Debate Skills in Debate Competition

On Practical Debate Skills in Debate Competition

Classic practical debating skills in debating competition;

First, the goal should be single. The rules of debate determine that the time for debate is limited. So don't attack from all sides, choose the right focus and attack strongly to form an overwhelming advantage.

Second, focus on weak links.

Third, do it quickly and don't continue to fight. After the attack has achieved certain results, we should move the battlefield as soon as possible, and we should not get entangled in one point in case of gaffes.

In the face of the enemy's aggressive offensive, we should try our best to avoid the solid and powerful parts of the other party's argument, and skillfully grasp the weak links of the other party or attack the mistakes and loopholes in the argument. In this way, you can be a shoo-in in the debate.

Common rebuttal skills

One: convince people by reasoning

Positive refutation is the most commonly used refutation technique, which proves the error of the other party's point of view with the simplest language and the simplest logical reasoning. This method is suitable for the viewpoint that you are fully prepared but the other party has not fully proved it. Positive reasoning refutation is a waste of time, so it should only be used on the most closely related arguments in the debate field. Please look at an example: Title: Computer referees should be introduced into sports competitions.

Price range: rebuttal.

Contrary argument: ... when computer referees step into the arena with confidence, they will seriously weaken the appreciation and participation of sports competitions because they overemphasize accuracy. ...

Parameters: ... What are you looking at? It is a kind of sports beauty. What is the basis of beauty? It's true. Fairness is the guarantee of truth. If fairness is not guaranteed, where does appreciation come from? ……

The positive debate uses two concise rhetorical questions and one rhetorical question to clarify the relationship between the appreciation of sports games and the authenticity of sports games, so that the other side's views become passive water and trees without roots, and the rebuttal task is successfully completed. It should be noted that conciseness is the key to the success of positive reasoning and refutation.

Two: answer blows with blows, answer blows with blows.

In the debate field, don't panic if the other side is arguing about mobile phone intelligence. The tit-for-tat idea is to let the audience return the applause to the other debater. The method is very simple, that is, under the guidance of the wonderful words of the other party, immediately find a similar fact that is beneficial to you, and respond accordingly, giving people a sense of superiority. Look at the following rebuttal, and everyone will know its success.

Subject: Information warfare can replace traditional armed warfare.

Stage: Refutation.

The opposite argument: ... May I ask the opponent: Will the war be won after gaining the information advantage? Does it mean that for information warfare, we don't need the golden hoop of traditional armed warfare?

(Applause) ...

Three arguments: The golden hoop is terrible, but it can't stop the tight information flow in Tang Sanzang.

(Applause) ...

This kind of rebuttal is not to show the logical relationship between things. But to show the wit of the debater on the spot. To do this, debaters should pay attention to increasing their knowledge reserves in peacetime, and on the other hand, strengthen the cultivation of their psychological quality, so as to remain calm and optimistic when the situation is unfavorable. Of course, this kind of contest is not good for many rounds. On the one hand, it gives people the impression of digression, on the other hand, it is suspected of grandstanding.

Three: Push the boat with the current and go with the flow.

This trick, like the last one, is to attack yourself with the help of the other party. The difference is that tit-for-tat is the charm of the other language. And this promotion is based on the power of the other party's logic. To put it bluntly, we use the other side's argument to prove our argument. Let's look at an example.

Debate: information warfare can replace traditional martial arts

Stage: free debate.

Positive argument: ... In the face of software bombs and logic bombs, my dear opponent can still say to the enemy, "Dear enemy, the family style of our ancestors is unchangeable. Let's fight a traditional armed war!" "Do you know where the enemy is?

Three arguments of the opposing side: the powerful software bombs and logic bombs mentioned by the opposing side do not mean that the information network is unreliable, so can't national security and "information warfare" be tied together? (Applause)

The positive statement was originally intended to say that with the information war, the traditional armed war heroes are no longer useful; But from the three arguments of the opposing side, I come to the conclusion that the information network is unsafe and cannot be simply relied on. Let the square be speechless for a while.

So how can we achieve this effect? The key lies in thorough logical analysis. If you can design a dilemma, you can "push the boat with the current." The application of the other side's three arguments is actually a dilemma: if information warfare has no power, then starting from the most effective means of war, the traditional armed war will obviously not be eliminated; If information warfare is powerful and cyber warfare, it is dangerous to rely solely on the network itself from the perspective of defense, and traditional armed warfare will not be eliminated. After such a logical design, the other party can of course "play along".

Four: Clever analogy, hit the nail on the head

In many cases, simple reasoning is boring. Using analogy can not only enliven the atmosphere, but also make the refutation vivid and easy to understand. Let's enjoy an example:

Debate: Information warfare can replace traditional armed warfare.

Stage: free debate.

What are the dimensions of future wars? ……

Four reasons to object: information ...

Three arguments: ... high potential dominates low potential, and high level determines low level. Now that the opponent has admitted that the high dimension of future war is information, that is to say, the opponent also admitted that information is the dominant factor of future war?

Counter argument: The logic of the counter argument is to build a house only at the highest level, not the foundation below. (Applause)

In a short sentence, the opposing side argued out the trap carefully designed by the positive side, which can't be said to be the credit of analogy. Analogy refutation is simple and easy to use, but it should be noted that: ① the two objects of analogy should be close to avoid the audience and judges reacting in a very short time. (2) the style of analogy should be high, and it is forbidden to compare what you think, so as not to be counterproductive. Analogy must be familiar to everyone, otherwise it will have no effect.

Classic skills of debate competition

Push the boat with the tide

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

(2) Leverage

There is a trick in martial arts novels, which is called "using force to fight". 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.

Fang Zhengzhi was able to treat himself with examples of opposing sides because he had a series of theories that were not expressed orally and reinterpreted words as a strong backing.

(3) grafting

Removing the defective part of the other party's argument and replacing it with our favorable views or materials can often receive the miraculous effect of "four or two". We call this technique "grafting"

The technique of replacing 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 many "substitute flowers". It is necessary for the debater to accurately summarize or deduce the other party's views and our position at that time.

(d) root causes.

The so-called radical, for example, this paper points out that the other party's argument is not closely related to the topic or runs counter to it, and fundamentally corrects the standpoint of the other party's argument and pulls it into our "sphere of influence" to make it 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.

(e) "Pull 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, the other side only responds with a few words. If we still adopt the method of frontal attack, it will 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.

(6) "Li Jiang"

When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically, we have to adopt the method of "replacing peaches" and introduce new concepts to solve the difficulties. 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.

(7) cut the bottom salary.

Clever and selective questioning is one of the offensive means 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.

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.

(8) overcoming difficulties.

In debates, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions, and the result seems to be a lively debate, but in fact it is irrelevant to 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. But in more cases, 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.

(9) Using contradictions

Because the two sides of the debate are composed of four players, these four players often have contradictions during 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. Our "spear belt, shield belt" made the other side speechless.

;