Debating the right side of "It is good to pursue victory in life"

You may not lose the first time. I participated in many debate competitions during college and only lost one, but it was in the later competitions.

Without going into too much detail, let’s talk briefly about the debate.

A debate in the narrow sense, which is what you call a debate, is a debate competition.

The debate has two fundamental purposes: to improve thinking skills and language control skills. (Although during the competition, you need to describe yourself as the incarnation of truth, the messenger of light, the model of morality, and the spokesperson of reason, but you should understand the true meaning of the debate in your heart, so that you can really benefit.)

The debate process is divided into two major stages: pre-game preparation and competition.

Many people pay more attention to the game, but in my humble opinion, preparation before the game is more important. The teams that win the game are often the teams that have prepared well before the game.

The following will talk about some experience in these two stages respectively.

The preparation stage is divided into three processes:

First, break the topic - that is, deeply understand the central idea of ??the debate topic and analyze the core issues of the defense topic response. Solving a problem is a directional problem. Once the solution is wrong, the direction will be wrong, and no matter how fast you go, you will go in the opposite direction.

For example: I am a judge in a certain competition, and the affirmative question is: Specialists are more adaptable to society than generalists. The basis of their argument is that generalists simply do not exist. Therefore, as soon as the defense statement was made, it was already judged that the affirmative had lost. Why? It's because they broke the topic and raised a problem. Since the topic of the defense was raised in this way, an assumption has been given: generalists and specialists exist side by side. They don't understand the topic at all, so they argue blindly. No matter how thorough and rigorous the argument is, it is useless.

Let’s talk about the debate topic by the way. The debate topic is the argument of one party in the debate. A good debate topic must be discernible. Both sides must have room for discernment. The two are either one or the other and are contradictory. The conflict is obvious, and there is no academic or moral merit, otherwise this would be a bad debate topic. This determines that there is no right or wrong answer to any good debate topic. Any good debater knows this very well, so he will never dwell on a certain topic repeatedly. I hope that those who seek the truth from the debate will not understand the real purpose of the debate.

Second, argument establishment - that is, to establish sub-arguments to prove the argument (our point of view) to support our point of view. Don't make too few arguments, otherwise the foundation will be unstable and it will be difficult to stand alone; nor too many, otherwise the front will be too long and it will be difficult to take care of the beginning and end. Generally, 3 to 4 is better, forming a tripod.

As a sub-argument, it must first be impeccable and tenable. The sub-arguments are meant to support a point of view, but the sub-arguments themselves are full of loopholes. Not only do they fail to support the point of view, they also become a burden and become the target of attacks by the other party.

Secondly, the more direct the sub-arguments support the point of view, the better. For example, if you are asked to argue that something is an egg, and your sub-argument is "it is round", this is too far away from the topic. Although it can be argued, it is too indirect; if your sub-argument is "this thing is a hen" Raw”, this is very straightforward.

Third, argumentation - the process of using sufficient arguments to prove a point of view through rigorous reasoning. The argument must meet two conditions:

1. The arguments are sufficient and powerful;

2. The argumentation process is logically rigorous;

Let’s talk about the first point first: “Sufficient arguments” , powerful.” I don’t know whether you are in college or middle school. If you have ever learned to write a paper, you should know that arguments are divided into factual arguments and rational arguments. Factual arguments refer to facts that occur objectively, and rational arguments refer to fully recognized theoretical viewpoints. As far as debate competitions are concerned, they can include: axioms, good customs, famous quotes, laws and regulations, the views of the country's government, etc.

"Sufficient" means to have a certain amount. Of course, more is not better, but it cannot be hung from a tree; more importantly, it is "powerful". What is power? Direct - straightforwardly proves the point of view; authority - includes two meanings, one is the opinion of an authoritative department or figure, and the other is long-term recognition by the public;

The second point is "the argumentation process is logically rigorous", It doesn’t matter if you have never studied logic. Since the debate competition is fast-paced and the confrontation is fierce, the requirements for the rigor of logic are not high, and there is no time to carefully consider whether your logic is tight. As long as you follow the above-mentioned methods to solve the problem, establish the argument, and demonstrate the argument, there will be no obvious logical problems. One of the most common problems for novices is self-contradiction and hypothetical arguments. Most of the self-contradictions are caused by the debaters' inconsistent thinking, insufficient preparation, or the appearance of "insiders" who like to be unconventional, causing the debaters to disagree with each other. Contradiction, inconsistency, hypothetical argument means that words such as "if...", "maybe...", "hypothesis...", "if...then..." appear in the argumentation process, even during the debate, Also try to avoid,

"If you say 'if', the whole of Paris can fit into a bottle." The situation you hypothesized cannot prove anything.

