How to convince people by reasoning in the debate

Debate is a competition between intelligence and ability, and it is also a competition of will. In a debate, the debater's debating skills are very important. Therefore, improving the debate skills is the key to the success of the debate. Let me sort out how to convince people in the debate for you. I hope it will help you.

Let reason convince each other.

First of all, we should be clear about our position.

Make your position clear, including your argument. Arguments and arguments (especially arguments), explain your position clearly, so as not to cause the other party to misunderstand you and cause unnecessary new opposition. For example:

Xiao Liu from Sichuan and Xiao Yang from Zhejiang are good friends, and pocket money is often spent together. On one occasion, the two bought mustard tuber, and Xiao Liu bought a bag of mustard tuber. Xiao Yang is very unhappy: Why don't you buy Zhejiang Zhalai? Xiao Liu:? How can Zhejiang mustard tuber taste as pure as Sichuan mustard tuber? Xiao Yang:? You really can't eat. Zhejiang mustard tuber tastes pure! ? Xiao Liu:? I'm not eating? I grew up eating mustard tuber. I've been eating for decades. I'm afraid you won't eat.

Neither side has made its position clear. What do you mean? Pure? This is a vague word. Perhaps the real opposition between the two sides is: Xiao Liu is a Sichuanese and likes to eat spicy mustard tuber; Xiao Yang, a native of Zhejiang, is used to eating sweet pickled mustard tuber. Because the position is not clear, it has triggered a new opposition: who eats mustard tuber better?

Second, listen carefully to the other side's position.

For each other's position, focus on one? Listen. Words. Being a good listener and listening clearly to each other's position will help to understand each other correctly and avoid misunderstanding.

1. Pay attention to what the other party said. Listening to the voice, on the one hand, is listening to the meaningful implication of the other party (such as puns), which is not difficult to do. On the other hand, it is difficult to hear what the speaker may not realize, such as:

In the battle between China and Bahrain in the 9th Asian Games, Li Jinyu scored twice and China won 2-/kloc-0. However, he conceded twice, which made it difficult for China to surpass the South Korean team in goal difference. There is a debate between A who often watches football and B who often plays football. A:? Not Li Jinyu, not China striker. ? b:？ Not Li Jinyu? Go up and have a try. Never played football. Don't talk nonsense. ? A:? I haven't played football. Have you ever seen it?

Fan A said that Li Jinyu could not do it, perhaps compared with world-class strikers; Player B said he was going to find Li Jinyu, obviously comparing himself. In this sense, there is no real opposition between the two sides. The problem is bad: because I don't know what the other person means, false opposition leads to new opposition: who is qualified to judge the ball-who often watches the ball or who often plays football?

2. If the other party doesn't say anything, don't judge for the other party rashly.

First of all, with the opposite judgment of the other party's affirmative words, the other party does not necessarily deny it; A judgment contrary to the negative words of the other party may not be sure. Because relative judgment is not the opposite judgment. For example, the teacher scolded Xiaoming: Why don't you use a proper period in your composition? In the daily debate, people often think that the teacher's words contain such a meaning: Xiao Ming doesn't need a period in his composition, but it's not necessarily true. The teacher may say this because there is no period in Xiaoming's composition, or he just used other punctuation marks where a period should be used.

Such mistakes are also common in daily debates. For example:

Host's treat. Ding has never come, and the host is impatient. Why hasn't the right one come yet? ? What does A want the master to say? Who shouldn't come? , and then turned to leave. Master saw it and said, we shouldn't leave. Let's leave now. ? B doesn't want to listen. It's not obvious: haven't you left yet? So I got up and left. The master was anxious and chased out: I didn't say you. ? Hearing this, C thought he was talking about me and went home.

People generally learned a cautious lesson from this widely circulated joke (in which the argument did not last and the language form was incomplete); But on the other hand, why can't you draw a lesson that you should be careful when listening? If A, B and C are not judged by experts, the opposition will not get out of control.

Secondly, don't expand each other's words at will. It is a common skill in debating competition to arbitrarily expand the other party's conclusion and make the other party feel ridiculous. In daily arguments, it is not appropriate to convince people by reasoning, rather than one side defeating the other. For example:

After Party A and Party B bought sports lottery tickets, Party A said: It is good to issue sports lottery tickets. Can raise a lot of money for sports. ? B said:? I don't think it's good. It's encouraging the gambling psychology of the masses. ? A:? After all, the purpose is different. Buying lottery tickets is a contribution to sports. Can it be equated with gambling? b:？ Since issuing lottery tickets can raise money, should we issue aircraft carrier lottery tickets and moon landing lottery tickets? Is my family short of money to repair the house and issue lottery tickets?

