Debate contest on emergency assistance

It would be biased to regard the debate only as an angry contest. The difficulty of the debating competition lies not only in its wide range of knowledge, quick thinking, good voice condition and certain reading level, but also in the fact that the debate and judgment itself are relatively soft, and more depends on the subjective judgment of the judges, so the skills of the debating competition are like the difficult skills of gymnasts and divers. Without "unique skills", you can't get high marks. As a result, ancient poems, famous sayings, Zen sayings, popular lyrics, advertising words, and even tongue twisters and two-part allegorical sayings are skillfully interspersed in modern debates. How to express rich knowledge in sophisticated language? This involves the debate skills to be discussed in this paper.

First, talk about the facts.

This requires grasping the topic in the debate, staying on the topic of Wan Li, and always paying attention to the main direction. The statement of views should not be too gorgeous, but must be made clear systematically; Free debate should not dwell too much on details.

For example, man is the protector (positive)/destroyer (negative) of nature.

Counterparty 2: I once again ask the other debater, what is the basis of human survival and development?

Zhengsi: I want to tell another debater again that injuries are rare.

Excuse me, the horse has a white horse, but does it have to be white?

Anti-three: the other party answered irrelevant questions, please answer positively, what is the basis of human survival and development?

Under the questioning of the other party, because there was no suitable answer at the moment, I moved out of the theory that a white horse is not a horse, but the other party was not led by the nose. I immediately pulled the other party back with the word "irrelevant answer" and did not relax in a direction that was beneficial to me.

Second, stalking and beating.

This seems to be the same as the last point, but please read it carefully.

From the content, the principle must be dogged, and the most important thing is not to get away easily by the other party. Every game should set up "heavy artillery" questions that the other side can't answer, forcing the other side to stop. How to do heavy artillery? Both sides of the debate are always unreasonable, and there are always some questions, especially specific matters or philosophical principles, that the other side can't or can't answer directly. These problems should be sorted out. `

Example: Burning smuggled rhinoceros horn is/is not an act of protecting natural resources.

The opponent said no, and kept asking: What natural resources have been burned for protection?

The increase of floating population is beneficial/unfavorable to the development of the city.

The positive view is favorable, and some people ask whether the negative impact caused by poor management should also be attributed to the floating population.

The examples in the above debate, whether offensive or defensive, can make the other side either struggle with explanation or follow themselves to the battlefield that is beneficial to them. This is the advantage of the heavy artillery problem.

On the matter, it means that in any round and in any example, don't digress; Stalking is to prepare yourself in advance on issues that are beneficial to you and insist that the other party will not relax. One big and one small, one with a pump, one side, watching the experience.

Third, take the initiative to transfer

Whether this can be done is often the fundamental difference between junior and senior competitions.

To make this clear, we must first clarify the meaning of debate-especially free debate. Some time ago, in the third game of the hospital freshman competition, the pros and cons spoke very fast, and the game seemed tense and intense. In fact, they made the mistake of ignoring the overall situation, so that the game fell into the mire of "two children vying for heaven and land".

The purpose of free debate is to convince the audience. Neither side can convince the other side, and there are only two points for the audience to recognize: one is to improve their own theory, and the other is to point out the fallacy of the other side. These two points are that unilateral acts do not require the consent of the other party: point out mistakes, point them out, fill holes, and make up. Therefore, after completing a tactical goal, it is necessary to propose active transfer.

From the original 23 debate to the present stage of attack and defense, the purpose is to increase antagonism and popularity, but don't ignore that the real role of this link is to make your theory clear and spread the offensive and defensive lines in an all-round way. Therefore, at this stage, the whole team should concentrate on thinking about each other's theories, see clearly the opposition and disadvantages between each other's line and their own line, and guide the battlefield direction of free debate.

An excellent debater should have the ability to find the other side's argument in a short time (how to cultivate this ability will be detailed in the article "Cultivation of debater's quality"). After the attack and defense, what is needed is communication! Therefore, arguing that this is a task is particularly laborious! The argument begins with a summary, pointing out the mistakes made by the other party in dealing with our problems and pointing out the defects of the other party's theory. The four debates can not only inform the attack direction of the two or three debates, but also think about the coping strategies when one's own theory is passive, and improvise the black silk scarf of the feather fan. This point is more critical in Zhong Zhen!

