Debate questioning skills and common sentences

Debate questioning skills and common sentences

Debate, formally speaking, is a kind of competition in which two participants debate a debate topic. In fact, it is a competition of knowledge, thinking ability, language expression ability and comprehensive ability around the debate. The following are my collection of questioning skills and common sentences. Welcome to reading. Please continue to pay attention to the debate column for more information!

First, debate and questioning skills, play a force.

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.

Two grafted 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.

Follow the situation

On the surface, we agree with each other's point of view, follow each other's logic, and set some reasonable obstacles in the derivation according to our own needs, so that the other party's point of view can not be established under additional conditions or draw completely opposite conclusions.

Four original sources and clear sources

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.

Get paid from the bottom of five pots

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.

Six 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.

7. Take advantage 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 a 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 measures to slow down the speed of troops

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.

Second, the common language in the debate is 1. Another debater is suspected of favoritism.

2. The opposing debater belongs to circular argument.

It's a pity that the opposing debaters emerge one after another, but the premise is wrong.

The other debater couldn't solve the problem I said, so he chose to avoid it.

Please answer directly, don't make a fuss.

6. The logic of the opponent's defense is very interesting.

7. Would you please demonstrate? Would you please demonstrate? tangle

8. Your analogy between * * and * * really doesn't make sense.

9. Gorgeous words can't replace rational thinking, and poetic romance can't help rational sublimation.

10. A serious debate field needs a serious point of view.

1 1. Don't be busy swearing/taking words out of context/stealing concepts.

12. Thank you. In fact, a series of disputes just now all originated from several key mistakes made by the opposing debater when opening the topic.

13. We have proved our point of view from logic, theory and fact, but is it a bit unreasonable for the other debater to stick to an example?

14. The other debater said so much that the toothless old lady chewed beef tendon? It's a waste of breath

15. I don't know how many times we have argued this question, but the other debater still likes to hang himself from a tree.

;