In this debate, B expanded A's argument. A is in favor of issuing sports lottery tickets, but he is not necessarily in favor of issuing lottery tickets whenever he is short of money. In doing so, B is looking for trouble to soften the opposition.

Third, the positions of both sides should be clearly analyzed.

Only by clarifying your own position and listening to the other side's position can we have a clear understanding of the pros and cons of both sides' views and understand the real opposition, which is the key to rationally softening the opposition. For example:

1999 The enrollment expansion of colleges and universities is mixed. In a live talk show on a radio station, a general manager of a foreign company who graduated from high school and a young university lecturer discussed this matter. The general manager thinks that there is no point in expanding enrollment, and most people don't need to go to college because they can live a good life; There is no need to let a few people go to college, because you can still have a car and a house through hard work. University lecturers hold the opposite view: higher education should be open to more people, because people should learn more knowledge. At the end of the program, the university lecturer concluded: The fundamental difference between me and the general manager is not whether I agree with the expansion of colleges and universities, but whether knowledge or material life should be the goal pursued by people. ?

The fundamental opposition between the lecturer and the general manager is an open question. What is commendable is that the lecturer found the real opposition under the surface opposition. Only by softening the real opposition can we really soften the opposition. It is the premise of softening the opposition to distinguish the positions of both sides and find out the real opposition.

Fourth, change your position skillfully.

Should the daily debate soften the opposition and not pay attention to the debate? Hold the line. . For example, the two sides of the debate are two pieces of ice that refuse to melt (who melts and loses); On the other hand, the two sides of the daily debate are two burning fires (the fire of truth), and only together can the flame flourish. In order to soften the opposition, the daily debate needs to change one's point of view in time and reach an agreement with the other side. The following are two good practices.

1. Attribute your own point of view to the other side's point of view, so that the positions of both sides can be changed. For example:

The marketing manager and the development manager of a company argued about the development theory of a new product. The marketing manager thinks that before developing new products, a detailed market survey should be conducted to see if consumers have such demand. The manager of the development department thinks that the development of new products must be kept secret, which makes customers and competitors in the same industry feel mysterious. After a while, both of them felt that there was something wrong with their position. The marketing manager offered: the idea of the development manager is right, but it is best to do a general market research before development.

The marketing manager adjusts his position from detailed market research to general market research to conform to the other party's point of view (confidentiality), thus softening the opposition.

2. Put each other's point of view down to their own point of view, to guide each other, for example:

At present, the incidence of myopia among school students is very high. Doctor a thinks it is mainly a health problem, which is caused by unsanitary eyes. Doctor b thinks it's mainly about education. A:? Myopia is mostly caused by reading for too long. Incorrect reading posture and other unsanitary eyes are naturally health problems. ? b:？ Have you ever thought that students will read books for a long time if the pressure on them is not heavy? A:? Yes, they may read extra-curricular books for a long time. ? b:？ In that case, why don't schools strengthen eye hygiene education? A:? Maybe education didn't work. ? b:？ Isn't education a problem if it doesn't work?

In this debate, Dr. B skillfully introduced A's point of view into his own point of view: even a health problem is first of all a health education problem, so it is an education problem.

Sentences commonly used in debating competitions

1. Did the opposing debater not hear or understand?

Don't worry, don't worry, don't worry, don't you think I'm in a hurry? (usage: when asking questions? Polite? Interrupt each other casually).

People said I was handsome, but I was wrong, because I was talented and handsome?

When answering a question in a competition, I said: This question has been clearly explained by our three debates. At this time, we three debaters have never come forward to speak. Involving privacy, the source is not obvious.

5. The earth is round and the world is diverse ~ Last year's Zhejiang University Strange Vibration Cup Freshmen Debate Competition?

6. Eat the rice bit by bit and say everything bit by bit.

7. The reason why we don't answer the questions of the opposing defense friend is that the opposing defense friend has never answered our questions. If the other defense friend answers our questions, we should also answer the other defense friend's questions.

8. The opponent's debater is graceful, and prejudice is inevitable.

9. Don't be nervous, opponent. It's just an ordinary exercise in which friendship comes first and competition comes second. Don't tremble. There is still a long time. Ask questions slowly. It's okay. I will try my best to answer according to your thinking.

10. I don't know if you are brain-dead. . .

165438+ naysayers, can we discuss something meaningful now?

12. A senior (after the argument is almost debunked): Generally speaking, the premise of the opposing defense friend is wrong, generally speaking, the standard of the opposing defense friend is wrong, generally speaking? The other classmate's statement is wrong!