The above two links can be said to be preparations for free debate. Know yourself and know yourself, and fight every battle! Active transfer requires the whole team to step by step after setting multiple small tactical goals. Take the Freshmen Cup Final as an example:

University study focuses on majors/specialties.

Positive focus on erudition: tactical goal 1: determine the characteristics of university learning, the scope of erudition, and the main criteria for judgment. Tactical goal 2: Establish a logical bottom line: The disciplines in today's world are cross-cutting and complex. Third, extended inference: the logical bottom line determines the foundation for completing studies and developing oneself in the future. Four: Explain the problem: Explain why the other party said that taking Bo as a supplement could not meet the learning requirements at this stage. Five: attack theory: point out many disadvantages of specialization and question each other.

80% of the above-mentioned clear free debate tactics are carried out in real competition to ensure the victory of the affirmative. Imagine that if you say any of the five points for three minutes, the whole game will be boring and the whole view will be one-sided. This is also not seen in many primary competitions.

It must be noted that it must be strictly distinguished from "avoiding and not answering". Many debaters often don't listen to each other's questions, but just pick up a card and look at it. Although they may draw applause with their prepared quips, they can't deceive the expert judges and the audience. Therefore, active transfer must be carried out after counterattack or at least one attack. This point will be elaborated in detail in the topic of "attaching importance to interfaces".

Active transfer is not difficult, but many new debaters are not aware and inexperienced. For example, people who haven't fought much always think about how to punch and kick, while martial arts masters have to plan a comprehensive attack and defense routine, which is very similar.

General skills of free debate

There are skills to follow in free debate. If you have less skills, you will be more active and less active in the debate. Of course, we can't just focus on skills, because skills are just skills after all. The debater should have a certain understanding of skills, but it can't replace the study of debating questions. On the contrary, it is not enough to study debate, but also to understand and recognize skills in general. Therefore, according to the author's years of experience, I summarized the following skills for your reference.

First, attack skills

Attack, that is, take the initiative to attack and ask questions in free debate. This is indispensable for every debate team. However, the effectiveness of the attack is determined by many factors.

1, prepare to attack.

This should be prepared after the strategic plan of the debate is determined and the defense is finalized. Generally speaking, each debater should prepare questions for the other side according to his own argument, and can prepare questions according to the length of free debate. If he plays for the first time on Sunday, he has to prepare about 20 questions. If so, there should be about 80 questions prepared by the four debaters, which is generally enough to last until the end of the free debate. We see that in some games, some players have time but no questions to ask, which is caused by insufficient preparation.

The questions to be asked should be prepared from three levels.

First, the phenomenon level problem, also called the fact level problem. This kind of question is easy to arouse the audience's * * *, and it is easy to make a difference if it is raised well. But it should be noted that we should not deviate from the debate because of novelty, which will have a negative effect.

The second is the theoretical level, also called the argumentation level. That is to extend one's argument and refute the other's argument. This kind of question should be sharp, clever, timely and witty. The effect is that it is difficult for the other party to answer and cannot be avoided. The third is the problem of value, also known as the problem of social effect. That is to say, the other party's argument and position are extended, and its effect is extended from the value level and social effect level to see if it is convincing and can stand. This kind of question, on the one hand, can expand the battlefield of free debate and make the other side passive, on the other hand, it is also an important aspect to win the recognition of the audience and judges. Of course, if the position of the debate is unfavorable to us, we should use it carefully and avoid shooting ourselves in the foot.

Among these three types of problems, factual problems can include historical events, realistic facts, national facts, digital facts and so on. In addition to the argument from the standpoint, theoretical issues can also be extended to the level of axioms and philosophy.

With these three levels of problem preparation, we can form a three-dimensional war, and we can fight a three-dimensional war of free debate, which very much causes the other party to fall into a passive situation of three-dimensional encirclement. We can see that in the competition, many debate teams only prepared one level (mostly phenomenon level) questions and only spent their time on fun. As a result, the impact is not strong, and questions are always superficial. Sometimes facts lead to facts and digressions, which become general language games and questioning games. It is regrettable that the depth of debate is not easy to see.

