What are the taboos in debating?

It is forbidden to admit the other party’s point of view! !

When a classmate of mine was debating, he said: "I admit that you are right, but..."

The whole audience was in an uproar...

Specific details Let me give you some information:

Debating skills

The original meaning of turning guest-centered is: the guest becomes the host in turn. The metaphor changes from passive to active. In debate competitions, 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 that focus on counter-customers by combining technical theory with analysis of actual arguments.

(1) Borrowing force to fight

There is a trick in martial arts novels called "borrowing force to fight", which means that people with deep internal strength can use the opponent's attack power to fight back other side. This method can also be applied to debates.

For example, in the debate on "Easier said than done", there was such a round:

Professor: That's right! 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 difficulties" and identifying friends with each other! (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 changed the argument: "It is difficult to know the law" to strengthen its own point of view. , 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 defense question is not only the "knowledge" of "knowing", but also the "knowledge" based on human rationality; it is not difficult to obey the law, as an act. It is not difficult to kill someone, but it is very difficult to know how to maintain one's rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill in one's heart. In this way, the "knowing difficulty" and "doing easy" defined by the positive side are broad and high, but the negative side is narrow and narrow. The attack power of the low-level definition of "knowing is easy" and "doing is difficult" effectively hits back the opposition, causing the opposition's argumentative framework based on the superficial level of "knowing" and "doing" to collapse.

(2) Substitution

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 "lifting a thousand pounds". 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 "walking" means "walking" 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 other debater 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 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. 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 I finished speaking, there was applause. At this time, the opposing side calmly argued: "My fellow debater, 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, set up certain reasonable obstacles according to our needs to make the other party The point of view 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 "Should Yu Gong move mountains or move houses":

Opponent: ...We have to ask the other party to identify friends. Yu Gong's moving solved the problem 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 lies not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, the positive side must not let the negative side get around to talking about things. Otherwise, the negative side will be in line with modern value orientations. "Methodology" must be mastered. Judging from the above argument, the negative side's argument is based on the facts, with sufficient grounds and a solid foundation. The positive side first takes advantage of the situation and affirms that "moving is a good way to solve the problem", and then the average person "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, "Move the mountain first, 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 rectifying the source, in this article’s metaphorical sense, means pointing out that the opponent’s arguments are not closely related to the topic or running counter to the topic, and fundamentally correcting the basis of the opponent’s arguments. point, and bring it into our "sphere of influence" so that it can 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 defense:

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 chilling! (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)

The positive side 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 opponent 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) Remove the firewood from under the kettle

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 "dilemma" situation. No matter which choice the other party makes, it will be detrimental to them. 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 whether Lei Feng's spirit is the spirit of selfless dedication. Or is it the spirit of equal exchange?

Fang Fang: ...The other party’s friend here misunderstood equivalent exchange. Equivalent exchange means that all exchanges must be equal, but it does not mean that everything is exchange. Lei Feng also There was no thought of exchange, and of course Lei Feng's spirit could not be said to be equivalent. (Applause from the audience)

Opponent: Then I would 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 on 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 idea of ????turning down the tree to find its roots. 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.

(6) Attack the key points

In debates, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions and argue endlessly. As a result, it seems that the debate is It’s very lively, and actually it’s thousands of miles off topic. This is a big no-no in debate. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issues in the opponent's argument after the opponent's first and second defense statements, so as to seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to theoretically defeat the opponent completely. For example, the key point of the debate "Food and clothing is a necessary condition for discussing morality" is: Can we talk about morality without having food and clothing? Only by always grasping this key issue in the debate can we deal a fatal blow to the other party. In debates, people often say "avoid the truth and replace the truth with fiction", and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. For example, when the other party asks a question that we cannot answer, if we force ourselves to answer without thinking we know it, we will not only lose points, but may even make a joke. In this case, you must tactfully avoid the other party's problems and find the other party's weaknesses to attack. However, in more cases, what we need is to "avoid the weak and focus on the real" and "avoid the light and focus on the important", that is, be good at fighting tough battles on basic and key issues. If we immediately evade the other party's question, it will definitely leave a bad impression on the judges and the audience, thinking that we do not dare to face the other party's problem. In addition, if we fail to attack the basic arguments and concepts proposed by the other party, we will also lose a lot of points. Being good at grasping the opponent's vital points keenly and attacking fiercely to win is an important skill in debating.

