College Debate Competition College Debate Competition Experience

About debate summary:

1. Concepts and standards

I usually joke with my friends that how to judge whether a debater is a beginner depends on whether he can I can say two words, one is to secretly change concepts, and the other is to compare standards. Although this is a joke, it also objectively reflects the importance of concepts and standards for beginners. Students who have received a little bit of debate training all know that at the beginning of the opening statement, you must first define the concept by "clearly clarifying the meaning and clarifying the source", and then the formula generally states "a comparative debate topic requires a comparative standard", but Most debaters have probably never seriously thought about why we do such a thing, and what are the uses of concepts and standards. In a sense, concepts and standards are the basis for a debate topic to be argued. For the pros and cons of a debate topic, there is a close to 70 chance that they have different definitions of the concept of the debate topic, and a close to 30 chance that they have different definitions of the standards for comparison. The concepts and standards are the same and they can still be argued with, at least I have never seen it. We are accustomed to calling the definition of concepts and standards a premise for argumentation. From my introduction just now, you will understand that in most debates, they quarrel very happily, basically because their premises are different. There are very few mistakes in this part of inferring one's own premises to one's own conclusions (I will explain the reason later). The basic principle of the so-called refutation is to use one's own premises but use the other party's logic to deduce, thereby deducing fallacies and then proving the other party. The logic is absurd. In fact, what is absurd is not the opponent's logic, but the difference in the premises of the two sides. The master knows this very well, so he can attack and defend with ease, while the novice attacks bluntly and lacks confidence in defense. Since concepts and standards are so important, it is not difficult to understand why everyone is so busy defining concepts and standards. If concepts can be searched for a relatively objective unity by looking up a dictionary, then the formulation of standards is largely a subjective choice. The principle of selection is very simple, which is the unity of convenience and rationality. Let's take the simplest example. If there is a debate topic: "Whether the benefits of students participating in the debate outweigh the disadvantages or the disadvantages outweigh the benefits," then the two sides may have this standard: the affirmative believes that the standard of benefits and disadvantages should be whether it is beneficial to students' learning, and The other side believes that the criterion of pros and cons is whether it is conducive to the cultivation of students' comprehensive abilities. We can basically conclude that the standards of both parties are conducive to the argument and reasonable. If the opponent defines the standard as whether it is conducive to the training of students' eloquence, then of course it is also conducive to the argument, but the rationality will be greatly compromised. It is precisely because the definition standards of both parties are always as conducive to their own argument as possible, so based on the other party's standards, the other party's argument is often a matter of course. Therefore, a clever refutation should not focus on the logic of the other party's argument at this time. deduction, but to attack the rationality of the opponent's standards, or to replace the opponent's standards with one's own standards. On the contrary, as the defender, the focus of defense is to stick to one's own standards and tell the truth through detailed discussions. Everyone, our standards are reasonable.

2. Organization and hierarchy

There will always be a variety of dissatisfaction when children are asked to write an argument for the first time. In fact, there are only two problems, one is that it is not organized, and the other is that There is no hierarchy. This chapter mainly talks about the structure of the statement. The argumentative speech draft written by a beginner is always a big mess, with theories mixed with examples, and comments interspersed after the examples. In short, it seems very confusing, so whether as a senior or as a coach, I usually let Beginners should read some classic argumentative drafts and look at the format of other people's arguments. Beginners often have this question: Aren’t all arguments the same? In fact, this is a need.

When we watch Olympic track and field competitions, no matter which event it is, the postures adopted by the athletes are often very close. Why? It is because long-term experience tells them that such a posture is the most conducive to creating good results. In the same way, the "standardization" of speeches is also to achieve the best information transmission effect and ensure order and hierarchy to the greatest extent.

The structure of an argument generally includes a horizontal structure and a vertical structure. The so-called horizontal structure means that each sub-point is juxtaposed and considered from different sides of the same issue. Here we need to clarify a misunderstanding that some beginners will The structure "from an individual perspective, from a national perspective, and from the perspective of all mankind" is mistaken for a vertical structure, but in fact it is still a horizontal structure.

The so-called vertical structure refers to the progressive or regressive logical relationship between each sub-argument. In actual operation, the application of regress should be more extensive. The most classic case is undoubtedly Hu Jianbiao’s Money. It is not a summary statement that is the root of all evil. At the same time, this structure is also my personal favorite and most commonly used argument structure.

Beginners and large-scale important competitions often choose the horizontal structure, because the horizontal structure is easy to operate and easy for the audience to understand. However, the disadvantage is that such a structure can hardly reflect the depth of the argument. In contrast, the vertical structure has higher requirements on the debaters' ability, especially the speaker's presentation ability. It is not easy to explain the different logical levels clearly, but the vertical structure can indeed better reflect For the depth of thinking in making the argument, it is recommended that beginners can use more horizontal structures, and after they have enough experience, they can try more vertical structures.