2, the organization of the attack

Effective attack in free debate should reflect the order of attack, that is, we can see the sequence of taking turns to go into battle, which is basically to grasp the initiative on the field and be in the active position of controlling the scene. In order to achieve this goal, there should be "soul players" on the field, or "main debater" and "main debater". Any debater can play this role, but it is usually played by three debates or one debate and two debates. Sometimes, the four debates are also a good role for this role. His task is not only to know his own position thoroughly, but also to know the other side's position thoroughly, and stipulate that he can find the other side's main problems as soon as his speech is over, so as to launch an attack effectively. The task of the soul player is: (1) to have a calm vision of the whole free debate situation and carry out effective attacks. (2) Acting as the commander on the field. There are not many problems, but the essence. His questioning is not only an attack on the other side, but also a revelation and reinforcement of his own argument. (3) To undertake the task of actively transferring the battlefield. If you ask questions at one level for a long time, go to another level to ask questions; If you are passive and frozen at one level, you should turn to another level and open up new attack points and battlefields. (4) For the problems that endanger our bottom line and are crucial, we can effectively save the day and turn passivity into initiative. (5) Be able to hold one side and attack again, stay away from yourself and be passive when falling into the trap of the other side.

Of course, other players should actively cooperate and respond, so as to form the overall strength, which requires the tacit understanding among players and form a "flowing overall consciousness".

The key to attacking organizations is to form an orderly evolution of the whole. Instead of a hammer in the east and a wooden stick in the west, the chicken is broken. The piecemeal attack is far from being organized, and it may have a sparkling effect, but it is impossible to take the initiative in the group debate.

Offensive organizations can have the following inspection indicators before playing: First, are there organizers, that is, are there "soul players", and how organized and adaptable are they? Second, is there any tacit understanding and induction between the whole team and it? Third, is the whole team completely consistent in understanding the position of a specific debate, and is there any big obstacle? Fourth, several levels of questions have been prepared. How difficult can these problems be to deal with and support? How long can they last? Fifth, to what extent have we studied the very difficult and demanding sharp problems, and are there any good coping strategies? Sixth, what will be the most dangerous and difficult situation in free debate? How to deal with it? These six problems have been thought clearly and solutions have been found, so the attack is organized in an orderly manner and active.

3, the attack problem

The main attack skills are: (1) setting dilemma. That is to say, setting a dilemma, whether you answer this or that, will be very passive. But we must aim at the topic and don't moan out of thin air. (2) Active extension. It is a fact or sentence that extends the other side, causing our initiative and the other side's passivity. (3) attack the shield with a spear. That is, the contradiction between the opponent's argument and argument, the contradiction between this debater and that debater's statement, the contradiction between a debater's statement, the contradiction between answering this question and answering that question, or other contradictions will be revealed, embarrassing him and embarrassing him. (4) ask questions. That is to say, his arguments or arguments or other problems are extended to absurdity, which makes him passive and unable to save himself. (5) Simple questions are profound. That is, the question is simple, but profound and closely related to the debate. It is difficult to answer accurately, but it is embarrassing if you can't answer, and it is easy to be passive if you guess the answer is inaccurate. (6) Tear the gap and seize the loophole. That is to tear a small gap in the other party, expose and ask questions about its obvious loopholes, and embarrass it. (7) What is familiar is new. People often turn a blind eye to the familiar things around them, or turn a deaf ear, or are very familiar with them, but only know what they are, but they don't know the details. Generally, it is easy to make the other person passive by asking such things. (8) be forced into a dead end. Is to push the other person's question into the corner, and then ask questions, so that it is difficult for him to escape. (9) Ask many questions. That is, ask a question from several directions, several sides and several levels at the same time. It should be noted, however, that this kind of problem must be aimed at one core, that is, the main positions and viewpoints of the debate, and form an encirclement battle, so that the other party has no ability to parry, let alone fight back (10). That is, two or more people ask the same question or question at the same time, which causes an attack situation and makes the other party pay attention to one thing and not see another. (1 1) The problem is the same. That is to say, in the face of the same question, asking questions from different angles makes it difficult for the other party to justify itself and be at a loss. (12) Ask the same question on different topics. Grasp the other person's different questions and expressions, sum up and ask in general, so that the other person can't grasp and respond from the depth and height of the question. (13) repeatedly pressed the question. If the other person avoids the question that the other person wants to answer, he can ask it repeatedly, but generally not more than three times, nor can he ask it indefinitely, which will have the negative effect of asking no questions or boring the audience. (14) radiation problem. That is to say, ask a question, and the other four debaters are scared off at the same time, just like shrapnel. This kind of question is usually asked at the philosophical or value level. (15) tautology. That is, ask the same question in different language ways (either from different angles or in different languages). Most of these issues are the main positions and viewpoints of the debate. (16) Ask questions from a distance. That is, things that look very close, perspective and ask questions from a far angle. The other party often can't answer from a distance, and it is difficult to connect with the nearby answer, so it is in an elusive and unpredictable dilemma. (17) Ask questions. That is, by means of psychological adjustment, directly hit the other person's emotional layer, make it excited, print and distribute emotional linkage, thus drowning the other person's reason. However, it should be noted that you can't make personal attacks and emotions, and you can't get into unreasonable entanglement or even importune, then you can't draw a tiger into a dog. (18) puzzle. That is, set a trap for the other party to drill, or try to put it in. Its higher skill is chain cover. (19) long draw and short hang. It is to ask such a question suddenly, to ask such a question suddenly, not to digress, but to change from east to west suddenly, and to take the initiative with agile thinking and quick wit. (20) the question in the answer. There are two kinds, one is to ask questions when the other party answers questions (including those found in the presentation stage), and the other is to ask questions when answering the other party's questions.