(7) Taking advantage of contradictions

Since each side of the debate consists of four team members, conflicts often arise between the four team members during the debate. , because the words are spoken quickly, conflicts may also occur. Once such a situation occurs, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand the opponent's contradictions so that it will be overwhelmed and unable to attack us. For example, when debating with the Cambridge team, the Cambridge team’s third debate argued that law is not morality, while the second debate argued that law is basic morality. These two views are obviously contradictory to each other. We took the opportunity to widen the rift between the two debaters on the other side and force the other side into a dilemma. Another example is that the opponent first regarded "food and clothing" as the basic state of human existence in the first debate, and later, under our fierce offensive, he talked about the state of "hunger and cold". This is in conflict with the previous view, and we "use "The spear of the son, the shield of the attack" makes the other party anxious, confused and speechless, and speechless.

(8) "Leading the snake out of its hole"

In debates, there is often a stalemate: when the other party firmly adheres to its argument, no matter how we attack, the other party only uses a few words To deal with it, if you still adopt the method of frontal attack, you will have little effect. In this case, it is necessary to adjust the offensive method as soon as possible, adopt a roundabout method, and start with seemingly unimportant issues to induce the opponent to leave the position, thereby attacking the opponent and creating a sensational effect in the minds of the judges and the audience. When our team and the Sydney team were debating "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem", the other side insisted on the view that "AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and can only be a medical problem" and remained unmoved. Therefore, our side adopted the tactic of "leading the snake out of its hole". Our second debater suddenly asked: "Excuse me, what is the slogan of this year's World AIDS Day?" The other four debaters looked at each other in confusion, in order not to lose too many points on the court. As soon as the opponent stood up and gave random answers, we immediately corrected him and pointed out that this year's slogan is "Time waits for no one, take action." This is tantamount to opening a gap in the opponent's position and thus disintegrating the opponent's solid front.

(9) "Li Dai Tao Zong"

When we encounter some debate topics that are difficult to argue logically or theoretically, we have to use the "Li Dai Tao Zang" method , 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 separate these two problems. Therefore, according to our preconceptions, if we were to argue the case, we would introduce the new concept of "social impact", thereby affirming that AIDS has a certain "social impact", but it is not a "social problem" and is not a "social problem". Strictly determine the meaning of "social influence" so that it will be difficult for the other party to break in. Later, we got the opposite side of the argument in the lottery, that is, "AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem." In this case, if we completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem, it will be too inconsistent. Therefore, we 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, our room for maneuver will be greater, and the other party will have to spend a lot of effort to dwell on the new concepts proposed by us, and its attack power will be greatly weakened. The significance of the tactic of "Li Daitao Zombie" is to introduce a new concept to deal with the opponent, thereby ensuring that some key concepts in our argument are hidden behind and are not directly attacked by the opponent.

Debating is a very flexible process, in which some of the more important skills can be used. Experience tells us that only by combining knowledge accumulation and debating skills can we achieve better results in debate competitions.

(10) Slow-down tactics

In daily life, we can see the following situations: When the fire brigade receives a call for help, they often answer it in a slow and calm tone. This gentleness The tone is to stabilize the speaker's emotions so that the other party can explain the situation correctly. Another example is when two couples are quarreling, one party is angry and the other party is not anxious, but the latter actually has the upper hand. For another example, political and ideological workers often use a "cold approach" to deal with difficult issues slowly. These situations all show that in some specific situations, "slowness" is also a good way to deal with problems and resolve conflicts. The same is true for debates. In some specific debate situations, fast attack and quick action are disadvantageous, but slow progress and slow action can win the victory.

