50 words of online debate

Debate skills The following article tries to introduce several anti-object-oriented skills by combining the theoretical and practical arguments of skills. (1) There is a trick in martial arts novels called "borrowing". It means that people with deep internal forces can use the strength of their opponents' attacks to fight back. This method is also suitable for argument. For example, in the debate on "easy to do despite difficulties", there is a round: yes! Those people did not know the power of law until they went to the execution ground and died. The dignity of the law can be described as "retreat from difficulties", and the other side distinguishes friends! (Applause) When the other side used the example of "knowing the law is easy, but obeying the law is difficult" to demonstrate that knowing the law is easy and obeying the law is difficult, the positive side immediately turned to strengthen its point of view from the perspective of "knowing the law is not easy" and gave the other side a strong counterattack. Reversed the passive situation. Here, Fang Zhengzhi is able to use the example of the opposing side to confront his body because he has a series of theories that are not verbally expressed and reinterpreted: the "knowledge" in the debate is not only the "knowledge" of knowledge, but also the "knowledge" based on human rationality; It is not difficult to obey the law. As a course of action, it is not difficult to kill people, but it is very difficult to know how to keep people's rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill people. In this way, the broad and high-level definitions of "knowing the difficulty" and "doing the easy" of the opposing side, and the attack of the narrow and low-level definitions of "knowing the easy" and "doing the difficult ..." effectively hit back at the opposing side, and the argumentation framework of the opposing side based on the superficial level of "knowing" and "doing" collapsed. (2) Replacing the defective part of the opponent's argument with favorable opinions or materials can often achieve the miraculous effect of "four or two". We call this technique "grafting" For example, in the debate about how to make it easy despite difficulties, there has been such an example: on the contrary, the ancients said that "Shu Dao is difficult to pass through the sky", which means that Shu Dao is difficult to pass through, and "Xing" means "Xing"! If it's not difficult, why doesn't the monkey call him Sun Zhiren? Founder: Sun's nickname is Monkey Sun, but does his opponent know that his legal name is the Monkey King, which is the "knowledge" of "enlightenment"? This is a very beautiful argument of "replacing trees with flowers". The example of the opposing side seems to be well-founded, but it is far-fetched: it is difficult to refute "why Sun Walker is not called Sun Zhiren". Although it is almost unreasonable, it has the upper hand in momentum. The positive side keenly discovered the one-sidedness of the other side's argument, and started with the "the Monkey King" side decisively, and retorted the other side by "knowing" or "knowing", which turned the other side's quotation about "Sun" into carrying firewood to put out the fire, which backfired. The technique of replacing flowers with wood is a strong attack in argument theory, which requires debaters to be brave in making moves and fighting back, so it is also a kind of difficulty and high antagonism. Persuasive argument skills. It is true that the actual scene is eloquent and changeable, and there are no ready-made materials such as "Monkey Walker" and "Monkey King" available at any time, which means "replacing trees with flowers". It is necessary for debaters to accurately summarize or deduce each other's views and our position at that time. For example, in the debate about "it is more important to cure poverty than stupidity", one sentence is affirmative: "... the debater of the other side measures the importance by urgency, so I want to tell you that I am hungry now and need food badly, but I still want to debate because I realize that debate is more important than hunger." As soon as the voice fell, there was applause. At this time, the opposing side calmly argued: "My opponent, I think that' not eating with food' and' not eating with food' are two different things ..." The other side's answer caused more warm applause. On the positive side, poverty is not enough to fear, and the relative importance of treating stupidity with "no food", while on the negative side, the essence of "no food" is immediately summarized from one's own point of view, and the essential difference between the two is clearly compared, effectively curbing the tendency of the other party to steal concepts. (3) On the surface, agree with the other party's point of view, follow 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 can't be established under additional conditions, or draw a completely opposite conclusion. For example, in the argument between a foolish old man moving a mountain or moving a house, the opposing party: ... should ask the other party to distinguish between friends. The silly old man moved to solve difficulties, protect resources and save manpower and financial resources. What's