Adequate preparation is the key to winning the game. Of course, the process of repeated thinking is extremely painful. Sometimes you are fighting with yourself, and it is easy to feel like a split personality. Searching for a lot of information is also very tedious. It's hard work, but as long as you have patience, you will definitely gain something and improve.

Because I don’t know what competition format you are in, I won’t talk about the specific division of labor of each debater for now.

To talk about my experience in the competition is just my humble opinion. I don’t know if it can be helpful.

First, the determination of victory or defeat. The judges will generally determine the outcome based on two aspects: argumentation and teamwork (of course I am talking about judges who have more knowledge and experience in debate competitions). In terms of argumentation: whether the point of view is clear, whether the argument is rigorous, whether the proof is strong, whether the argument is sufficient, in a word, whether you have truly proved the correctness of your point of view. Team aspect: Whether the debaters cooperate tacitly, whether their language is clear and fluent, and whether their demeanor is generous and appropriate.

Second, debater. Debates are battles where words are used as weapons. But this does not mean that players can fight without any scruples. That is a quarrel, not a debate. A good debater will be respected by everyone regardless of victory or defeat. This is the personality charm of the debater rather than the ability to quarrel.

As a debater, there are some taboos that you must abide by:

1-You cannot insult or abuse the opponent;

2-You cannot discuss the privacy of the opponent. School debates often Everyone knows each other and it is easy for this situation to happen;

3-Never leave the debate seat;

4-Do not use insulting gestures, such as pointing fingers at each other, novices can debate freely This situation is most likely to occur when you are speaking. If you need to point to the other party, you should use an action similar to "please", just put your palms together and stretch out to the other party;

5- Try to use Mandarin. In regular debates, Dialects are ignored by both the opponent and the judges except as arguments;

6-Avoid shouting hoarsely, dancing around, spitting and other situations that damage the image.

Third, how to conduct free debate. Free debate is the most intense moment of conflict between the two parties. It is often the moment that distinguishes the winner from the loser. It is also the moment when novices are most likely to make mistakes. Let’s focus on this.

1-Stick to your point of view and don’t be led by the other party. As soon as novices enter the free debate stage, the most common mistake they make is to forget their own arguments and let the other party lead them by the nose. Whether it is a free debate, a statement, or a question and answer, the purpose is to prove one's own point of view and refute the other party's point of view, and the main purpose is to prove one's own point of view. We must not forget that once the other party asks questions continuously, we will be at a loss and just deal with the other party's questions. If you ask questions, you will be very passive.

2-Ask questions. Most of the questions in the free debate are prepared in advance. If you think that those exciting questions are the contestants' on-the-spot performance, you are totally wrong.

These questions are all fully prepared, carefully considered and carefully organized before the game. When preparing, you must first try to answer them yourself. If your ability allows, you must also speculate on how the other party may answer, and ask further questions based on the answers. Such questions can be raised by both sides of the debate. If you can't think of it, you haven't found the right path yet. This is determined by the characteristics of the debate topic (both sides are distinguishable). When you ask a question, if the other party cannot answer it, it will be fine. You must continue to ask further questions. The party asking the question often takes the initiative. If the other party avoids answering, ask the question again and again, and don’t forget to say, “For the When answering the other party's questions, you should clear the clouds and see the sun without being confused by the other party. After reading the above paragraph, you should have thought that the questions carefully prepared by the other party must be difficult to answer. Excellent questions may even be the basis for the other party's point of view. Once you answer them, you will prove the other party. What to do? First of all, you must remember that "proving your own point of view is the first priority." When answering, try to use your own arguments and arguments. Secondly, you must clear up the clouds and find the root of the problem in the other party's question. Finally, if you find it difficult to answer, Don't get entangled. Just talk to him or her. If the other party asks again, just say, "We have already answered this question very clearly. In view of time constraints, we will not repeat it again. Please ask the other teammate...". Of course, qualified judges will know at a glance that you have lost this round, but in a debate competition, you cannot care about the gains and losses of one city or one village. The final victory is the key.

