhetorical question that comes straight to the point and directly grasps the key refutation.

Wen Qu: That is, beating around the bush, asking questions, inducing the other party to say inconsistent words, thus forcing the other party to admit the absurdity of their own views.

Rhetorical question: Rhetorical question can be said to know perfectly well past ask. It has two characteristics: one is to express one's definite thoughts with questions; Second, rhetorical questions don't need answers.

In the debate, if you can use the above questioning skills flexibly to refute the other party, it will be more powerful than the rebuttal of statements and more helpful to attack the enemy.

4. Reveal the contradiction of questioning method.

In the debate, some viewpoints do not seem to be self-contradictory, but through a question, their internal contradictions can be undoubtedly exposed, which provides us with a favorable basis for refuting each other.

Classics of Questioning Skills in Debate Competition I. Leveraging Power

There is a trick in martial arts novels called "fighting with soldiers", which means that people with deep internal forces can fight back with each other's attack power. 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.

Second, replace trees with flowers.

Removing the defective part of the opponent'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 wood with flowers is a storm in the debate, which requires the debater to take over and fight back bravely, so it is also a kind of difficulty and high antagonism. Persuasive argument skills. It is true that the eloquence of the scene is changeable, and more "substitute flowers" need the debater to accurately summarize or deduce the other party's views and our position at that time.

Third, push the boat with the tide.

On the surface, agree with the other party's point of view and deduce it according to the other party's logic, and set some reasonable obstacles in the derivation according to your own needs, so that the other party's point of view cannot be established under additional conditions or completely opposite conclusions can be drawn.

Fourth, the original source.

In the metaphorical sense, it is pointed out that the other party's argument is not closely related to the topic or runs counter to it, so as to fundamentally correct the foothold of the other party's argument and bring it into our "sphere of influence" so that it can just serve our point of view. Compared with the method of "pushing the boat with the current" of forward reasoning, this technique is just the opposite of its thinking.

Fifth, the bottom salary.

Clever and selective questioning is one of the offensive means used by many debaters. Usually this kind of problem 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 extract a preset option from the other party's selective question for a powerful backchat, which will fundamentally frustrate the other party's spirit. This skill is to grasp the root cause of the problem. Of course, the actual situation in the debate is very complicated. Mastering some anti-customer skills in the debate is only one factor. On the other hand, it is necessary to improvise, but there is no rule to follow.

Sixth, attack its key points.

In the debate, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions. The result seemed lively, but actually it deviated from Wan Li's topic. This is a taboo in argument. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issue in the other party's argument after the first and second arguments, seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to completely defeat the other party in theory. Like what? Is food and clothing a necessary condition for talking about morality? The key to this debate lies in whether we can talk about morality in the case of insufficient food and clothing. Only by always grasping this key problem can we give each other a fatal blow. What do people often have in the debate? Avoid reality and be empty? It is necessary to use this technology occasionally. For example, the other party asks a question that we can't answer. If we force an answer without knowing it, we will not only lose points, but even make a joke. In this case, we should tactfully avoid each other's problems and look for other weaknesses to attack. However, what do we need more often? Avoid virtual reality? Focus from light? That is, he is good at playing hardball on basic and key issues. If the other party asks questions, we will immediately avoid them, which will leave a bad impression on the judges and the audience and think that we dare not face up to each other'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 winning by attacking is an important skill in the debate.

Seven, the use of contradictions

Because the two sides of the debate are composed of four players, four players often have contradictions during the debate, even if the same player speaks quickly in the free debate, there may be contradictions. Once this happens, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand each other's contradictions so that they can't take care of themselves and attack us. For example, in the debate with the Cambridge team, the Cambridge team's three arguments hold that law is not moral, but law is basic morality. These two views are obviously contradictory. We took the opportunity to widen the gap between the two debaters of the other side and put the other side in a dilemma. What if the other party argued from the beginning? Food and clothing? As the basic state of human existence, and then talk under our fierce offensive? Hungry and cold? State, which is contradictory to the previous opinion. Our side? Attack the shield with the spear of the child? Let the other side be speechless in desperation.

Eight, draw the snake out of the hole

In debates, there is often a deadlock. When the other party insists on his own argument, no matter how we attack the other party, if we still adopt the method of frontal attack, the effect is not great. In this case, we should adjust the means of attack as soon as possible.