4, the style of attack

Because free debate is like a gust of wind

Thunder, so different teams have different debate styles in different competitions. Even if the team without style wins the debate, it is only the primary level. Therefore, having a sense of style and striving to form one's own debate style is a manifestation of a debate team's pursuit of strength. It is actually a presentation of the overall personality of a team.

Generally speaking, there are three attack styles: perceptual, rational and steady.

Emotional type's team tends to attack only on an interesting and emotional level. It can also play a positive role, but it is also easy to indulge in emotions, talk about the matter, and even fall into the quagmire of abuse, making the debate superficial, low-level and lacking in due depth.

Rational teams tend to stick to the level of reasoning, which is easy to reflect the depth of thinking, but it will lose the vividness of debate and weaken its due appreciation. _

A steady team pays attention to its liveliness, because it has both rationality and steadiness. Obviously, the style of free debate should be based on stability. Judging from the practice of the competition, the debating team with stable style is not only easy to win, but also will leave a deep impression on the audience and the judges.

5, the rhythm of the attack

Zhang Chi should be gentle and alert. Both quick illness and chronic illness have defects, the former is easy to be manic and the latter is easy to be dull.

Second, defensive skills.

The free debate stage in the debate consists of offensive and defensive aspects. Therefore, we should be prepared not only for attack, but also for defense. Only attack may not win, only defense, of course, it is easier to be passive. Defense is defense, attack is attack, and the team that can attack and defend can be comfortable. In defense, the skills that should be paid attention to are as follows:

1, man-marking skills. In other words, everyone focuses on each other's object defense. Generally speaking, one debate focuses on one debate and two debates focus on two debates, ... That is to say, one debate answers one debate question and two debates answer two debate questions, ... so that everyone will pay attention to specific goals, and there will be no easy questions to answer, and you will push the difficult questions. Of course, when we talk about cooperation after the division of labor, the most difficult question to answer is remedied by "soul players".

2. Long-term skills. In other words, to divide the work according to each person's specialty, we must first confirm the debater's specialty, such as being good at reasoning, telling history, remembering and discriminating. And then defend the corresponding problems, so as not to lead to confusion or silence.

3. Surrounding skills. If the opponent has a very prominent debater, this debater not only props up the opponent's whole situation, but also poses a great threat to his own team, and even his own players are afraid of him, then one-on-one tactics are unlikely to work. Then adopt the skill of encirclement, that is, surround the attack with the strength of four innocent people, and aim at his problems from different sides of four people, and take defense as the attack, which will generally have an effect. As long as he can't hold on, the other party's state will be chaotic and will naturally collapse. However, it should be noted that it is very difficult to subdue a player with strength or even greater strength in one or two rounds. So be persistent, and don't be too eager for success. After playing for five or six rounds, it was difficult for him to parry, let alone ask sharp questions, and the internal offensive power was greatly weakened, so that he could have a foundation for winning.

4. Pinch attack skills. Just for some problems, some players will treat it with a double attack.

5. High-pressure skills. Generally speaking, in the debate, because the strength of the participating teams is close, it is easy to push the top in the free debate. On the one hand, it is easy to waste time, on the other hand, it is difficult to win. The solution is to use high-pressure defense. When the other party raises a phenomenon question, it rises to the theoretical level to answer it; If the other person asks a realistic question, then answer it from a historical perspective; If the other party asks specific questions or micro questions, answer them with panoramic understanding and macro understanding, and so on. If this is the case, the other party's problems will be handled in a very high position, and unified handling will make the other party feel that their thinking potential is slightly inferior, thus shaking their hearts and weakening their attack power.