3. Facts and eloquence

When I was in high school, I always heard an invincible saying that facts speak louder than eloquence. Although I didn’t know how to refute it at the time, I felt it was strange. If the facts If words speak louder than words, why argue?

In fact, this question is very simple. The more debates you play, the more you will understand. It is almost impossible to directly prove a point of view. Facts can only be used as a kind of evidence at most, and they cannot be used as arguments in themselves. Subjective. Nowadays, many new debaters like to give examples, and are also afraid of the other party giving examples. In the final analysis, it is because they have not noticed that there is a lot of logical space between examples and conclusions. This is not only true for examples, but also for theories. I'm afraid All high school debaters will use Marx's theory that internal causes determine external causes, thereby arguing that self-discipline is more important than heteronomy. But the question is, did Mr. Marx ever say that internal causes are more important than external causes? Why is A more important than B when A determines B? It’s rare to hear such skepticism in high school games. In fact, what we should pay attention to is not the conclusion of that theory, but the argumentation method he used to reach the conclusion. This is what we can learn from. As a defender, we can also study the difference between the theoretical conditions and the real conditions at that time. Set out to crack the opponent's offensive of theoretical arguments. Judging from the case evidence, it generally includes data and news events. First of all, news events cannot play a comparative role. They can at most illustrate the advantages or disadvantages. It itself cannot make a comparison of advantages and disadvantages.

Data can sometimes be compared, but the problem with data is that it is affected by many factors such as data collection samples and processing methods. For example, there was once a debate question about whether the CCTV Spring Festival Gala was good or bad. The affirmative cited Regarding the CCTV Spring Festival Gala's high ratings, the opponent immediately pointed out that the calculation method of the ratings is that as long as the channel stays on the Spring Festival Gala program, it will count as a ratings point for the Spring Festival Gala. This calculation method is unscientific, and such a rebuttal will appear very powerful. Outstanding. For a long time, I don’t like to use theoretical or factual arguments to discuss. The same example has equal opportunities for both sides. A skilled debater can often use the other party’s arguments to disprove his or her own point of view, so Please be careful when using various examples, and pay attention to the methods and techniques of using each other's examples.

4. Admission and denial

Every time I talk about this topic, I always start with an anecdote from high school. During the high school debate competition, a classmate got excited and My own position was contradicted, and the pros outweighed the cons, and the whole audience was shocked. As a result, the other party got even more excited, and stood up and said, "That's not right, fellow debater." . . The whole audience fainted. . .

Everyone knows that in a debate, one needs to refute the other party’s point of view, but not everyone knows why one should refute the other party’s point of view, so there will be problems of refutation for the sake of refutation and denial for the sake of denial. In fact, the purpose of refutation is It is about proving one's point of view in turn. We see that many duels between experts seem to be based on examples, but if you look deeper, you will find that they are often using their own logical system to refute the other party's logical system. , and only in this way can systematic confrontation create real sparks. Therefore, I have always advocated that questions that do not reflect the logic of the other party’s argument can be left unanswered. Questions that reflect the logic of the other party’s argument should be answered in terms that reflect our own argument. Answer in a logical manner.

In actual combat, especially in the process of defense, it often happens that one party disagrees with any issue or tries to avoid it. This is of course a very safe approach, and some coaches The debaters will be warned not to admit the other party's problems. Although this approach has the advantage of being highly maneuverable for beginners, it is detrimental to the long-term development of the debaters. I think debaters cannot develop this kind of thinking. Habit. Judging from my own experience as a second- and third-level debater, there is always a step-by-step process in designing attack and defense questions. Usually, you don’t launch a killer move right away. You usually ask questions first. A few irrelevant questions, and then trying to unknowingly replace a certain concept or blur a certain logical relationship, giving the respondent a feeling of self-contradiction, thereby profiting from it. Generally speaking, the effect will be good the first few times I use it. After I have played against an opponent several times and the opponent has figured out my attacking and defending habits, the effect of my attacking and defending will be greatly reduced, which in turn proves a truth. There is no such thing as an unbreakable attack and defense trap, and the best way to break through an attack and defense trap is not to deny the problem blindly, but to find out the key point of changing concepts or fuzzy logic and catch it. To achieve this, one must have experience, and the other must be very clear and familiar with one’s own argument, as well as the fundamental contradictions between one’s own argument and the other party’s argument. Judging from my own defense experience, as long as the other party asks questions When you know the intention of the other party's question, there is no unbreakable truth. Then, when you know the intention of the other party, admit some common sense questions that are not contrary to common sense and appear to be very general. Why not do it? Woolen cloth?

Everyone must remember that in most cases, it is correct to admit common sense questions. If the other party can deduce his conclusion from your answers to common sense questions, it means that he must use There is some kind of sophistry, and as long as you catch this one, you will win a big victory.