Take a circuitous way to induce the other side to leave the position on seemingly insignificant issues, thus hitting the other side and causing a sensation in the hearts of the judges and the audience.

Nine,? Li is stiff?

When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically, we have to use it? Li is stiff? This method introduces new concepts to solve the difficulties. ? Li is stiff? 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 important skills can be used. Experience tells us that only by combining knowledge accumulation with debate skills can we achieve better results in debate.

Ten, slow down the plan.

In our daily life, we can see the following. When the fire brigade receives a call for help, it often answers slowly. This gentle tone is to stabilize the speaker's mood so that the other party can explain the situation correctly.

Expansion: problem-solving skills in debate. 1. Add service address

In the debate, if the contestants feel that the selected debate questions are unfavorable to them, they can carefully examine whether the connotation of the debate questions is clear and whether the extension is too large. If so, can I use it? Additional premise? Ways to narrow its extension and enrich its connotation, so as to make our argument solid and create conditions for the victory of the debate.

What is the opinion of the active party in an employee debate? The advantages of developing tourism outweigh the disadvantages? ; What is the other side's point of view? The disadvantages of developing tourism outweigh the advantages? . If the debate itself continues, it will be difficult for the opposing side to win. In the debate, the opposing side skillfully used it? Additional premise? Problem-solving skills, debate made this explanation:? If we blindly develop tourism unconditionally regardless of time, place and environment, the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages. ? Such a broken topic narrows the extension of the debate, enriches the connotation, turns disadvantages into advantages, turns passivity into initiative, breaks the topic to the point, and makes the overall situation alive. Then the opposing side cited a large number of real-life examples to prove its point of view. It was hard for the opposing side to argue, and finally the opposing side won the debate.

Debate taboo from theory to theory, and? Additional premise? It is an effective way to win the audience and win the victory by guiding the debate closer to reality and giving us a lot of realistic materials to demonstrate, thus avoiding empty talk.

Second, show the background.

In the debate competition, if some topics are just practical, from a local small scale, one side has absolute advantage, and the other side seems to argue irrationally. If the disadvantaged party can examine and analyze the debate in a wider scope, it can occupy the debate by showing the background involved in the debate. Commanding point? In order to gain the initiative.

Debate contest for college students. What's the topic? Is AIDS a (not) medical problem, not a (but) social problem? . From a local point of view, AIDS is indeed a medical problem, and its etiology, treatment and prevention are all medical problems, but it has been done in the opposite direction? Show background? Problem-solving skills, put this debate in the social background to analyze, and clearly point out: Aids occurs and develops in society, and it must be solved through social system engineering, so it is a social problem. ? Aids has its particularity, that is, its infectivity, lethality and social harm. It has become a serious social harm, far beyond the scope of medicine. Therefore, AIDS control can only rely on the overall strength of society. ? It's hard to refute the affirmation, and it was defeated.

The problem of the opposition cube stands high and looks far away. From the macro point of view, it is condescending, aggressive and eloquent, while from the micro point of view, it is difficult for the positive side to compete with the opposition cube, no matter from the momentum or from the combination of theory and practice. The importance of solving problems can be seen.

Third, take the lead in defining

In the debate, participants can seize the opportunity, take the lead in defining some key words that are beneficial to themselves and unfavorable to the other party, and then make their own interpretation of the debate, so as to occupy the debate before the other party? Commanding point? Suddenly launched an offensive, the other side caught off guard and immediately fell into a passive position, which is bound to be ineffective and weak.

In a debate competition for employees in the financial system, the topic is: Can foreign investment ensure the rapid economic growth of developing countries? In this sentence? Ensure? It should mean that foreign investment can make the economy of developing countries grow rapidly. Obviously, this statement is too absolute. In this way, the positive side is almost unreasonable, and it is easy to be attacked by the opposing side.

At the beginning of the debate, the active party took advantage of its definition priority to take the lead in? Ensure? Redefine this keyword:? Ensure? Does not mean 100% guarantee. For example, on buses in big cities, ticket sellers often use loudspeakers to shout:? In order to ensure the safety of passengers, please do not hold the door. ? This does not mean that as long as the door is not pressed, the safety of passengers can be guaranteed by 100%. ? Right? Ensure? The word has been redefined to benefit one's own side, and the analysis of the debate has become? Foreign investment may make the economy of developing countries grow at a high speed, but of course, due to various reasons, the economy may not grow at a high speed? . The opponent was unprepared and didn't know how to refute it, but acquiesced in this definition and got himself into trouble.