wrong with that? Positive: Gong Yu's moving is a good way to solve the problem, but Gong Yu's place is difficult to get out of, so how can he move home? ..... Obviously, we can consider moving, and we have to move after moving the mountain! Myths and stories are only meaningful if they are exaggerated, and their essence lies not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, we must not let the opposing side tell the truth, otherwise, the "methodology" of the opposing side that conforms to the modern value orientation will certainly stand. Judging from the above argument, the other party's argument on this matter is well-founded and solid. On the positive side, firstly, it was affirmed that "moving is a good way to solve the problem", and then everyone said that "it is difficult to go out where Yugong is", which naturally led to the question of "how to move home" and finally reached the conclusion of "moving mountains first, then moving". Such a series of theories are closely linked. It runs through one after another, and it beats the other side's matter-of-fact with an overwhelming attack. It's really wonderful! (4) Thoroughly cleaning up The so-called thorough cleaning up, in this article, metaphorically speaking, is to point out that the other party's argument is not closely related to or runs counter to the topic, 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 skill is just the opposite of its thinking. For example, in the debate on whether job-hopping is beneficial to talents, there is such a passage: Founder: Zhang Yong, the national table tennis champion, jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, and the other debater also said that he did not contribute to the people of Shaanxi, which was really chilling! (Applause) Counterparty: May I ask if the sports team may have jumped ship? This is the reasonable flow direction that we advocate here! (Applause) The opponent wears job-hopping glasses to see the problem. Of course, the world is as black as a crow, and all actions are job-hopping. Take Zhang Yong as an example. It is a fact that he has gained better space to develop himself after he moved from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The opponent immediately pointed out that the specific example cited by the other side was wrong: Zhang Yong could not go to the sports team through the irregular talent flow mode of "job-hopping", but only "reasonable flow" under the principle of "fairness, equality, competition and merit", which was highly credible, convincing and shocking, and received obvious anti-customer effect. (5) Selective questioning is one of the offensive moves used by many debaters. Usually this kind of question 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 take out a preset option from the other party's multiple-choice questions for a powerful backchat, which will fundamentally defeat the other party's spirit. This technique is to solve the root of the problem. For example, in the debate on "Ideological morality should adapt to (surpass) the market economy", there was the following round of confrontation: the opposing party: …… I asked whether Lei Feng's spirit was selfless dedication or equivalent exchange spirit. Advantages: ... the opponents here misunderstand the exchange of equivalence, which means that all exchanges should be equivalent, but it doesn't mean that everything is exchange. Lei Feng hasn't thought of exchange yet. Of course, Lei Feng's spirit is not the same. (Applause) Since there is no reciprocity, it can't be the spirit of reciprocity. The opposing side should immediately hit the snake with the stick, point this out and go deep into the opposing side: Then I want to ask the opposing side, is the core of our ideological and moral spirit the spirit of serving the people or the spirit of seeking profits? Professor: Isn't serving the people the requirement of market economy? (Applause) The affirmative answer is actually very inappropriate. At this point, the other party's knowledge reserve or adaptability is seriously insufficient. If you ask, "Is Comrade Mao Zedong proposing to serve the people to meet the requirements of the market economy?" You will immediately push certainty to the forefront, forcing it to choose to avoid it. In the first round, the other side had the intention of "inviting you to wait for the urn" and came prepared. Obviously, if the mindset passively answers questions, it will be difficult to deal with the "dilemma" of the cube presupposition: choosing the former just proves the view that the cube should "surpass the market economy"; Choosing the latter is contrary to the facts and even more absurd. The debater for the positive side jumped out of the box of "either-or" for the negative side, went straight to the subject, drew "equivalent exchange" from two preset options, and completely overturned its correctness as a preset option with a calm tone, sharp words, flexible response and clever techniques, which was amazing! Of course, the actual situation on the debate field is very complicated. To turn passivity into initiative in debate, it is only one factor to master some anti-customer skills. On the other hand, it is necessary to improvise, which is quite in place, but there is no rule to follow. (6) Go straight to the crux of the matter In debates, it is often the case that the two sides are entangled in trivial issues, examples or expressions, and they are arguing endlessly. As a result, it seemed that the debate was lively, but actually it deviated from the topic of Wan Li. This is a taboo in argument. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issue in the opponent's argument after the first debate and the second debate, seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to completely defeat the opponent in theory. For example, the key to the debate that "food and clothing is a necessary condition for talking about morality" is: Can we talk about morality without food and clothing? Only by always grasping this key issue in the debate can we give the other side a fatal blow. In the debate, people often have the saying that "avoiding the truth is empty", and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. For example, if the other party asks a question that we can't answer, if we don't know, we will not only lose points, but even make jokes. In this case, we should tactfully avoid each other's problems and look for other weaknesses to attack. However, under the current circumstances, what we need is to "avoid the reality and be empty" and "avoid the importance and be light", that is, to be good at fighting hard on basic and key issues. If the other party asks questions, we will immediately avoid them, which will inevitably leave a bad impression on the judges and the audience, thinking that we dare not face up to the other party'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 attacking can win, which is an important skill in the debate. (7) Using Contradictions Because both sides of the debate are composed of four players, four players often have contradictions in the course of the debate. Even the same player may have conflicts in the free debate because of his fast speech. Once this happens, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand the contradiction between the other side so that it can't take care of itself and attack us. For example, in the debate with the Cambridge team, the Cambridge team's three arguments think that law is not morality, while the second argument thinks that law is basic morality. These two views are obviously contradictory, and we took the opportunity to widen the gap between the two debaters of the other side and push the other side into a dilemma. For another example, the other side initially regarded "food and clothing" as the basic state of human existence, and later, under our fierce offensive, it talked about "hunger and cold". This is contradictory to the previous view. We "deal with a man as he deals with you", leaving the other side in an emergency and speechless. (8) "Draw the snake out of the hole" In the debate, there is often a deadlock: when the other side insists on its own argument, no matter how we attack it, when the other side only uses a few words to deal with it, if it still adopts the method of frontal attack, it will inevitably have little effect. In this case, it is necessary to adjust the means of attack as soon as possible, adopt a circuitous method, start with seemingly insignificant issues, and induce the other party to leave the position, thus hitting the other party and causing a sensational effect in the hearts of the judges and the audience. When we argued with the Sydney team that "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem", the other side clung to the view that "AIDS is caused by HIV and can only be a medical problem" and was unmoved. So, we adopted the tactic of "luring the snake out of the hole". In the second debate, we suddenly asked, "Excuse me, what is the slogan of World AIDS Day this year?" The other four debaters looked at each other. In order not to lose too many points on the court, the other side stood up and answered randomly. We immediately corrected it and pointed out that this year's slogan was "Time waits for no one, let's act", which was equivalent to opening a gap in the other side's position, thus disintegrating the firm front of the other side. (9) "Li Jiang" When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically, we have to adopt the method of "Li Jiang" and introduce new concepts to solve the difficulties. For example, the debate about "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, and it is difficult to separate the two problems from common sense. Therefore, according to our preconceived ideas, if we are allowed to demonstrate the positive side, we will introduce the new concept of "social impact", thus affirming that AIDS has a certain "social impact", but it is not a "social problem", and strictly determining the meaning of "social impact" will make it difficult for the other party to attack. Later, we got the opposite of the debate in the lottery, that is, "AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem." In this case, it is unreasonable to completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem. Therefore, we introduced the concept of "medical approach" in the debate, emphasizing the use of "social system engineering" to solve AIDS. In this project, the "medical approach" will give us more room for manoeuvre, and the other party will spend a lot of effort to pester our new concept, and the attack power will be greatly weakened. 