1. What is a debate competition?

Some people say that debate competitions are about showing eloquence, while others say that debate competitions are about arguing for the truth. I personally think that debate competitions are not as simple as the former. Not as heavy as the latter. My point of view is that the student debate competition is a training, not just a training in expression, but a series of training from getting a question, to collecting information, to researching and analyzing the problem, and finally to effectively expressing one's research results. process. Throughout the debate, this process was not a simple linear process, but a continuous cycle. From the preparation before the game to the debate with the opponent during the game, you will experience a process of constantly emerging new problems, then collecting information, analyzing and judging, and then expressing it effectively. In fact, such a process is also the general method for us to study problems, so students who have undergone correct debate training will usually not only have excellent expression skills, but also have very high learning abilities and problem research and analysis abilities.

2. What is the debate contest about?

From the previous question, we can see that the debate contest is definitely not just about who can react faster or be articulate. It is generally believed that the debate competition is to see who has more accurate conceptual definitions, more rigorous logic, more vivid expressions, higher value, etc. In fact, these are just methods. From the fundamental purpose, the debate competition is actually "persuasion". "The target of persuasion in the debate is not the other party, but the audience and judges in the audience.

In fact, it is from long-term debate practice that we have discovered that accurate conceptual definitions, rigorous logic, vivid expressions, and higher values ??can often persuade the audience and judges more effectively, so these have become The goals we pursue. But what needs to be emphasized is that fundamentally speaking, there is no superiority or inferiority between logical persuasion and emotional persuasion. It’s just that each has its own choice based on the style and characteristics of different debaters and different teams.

Through the above two points, my core concept of debate is that the debate should be a highly practical training project, so I oppose all technologies that can only be used in the debate field. I hope that what the debaters can gain from the debate is not only the ups and downs brought by the competition, but also a wealth that can last a lifetime.

From the beginning of my exposure to debate to the present, I have communicated with many people who are very good at debate, sharing their insights on debate, and sharing my own views on debate. Generally speaking, there is a common understanding, that is, the most regrettable thing in college is joining the debate team, and forming an incomprehensible relationship with debate. The process of debate requires us to constantly think, review and accept different viewpoints, so it will give me a deeper understanding of some issues. Therefore, debating is really my good mentor and helpful friend, which has benefited me a lot.

3. Basic methods of debate

After understanding what a debate is, we can discuss how to play a debate. Brother Guo Yukuan summarized the debate method into four moves. They are defining, questioning logic, collecting arguments, and enhancing value. This point should also be the common knowledge of the majority of debate lovers

, so let’s introduce it one by one.

1. Definition: When discussing any issue, we must first understand what is being discussed. Just like when we discuss a debate issue, we must first understand what the debate is about. Generally speaking, In other words, the definition of the problem is the premise of the discussion. If the two parties discussing the problem do not even have the same basic definition, then the subsequent discussion will be completely meaningless. In fact, in the vast majority of student debates we have seen, both sides Debates often occur when the definitions of concepts are different, or the entire game is entangled in concept definitions. There are two problems here. One is the problem of the question maker. The concepts of many debate questions are relatively vague, giving both parties a relatively large space for imagination, which leads to differences in the basic definitions of both parties. Another problem is that some teams will over-consider the definition, which is what we often call "definition-picking." For example, I saw a game where the title was "The adults don't take into account the villain's mistakes." One team defined that a mistake is a small mistake and a mistake is a big mistake. Wrong, what I made in today’s debate was a minor mistake based on principle. Such debates can easily fall into sophistical misunderstandings, which I do not advocate. The most basic principle of definitions is convention, which is what we call common sense. If one party comes up with a definition that sounds awkward to me, from my experience, this is often not rigorous, but appears to be arrogant. Senior Brother Guo Yukuan once gave an example. An example is that he went to a restaurant and asked the waiter "Give me a glass of water." The waiter poured a glass of water from the toilet. This was indeed water, but the context clearly indicated that he wanted a glass of water for drinking. It's not called rigorous, it's just being arrogant.

2. Ask about logic:

Almost all debaters know how important logic is, but not many can really use logic smoothly. Some friends also ask for it when training the team. Each single sentence of the debater's speech must be usable before and after, so it can be connected. I have never done such training, and it must be an extremely difficult thing to do. There are two main goals for logic training. One is to Be able to identify the other party's logical errors, and secondly, avoid making logical errors yourself. Here are some common mistakes new debaters make. (1) Comparison of missingness: The pattern of many debate questions is: for C, which one is more important, A or B.

The comparison method of many newcomers is "What if there is no A, so A is more important than B." In fact, A and B are often indispensable elements in this type of debate, so the other party can also say "What if there is no B?" What will happen, so B is more important than A." Of course, such arguments are invalid, because from this level, both A and B are necessary conditions, and there is no way to compare which one is more important.