6, pointing to the wrong skills. That is, instead of answering questions directly, they point out the problems in logic, theory, facts, value, position, expression, common sense and other aspects of the questions raised by the other party, which makes them fall into an embarrassing situation.

7. Reduction to absurdity skills. In other words, some questions are not directly answered, but generalized and extended, pointing to the absurd end and falling into a passive position.

8. Rhetoric skills. That is to say, from the opposite direction, questions about paradox, paradox, paradox and paradox are raised, thus turning passivity into initiative.

9. Humor skills. In other words, in the face of their calm answer to the question of wisdom and tolerance, the effect must be excellent.

10, short answer skills. If you are older than a word, a word, an idiom or a sentence, you can answer clearly and trap the other person in a passive question, so use it decisively and promptly.

1 1, enlightenment skills. For those debaters who like to talk endlessly but are easy to be emotional, not easy to be calm and rational, eager to express themselves, and complicated, when answering questions, we might as well enlighten their teaching consciousness skillfully and let them talk endlessly. The direct effect is to consume the designated time of the other party.

12, exposing fraud techniques. When answering questions, reveal its disadvantages skillfully and reasonably. Just like the shortcomings and contradictions in a person's statements and questions, the contradiction between the previous question and the latter question, the contradiction between two or more personal questions and so on. Reveal its drawbacks and contradictions, make the problem untenable, and defense will become an attack, and the purpose will naturally be achieved.

13, anger skill. That is to say, when answering questions, they skillfully arouse their anger and let their psychology enter the emotional level from the rational level. If they can't calm down and have no self-control, it is estimated that they will mess up their mood. But don't use personal attacks. It's forbidden.

14, evaluation skills. That is to say, instead of directly answering questions, we should evaluate their questions, point out their purpose and cut off their back roads.

15, evasion skills. That is, for those questions that are difficult to answer in one or two sentences, the basic point is not to leave the position of debate.

16, repeat skills. That is, to answer in a tautological way. It means the same thing, but the language is different.

17, analogy skills. That is, in the face of each other's problems, instead of intercepting them head-on, they are thrown back to each other in a similar and comparative way.

Argumentation skills: argumentation analysis

Controversy:

You will assume the responsibility of debating for your team. We should establish the conceptual connotation, internal relations, basic forms and logical framework of our own debate through plain, vivid and hierarchical language, and demonstrate it with examples. Your presentation should strengthen the advantages of your position in front of the judges and the audience, and avoid vague concepts or mistakes, unclear organization and dry language. Of course, as a pioneer, your drive and self-confidence are essential.

The second debate:

First of all, you should ask the other party three questions in the first, second and third arguments. The question you ask should not be too simple or too complicated, otherwise it will be bad for you. The most obvious problem should be that there are rich meanings behind the seemingly simple, and the three problems are intrinsically related or progressive. You can also set a conceptual or logical trap to lead the other party to a misunderstanding through clever questions. All of the above will make your cross-examination summary wonderful. Your cross-examination summary must be based on the other party's three answers, not written in advance or taken for granted. Your summary can not only be attacked according to the mistakes and loopholes in the concept, logic, language expression and example proof of the other party's answer; You can also analyze each other's psychology when they are evasive and ambiguous; We can also use the results of cross-examination to consolidate and strengthen our position.

In the cross-examination stage, every debater has to answer a question except the free man. This will be a test, and you must have a strong psychological quality. You can't ask questions or refute each other. Avoidance and sophistry will lose points. You should answer each other's questions positively and completely through clever language and introduce our logical framework, which requires wisdom, calmness and openness.

Three arguments:

You will play the last song of the debate. You should be good at logical generalization, and your speech always shines with the brilliance of reason and wisdom. Your sincerity, frankness, faith, broad vision and broad mind will make people respect you. We must not let flashy rhetoric, unnecessary grandstanding, redundant epigrams and proverbs that people all know. Language is only the shell, and argument is the soul. Criticism should be moderate, and remember not to make something out of nothing for each other; Sublimation is not unrestrained. Don't turn your opinion into a face with heavy makeup. I hope that when your voice comes to an abrupt end, the judges and the audience will be moved from the heart.

To a free man:

Compared with the other three debaters, you have obvious differences in style.