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 more important skills can be used. Experience tells us that only by combining knowledge accumulation with debate skills can we achieve better results in debate. In daily life, we can see the following situations: when the fire brigade receives a call for help, it often answers it in a slow tone. This gentle tone is to stabilize the speaker's mood and let the other side explain the situation correctly. For another example, when couples quarrel, one side is depressed and the other side is not in a hurry. As a result, the latter prevailed. For another example, political and ideological workers often adopt the method of "cold treatment" to deal with difficult problems slowly. All these situations show that "slowness" is also a good way to deal with problems and solve contradictions in some occasions. So is the debate. In some specific debate situations, fast attack and quick battle are unfavorable, but slow progress can win. For example, in 1940, Churchill served as Minister of the Navy in Chamberlain's cabinet, and was respected by people because he advocated declaring war on Germany. At that time, public opinion welcomed Churchill to succeed Chamberlain as British Prime Minister, and Churchill also thought that he was the most suitable candidate. But Churchill did not rush for success, but adopted the strategy of "winning slowly". He has publicly stated many times that he will be ready to serve the motherland under the leadership of anyone in the extraordinary period when the war breaks out. At that time, Chamberlain and other Conservative Party leaders decided to recommend Lord Halifax, who supported the appeasement policy, as the prime minister candidate. However, the British people who participated in the main battle realized that only Churchill had the ability to lead the war politically. At the meeting to discuss the candidates for prime minister, Chamberlain asked, "Does Mr. Churchill agree to join the government led by Halifax?" The eloquent Churchill said nothing and was silent for two minutes. Halifax and others understand that silence means opposition. Once Churchill refuses to join the cabinet, the new government will be overthrown by angry people. Halifax had to break the silence first, saying that it was inappropriate for him to form a government. Churchill's wait finally paid off and the king authorized him to form a new government. For another example, in a shop, a customer came to the door angrily and said endlessly, "The heels of these shoes are too high, and the style is not good ..." The clerk listened to him patiently without interrupting him. When the customer stopped talking, the salesperson said calmly, "Your opinion is very straightforward, and I appreciate your personality. Tell you what, I'll go in and choose another pair to please you. " "If you are not satisfied, I am willing to serve you again." The customer's dissatisfaction was exhausted and he felt that he had gone too far. He was also embarrassed to see the salesperson answer his questions so patiently. As a result, he made a 180 turn, praised the clerk's new shoes, and said, "Hey, these shoes are good, just like those made for me." The clerk let the customers vent their anger from slow to fast and from cold to hot, so as to achieve psychological balance and resolve the dispute. From the above examples, we can sum up that to correctly use the method of "winning by slowness" in argument, we should at least pay attention to the following three points: First, as the saying goes, "haste makes waste". Acting rashly when the time is not ripe often fails to achieve the goal. The same is true of debate, and "slowness" is also necessary under certain conditions. In fact, the method of "winning slowly" is a tactic to delay the enemy's invasion. When the debate situation is not suitable for quick decision, or the time is not yet ripe, we should avoid direct confrontation between the needle and the wheat, but should delay the time to wait for the arrival of the fighter plane. Once the time is right, we can attack the enemy from behind and defeat him. For example, in the first case, Churchill was not in a hurry to succeed when the time was not ripe, but slowly stood by. At the critical moment of discussing the candidate for prime minister, he expressed his opposition with silence and finally won. Secondly, the method of "winning by slowness" is suitable for the debate occasions where disadvantages are against advantages and disadvantages are against strengths. It is a strategic means adopted by the weak to defeat the seemingly powerful side. There is a trick to "slow", and slow motion should be clever. The word "slow" here is not synonymous with slow response and inarticulate, but one of the magic weapons used by eloquent speakers who are still wise and stupid. For example, in the first case, Churchill's playing dumb and stalling in the face of Chamberlain's questioning is actually a delaying tactic. In this stubborn stalemate, Chamberlain's side finally lost his temper, and Churchill finally won by taking the measure of delaying