(2) False premise: For example, "Is online virtual infidelity a manifestation of infidelity?" Zhengfang defines online virtual infidelity as a manifestation of infidelity. Since infidelity is a manifestation of infidelity, online virtual infidelity is a manifestation of infidelity. Cheating is also a sign of infidelity. But whether online virtual cheating is cheating is a question that needs to be proved. However, the affirmative made the mistake of making a false premise by using it as the premise of the argument.

(3) The variables are not unified: Some people say that China’s Great Leap Forward was not wrong. People starved to death at that time because they did not promote the use of chemical fertilizers. After the reform and opening up, it was not because of good policies, but because China promoted the use of chemical fertilizers. No one will starve to death. The argument here makes the mistake of inconsistent variables. Since the difference between the two time periods is not only reflected in the use of chemical fertilizers, but also in policies, it cannot be demonstrated that the use of chemical fertilizers solved China's food and clothing problem.

3. Collecting arguments: This is the most boring and tedious work, and it is also a very technical task. Whether you can find authoritative arguments that are highly consistent with your own point of view can often decide a game. But what everyone needs to pay special attention to is that the arguments themselves cannot prove the point. The arguments need to be combined with logical arguments to prove effectively. Therefore, while collecting arguments, try to avoid the above three major logical errors. Mastering a higher ability to collect evidence is extremely helpful not only for debates, but also for any future study and research work.

4. Value improvement:

As mentioned before, in the final analysis, what debate competitions compete with is persuasion. There is no distinction between different persuasion methods. Sometimes, even The logic is weak, but good value or touching true feelings can impress the audience and judges and get them to side with you. Different people have different understandings of value improvement. My understanding is to tell you the purpose and significance of this point of view we are talking about today. The most taboo in making value is falsehood. Always remember that if you want to impress others, you must first impress them. For yourself, a good value improvement can have the effect of turning the tide.

There is such a case in history: Martin Luther King had a debate with the governor of Alabama about whether to retain the apartheid system. The governor of Alabama The debate training is also very good. The debate training of Martin Luther King is also very good. Both are famous debaters. The governor of Alabama put forward a very eloquent theory, saying that the abolition of apartheid will bring about Regarding the deterioration of social security in Alabama, he combined empirical surveys with data and evidence to speak for itself. Alabama insists on the apartheid system, so the security in Alabama is the best in the United States. This was true at the time. To give the most intuitive example, he said, you are on the streets of New York. Do young girls dare to go out on the streets after 11 p.m.? Don't dare! In Alabama, there is no sense of danger for any woman walking down the street at night, and there is no problem with public security in our state of Alabama. Look at what he said. The definition is very clear. Everyone knows about apartheid. The logical syllogism is very complete. Our goal is to build a harmonious society and to achieve stability and unity. We in Alabama have adhered to the apartheid system. , so our state of Alabama has particularly good public security, is particularly stable and united, and there is factual data to support it. Indeed, the crime rate in Alabama is very low. When we Chinese see this man, he is so eloquent. If Martin Luther King admits defeat, then Martin Luther King will not admit defeat. Martin Luther King’s eloquence is reflected in that on this issue, I do not stand on these I am debating with you on the level of data and facts. I am challenging your views on the level of values ??and letting society understand that Martin Luther King proposed that equality for all is a commitment of the Constitution and that all people are created equal.

This is self-evident and self-evident that everyone is equal before God. You don’t need to use those arguments to prove this. It is just like this because we believe it is like this. Once it arouses people’s hearts at this level In the end, looking back at history, when the governor of Alabama expressed this view, he couldn't resist it. Although his previous definition of facts and logic were all correct, his value level was untenable. In his view, it seems that our entire society seems to be pursuing harmony, stability and unity. This is a society with a low crime rate, but he does not realize that as a human being, our higher spiritual need is respect for people. In many cases, this value can be distinguished by taste. However, it is often impossible to explain it clearly using morality and logic. But this does not mean that these issues cannot be debated at all. He means that this kind of debate cannot be completely summarized by logic, but it can be an inspiration and arouse a feeling in people's hearts. We believe that everyone is connected. , people share the same heart and emotions. Maybe part of your conscience and feelings were blocked in the past and you didn't realize it. For example, when a white person felt that black people should be segregated, he didn't mean that the white person was a bad person, but that he was not enlightened in his heart. He feels that black people are different from us, and he also knows that God requires everyone to be equal, but everyone does not include black people, because they are a different race from us. When he was inspired, "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" was written by Mark Twain. The protagonist in his novel had close contact with black people, and he discovered, wow, it turns out that black people also have the same emotions as us. He also cries, he bleeds, and he also loves. Suddenly you find that he is the same as us, and then the feeling in your heart is awakened.