The judge evaluates whether your performance in a debate is successful, and the focus is not on whether your speech reflects strict logic and strong speculative color. What you have to do is to win the emotional recognition of the judges and the audience for your team with your language and performance.

You should be a master of language. Debate contest is a game of words for you. You should attack each other with witty humor or vivid language. When you think it is necessary, you can strengthen the attack by acting, but don't overdo it.

Although you are the "new generation" in the debate field, you are not without everything. Vivid examples, metaphors, changing the subject, fallacies, exaggerations … these are your "weapons", so make good use of them!

You should impress the judges and the audience with each other's mistakes, and subtly divert the attention of the judges and the audience from their own loopholes. You should make full use of the "space" given to you by the rules, attack your opponents to the maximum extent and lead our team to victory.

Time is limited and creativity is infinite. You must publicize your personality, but remember not to make personal attacks. We have high hopes for you.

When sophists quote famous sayings,

There are always arguments or debates in life, which are sometimes logical and sometimes mixed with sophistry. Sophists, when exhausted, often quote famous sayings to prove their views and topics, "holding the flag as a tiger's skin", posing as standing with celebrities and truth, making the other side unprepared and "saving the day" by themselves. What should I do if I encounter this situation? Here are a few "tricks" to solve:

1. tit for tat.

That is to say, when sophists cite famous sayings to prove it, the refutor "deals with a man as he deals with you" and also quotes famous sayings to refute it. In this way, the irrefutable embarrassment imposed by the other party was imposed on the other party. Once, several male and female friends got together and argued endlessly about parents' responsibilities in family education. Female compatriots agree that fathers should bear the main responsibility as parents, while most male compatriots hold the opposite opinion. Both sides are determined and deadlocked. No matter how the host "reconciles" (clarifying that both are important), it will not help. Suddenly, a female compatriot said, "There is an old saying in our country that the father does not teach and the mother does not teach. It can be seen that the father shoulders the main responsibility of educating children. " The speaker is a little proud. The male compatriots were speechless for a while, and the host quickly retorted: "This is not entirely right. We know Rousseau, a famous French thinker, who pointed out in his famous educational book Emile: If the mother is not a mother, then the child is childless, which shows that the mother also has the responsibility to educate the child. " Now, the female compatriots are speechless. The host then elaborated his own point of view, "We can all prove that mom and dad play an important role and responsibility in the process of educating children, but it is one-sided to emphasize only one side and deny the other, or to shift the responsibility to the other side. As Lu Xun said: parents should have healthy people, try their best to educate and completely liberate their children. " It is easy to convince the other side by refuting the argument in this way.

2. Push to the limit rule.

The conclusion reached by sophistry is absurd, and even quoting famous sayings to prove it can't hide its absurdity. A young couple, because they are newly married, the man still hasn't changed his bachelor characteristics. After work, he is very free, doesn't contact his family very much, and even has an all-night entertainment with his buddies. His wife criticized him discontentedly, and he even said brazenly, "If the relationship lasts for a long time, will it last forever?" Although I seldom accompany you and don't do housework, I love you like a fire in winter. "The wife was annoyed and retorted," Then you don't have to go home, just wait for our relationship to last. "Although she said angry words here, she used extreme methods.

3. Shunyi backchat method.

If a young worker is often late for work, the workshop director will educate him: "Why do you always love to be late?" Young worker: "overslept." Director: "Oh, will it delay the workers' time in order to sleep comfortably?" Young worker (snickering): "Didn't Lenin say that if you don't have a good rest, you can't do a good job. I only sleep for a while to work better. "Director (calmly counterattack):" Lenin seems to say so, but did he say that he could delay working hours in order to have a good rest? " The next step is to educate young workers with confidence. ) The workshop director's rebuttal here is to admit that the name of the Party is completely correct, and then point out that Lenin did not use rhetorical questions to strengthen his aggressive momentum according to the actual situation of young workers, so that the other party could not argue and had to receive education. "Speech and Eloquence"No. 1990No. 10 No.28 has a short article: Young worker Xiao Wang refused to correct his mistakes and went his own way. His friend advised him, "Xiao Wang, you can't do this!" We are all young people, so we have to fight for breath. Why do we always let others talk? " Xiao Wang said, "Go your own way and let others talk! "Our retort to Xiao Wang's famous sophistry can be like this:" Yes, you don't need others to stop you and poke you. But what if there are cliffs and abyss ahead? Don't you need someone to dissuade you? "First comply with its meaning, suddenly turn, refute by asking questions.