This problem-solving skill is really superb, which makes the positive argument solid and flexible, offensive and defensive, and invincible. The opposing side is passive and leads to failure.

Fourth, dialectical interpretation.

In the debate, the contestants should be good at dialectical thinking, solving the debate from the perspective of the dialectical relationship between opposites and unity of things, and dialectically interpreting the debate, so as to see the essence through phenomena, make their views more incisive and make their arguments better.

In a debate contest for college students, the topic is: Will the implementation of environmental protection slow down the economic growth? As soon as the square players took the stage, they declared: We are staunch advocates of environmental protection, and we hope to protect the environment and increase the economy. But you can't have it both ways. For the survival and development of mankind and the happiness of future generations, we would rather slow down the economic growth and protect the environment. ? Hit floor impressed the judges and the audience and gained the upper hand.

In this unfavorable situation, if the opposing party wants to clarify that the implementation of environmental protection will not reduce the economic growth rate, it obviously runs counter to the feelings of the judges and the audience and will give people an unreasonable impression. The opposing party adopted it? Dialectical interpretation? Problem solving skills clearly point out:? Phenomenologically, the sun goes around the earth, but in essence, the earth goes around the sun. Locally, the earth is flat, but globally, it is spherical. By the same token, from the phenomenon, local and temporary point of view, the implementation of environmental protection seems to slow down the economic growth rate, but from the essence, overall situation and long-term point of view, the implementation of environmental protection will not reduce, but will increase the economic growth rate. ? The opposing party made a dialectical interpretation of the debate, made an analogy with natural phenomena, and won applause and cheers from the audience with its eloquent breakthrough.

The opposing side skillfully solved the problem, showing the judges and the audience the tolerance of seeing the essence through the phenomenon, calculating the big account and the general ledger. Compared with the front, the argument is lofty and logical, laying the foundation for victory.

Verb (abbreviation for verb) seeks advantages and avoids disadvantages.

In the debate, participants should answer the questions contained in the debate. Lee? With what? Hurt? When solving problems, we can make a comprehensive and serious analysis of the factors. Seek advantages and avoid disadvantages? It can even turn harm into benefit and create favorable conditions for us to get rid of the passive situation, strive for initiative and win the debate.

In the national staff debate competition held by Speech and Eloquence magazine in Chengdu, there was a debate topic: Is it the basis of a happy marriage? At first glance, this argument seems to be against the pros, because? Is it appropriate? It is said that for many years? Be criticized? On the other hand, the positive side is good at seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages, which leads to such a broken question: the so-called proper collocation is just a metaphor, which means that the two parties in marriage are generally close to or tend to be consistent in their respective family circumstances, experiences, cultural literacy, social status, personality hobbies and so on. The ancients shouted it out? Swallows know the ambition of swans? Gorgeous rhetoric. ? We hope to fly in the sky, like two birds, with the same wing; We hope to grow together on the ground, like two branches of a tree. ? Dapeng and Sparrow don't deserve Qi Fei and can't be partners. The reason is that the door is not right! ? As soon as the voice fell, there was warm applause on the field.

Such a broken topic can be described as ingenious, which turns the unfavorable factors of the debate into favorable factors and injects new meanings into the conventional word interpretation. The scope of this argument has completely jumped out? Should both parties in marriage be equal? Question, and sublimated into? Both parties in marriage should be like-minded? The topic of the debate, the positive side has completely gained the initiative in this debate.

In short, in the debate, the successful decoding of the debate topic is related to the success or failure of the debate. The advantage of solving problems is the first step to win the debate. Just like the layout in Go, it has a decisive influence on the development of chess. As long as the participants can carefully analyze, explore ideas, tap the essence, select the right angle and creatively solve problems according to the specific circumstances of the debate, they will certainly be able to strike a balance in the debate, attack and defend freely, advance and retreat moderately and argue well. Friends who love debate must study hard and use problem-solving skills flexibly if they want to win the debate.

;