4-Find errors. Finding out the opponent's loopholes may be a debater's favorite thing to do. It is endless fun and can often win the audience:) However, a pair of keen ears cannot be developed in a day or two, and requires continuous practice. To give a few common examples, logical errors: the other party's argumentation process is not rigorous and inconsistent. This is a fundamental error, and it is necessary to find out if it is found out, especially if the opponent's players are contradictory to each other. Common sense error: If the other party makes a common sense mistake, you must not let it go. Here is a wonderful example: At the 1993 International College Debate Competition, a contestant from Cambridge University asked the other party to explain, "Singapore President Lee Kuan Yew..." Fudan University Who is Jiang Changjian? He immediately pointed out that "Lee Kuan Yew is the Prime Minister of Singapore, not the President." The audience burst into applause, and the other party was disgraced.

The debate is a very technical game. During the competition, the debaters will also use sophistry, subversion of concepts, subversion of ideas, circumstantial remarks, and many other methods to point out the opponent's opinions. The trick is of course very satisfying. However, these skills are often improvised on the spot. If there is no such team, they would have planned to make excuses before the game. It does not take a day to master these skills. Of course, it is not that easy to find such problems. I won’t discuss them one by one here. (I have been writing for more than 2 hours, hot~~~)

I suggest you watch more debates, watch the competition videos, and learn the debate methods; you must read the written materials repeatedly to know the masters. How to prepare and demonstrate.

I really can’t write anymore, but I am eager to help you, hehe~

Finally, let’s talk about your topic in detail. It’s your first time preparing for a competition. It feels like I have nowhere to start. I am just trying to provide some ideas for reference only.

Pro: It is good to pursue victory on the road of life

Con: It is not good to pursue victory on the road of life

(You didn’t say con, I assume that is the case. If this debate question is changed It is more professional to say "should (should not) pursue victory on the road of life", and good is the most difficult criterion to judge)

Broken question:

On the road of life - this debate. The scope of the questions discussed is limited to the "road of life" and focuses on whether we should pursue victory in the development of life. The topic of the debate is about the journey of life, not economic development, social progress, or technological innovation, otherwise it would be off topic. For example, the other party said that economic development cannot be pursued at a fast pace or to pursue a victory. Our country's economy has developed rapidly in recent years, but the country has made many mistakes this year to prevent the economy from developing too fast instead of pursuing a victory. This shows that it is not good to pursue a victory. It seems to be right and very strict.

But the topic of the debate was about "the road of life", which was beside the point. At this time, you should immediately point out that the other party is seriously off topic and does not understand the topic of the debate at all: P

Seize the opportunity to pursue victory - look it up yourself in the dictionary. The essence it reflects should be such a state: a certain amount of progress has been achieved. After achievement, further strive for greater achievements. It is not about starting from scratch, nor is it about turning defeat into victory. "Taking advantage of victory" is the basic condition. If "taking advantage of victory" is not reflected in the argument, it cannot prove your or the other party's point of view, otherwise it will not be consistent with the basic conditions set by the debate topic.

Good/Bad - This is the failure of this argument. Good and bad is a difficult standard to define, but as the main difference in the debate, it must be explained. You should clearly explain what is good and what is bad at the beginning of the debate, and make an interpretation that is beneficial to you. I personally think that it can be defined from the following two aspects: whether it is conducive to the individual's realization of life value, and whether it is conducive to the development and progress of the entire society. If it meets these two "beneficial" criteria, it is good, and your task will be clear, which is to prove that pursuing victory is beneficial to individuals in realizing their life value, and is also beneficial to the development and progress of the entire society.

I won’t say much about the argument and demonstration. (I wrote for 2 and a half hours, and I feel dizzy.)

Personally, I feel that the positive side is slightly more advantageous than the negative side. You don’t need to be afraid of the other side. So what about the seniors, they just have an extra year of food.

I talked about some humble opinions indiscriminately, but I am really just trying to do something for everyone, and I am ashamed and ashamed. I hope it can be of some help to LZ.

If you have any other questions, you can message me or send an email to lm001012@hotmail.com