tactics. Thirdly, it is a good skill to slow down anger, to cool down anger in debate and to heat up slowly. In an argument, people who are angry and have poor self-control are easily excited. In this case, to convince people who are overly excited, it is advisable to deal with them in slow motion and slow tone. Slowing down anger, from cold to hot, can make it "cool down and decompress". Only when the other person is calm can you accept your truth smoothly. For example, in the second case, the salesperson calmed the other party's anger and resolved the contradiction with a calm attitude and gentle tone. In short, "fast" and "slow" in the debate are also a dialectical relationship of unity of opposites. Soldiers are expensive and fast, and "fast" is of course good. However, sometimes "slowness" has its beauty. Slow can stand by, slow can make plans, and slow can control anger. Slow is a tough tactic, slow is a protracted war, and slow is a delaying tactic in the war of words. Although it takes a long time to walk slowly and slowly, and the bend around it is also big, many times, it is often a shortcut to victory. Also pay attention to the competition system of the 2005 International University Debate Competition: 1. The opening statement of any debater in the affirmative is three minutes. The opening statement of any negative debater is three minutes. The opening statement of any undeclared debater on the negative side is three minutes. 5. Any undeclared debater of the positive side chooses any two debaters of the other side to attack and defend for three minutes. 6. Any undeclared negative debater's choice. Three minutes and seven seconds. The undecided debater chooses two debaters from the other side to attack and defend for 3 minutes. The opponent's undecided debater chooses the other two debaters to attack and defend for 3 minutes. The cumulative time for free debate is four minutes for both sides 10. The closing arguments are three minutes for each side, starting with the opposing side. 1 1. No matter what the result is, both sides should shake hands when going up and down. Please refer to the competition flow (1). This debate is divided into four rounds: preliminaries, rematches, semi-finals and finals. Select the winning team through the competition to participate in the next round of competition. The contest was conducted by voting. The time of all competitions is the same, and the specific procedures are as follows: 1. The chairman made an opening speech, introducing the contestants, members of the jury and the rules of the competition. 2. At the beginning of the opening debate, the pros and cons debate in turn, with a time of two minutes and thirty seconds each. 3. The defense time is 6 minutes, and each team has 3 minutes. 4. Summary of attack and defense, one minute and thirty seconds for each team. 5. Free debate for 8 minutes, 4 minutes for each team. 6. Summarize the other party's four arguments for 3 minutes. 7. The closing arguments of the four positive arguments last for 3 minutes. 8. The jury will judge, and the staff will conduct unified grading. 9. Ask the referee representative in this field to analyze the game. 10, the chairman announced the scores and final results of each team in this game. 1 1, game over, quit. Note: When each debater still has 30 seconds to speak, there will be a flute reminder. When the debate time runs out, there will be two flute reminders. The debater should stop speaking immediately. Three elements of debate 1. There are two or more different parties in the debate. Only when there are two or more parties with different opinions can ideological confrontation be achieved. It is impossible for a person to argue with himself. The balance and comparison of several schemes or practices in one's mind is thinking or guessing rather than debating. 2. The debate must focus on the things of colleagues or the same issue, that is, the same topic. If the topics discussed by all parties are different, it is impossible to achieve a meaningful debate. For example, one person said that "the law has a class nature", and another said that "the market economy is the legal economy". Because two people know different people, the two views can't form a debate. Only when one person says "the law has class nature" and the other says "the law has no class nature" can these two judgments constitute a debate. Because these two objects of judgment are the same, and their ideas are opposite, at most, only one can be true, but not both. In this way, there will be a question of who is right and who is wrong, which will inevitably lead to controversy. 3. Both sides of the argument have more or less the premise of * * * consensus or * * * consensus, such as the identity of thinking, the law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle's fully rational law and correct reasoning method, as well as social axioms, scientific laws and other true and false standards and value orientations. Without these things, the debate will only be a scuffle and it is impossible to draw a conclusion. In a word, all parties to the debate have the same topic, but different views. From a philosophical point of view, the two sides of the debate are in the relationship of unity of opposites. Baidu Maps