For example, in 1940, Churchill served as Admiralty Minister in Chamberlain's cabinet and was respected for his advocacy of declaring war on Germany. At that time, public opinion welcomed Churchill to replace Chamberlain as British Prime Minister, and Churchill also believed that he was the most appropriate candidate. But Churchill did not rush for quick results but adopted a "slow to win" strategy. He has publicly stated many times that in the emergency period when war breaks out, he will be ready to serve his motherland under the leadership of anyone.

At that time, Chamberlain and other leaders of the Conservative Party decided to nominate Lord Halifax, who supported the appeasement policy, as the candidate for prime minister. However, the British people who fought the war recognized that only Churchill had the ability to lead this war in the political arena. At the meeting to discuss the candidate for prime minister, Chamberlain asked: "Does Mr. Churchill agree to participate in the government led by Halifax?" Churchill, who was eloquent, remained silent for two minutes. Halifax and others understood that silence meant disapproval. Once Churchill refused to join the cabinet, the new government would be overthrown by angry people. Halifax had to break his silence first, saying that he was not suitable to form a government. Churchill's wait was finally rewarded by the King of England authorizing him to form a new government.

For another example, in a certain store, a customer came to the door aggressively and said nonstop: "The heels of these shoes are too high and the style is not good..." The store salesperson said nothing. , listened patiently to what he said without interrupting him. When the customer stopped talking, the salesperson said calmly: "Your opinions are very straightforward, and I appreciate your personality. Let me go inside and choose another pair to satisfy you." "If you If you are not satisfied, I am willing to serve you again." After venting his dissatisfaction, the customer felt that he had gone too far. He was also embarrassed to see the salesperson answering his questions so patiently. As a result, he did a 180° turn and praised the salesperson for the new shoes that were actually not much different, saying: “Hey, these shoes are great, as if they were custom-made for me.

"The salesperson used slowness against fastness, coldness against heat, allowing the customer to vent his anger, reaching a psychological balance, and resolving the dispute.

From the above examples, we can summarize that in debate To correctly use the "slow to win" method, you must pay attention to at least the following three points:

First, wait slowly and strike later

As the saying goes: "Haste makes waste." "Acting hastily when the time is not ripe often fails to achieve the goal. The same is true for debates. "Slowness" is also necessary under certain conditions. The "slowness to win" method is actually a delaying tactic in debate. The delaying tactic is to delay the opponent's advance. Strategy. When the debate situation is not suitable for a quick decision, or the time is not yet ripe, you should avoid a direct confrontation, but wait for the opportunity to strike before the opportunity comes, as in the first case. In this example, Churchill was not in a hurry to succeed when the time was right. He waited patiently and expressed his opposition with silence at the critical moment when the candidate for prime minister was discussed.

Secondly, he used his slowness to make plans. Weakness versus Strong

The "Slowness to Win" method is applicable to debate situations where weakness versus strength, weakness versus strength, is a strategic method used by the weaker party to defeat the seemingly stronger party. "Slowness" contains strategy, and slow movements must be clever. The "slowness" here is not a synonym for slow response and poor rhetoric, but one of the magic weapons for an orator who is wise but foolish and eloquent. For example, in the first case, when faced with Chamberlain's questioning, Churchill pretended to be deaf and delayed, which was actually a delaying tactic. In this tough stalemate, Chamberlain's side finally lost his composure, and Churchill finally lost his composure. Using slowness to plan finally won the victory.

Third, using slowness to control anger and using coldness to deal with heat

"Slowness" is still a good way to "control anger" in debates. People with poor self-control are easily agitated during arguments. In this case, if you want to persuade an overly excited person, you should use slow movements and a slow tone to deal with it. Only when the other party is calm can he successfully accept your reasoning. For example, the salesperson in the second example calmed down the other party's anger and resolved the conflict with a calm attitude and gentle tone. .

In short, "fast" and "slow" in debate are also a dialectical relationship of opposites. Speed ??is the best, but sometimes "slow" also means "slow". The beauty. "Slow" can be used to wait, "slow" can be used to control anger. "Slow" is a tough tactic, "slow" is a protracted battle, and "slow" is a delaying tactic in a verbal battle. . Although moving slowly takes a long time and takes a lot of detours, in many cases, it is often the shortcut to victory.