Common methods in debate

The most challenging thing in the debate field is refutation, and the most exciting thing in the debate field is refutation and refutation. The second and third debates of the first China University Computer Contest were changed to "rebuttal statement", and the time was 1.5 minutes. In the final, the time for rebuttal statement was increased to 2 minutes. Suddenly, a battle of wits around "rebuttal" began.

-convince people by reasoning and refute them head-on. This is the most commonly used rebuttal technique. It is to prove 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 one's own side is well prepared but the other side has not fully proved it. Because it takes a lot of time, positive refutation is only suitable for the arguments that are most closely related to the debate. 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 cannot be guaranteed, where does appreciation come from? ……

With two concise rhetorical questions and one rhetorical question, the relationship between the appreciation of sports games and the authenticity of sports games is clearly explained, so that the other party'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 winning the rebuttal of positive reasoning.

Second, tit for tat, tit for tat.

In the debate field, don't panic if the debater of the other side makes witty remarks. The idea of tit-for-tat is to make the audience applaud the opponent's debate. The method is very simple, that is, under the guidance of the opponent's wonderful words, immediately find a similar fact that is beneficial to oneself and fight back, 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 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 it is unfavorable to them. Of course, this kind of contest is not good for many rounds. On the one hand, it will give people the impression of digression, on the other hand, it is also suspected of grandstanding.

Third, the logical conclusion, playing along.

This trick, like the last one, is to attack yourself by the strength of the other side. The difference is that answer blows with blows is to borrow the charm of the other language. And this drama just borrows the logic of the other side. 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; However, when I get to the three arguments of the opposing side, I come to the conclusion that the information network is unsafe and cannot be simply relied on, which makes the proponents 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 three opposing arguments is actually a dilemma: if information warfare has no power, then 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 "cooperate".

Fourth, 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 cracked the trap carefully designed by the positive side, which can't be said to be due to analogy. Analogy refutation is simple and easy to use, but it should be noted that: ① the two objects of analogy are similar, so that the audience and judges should not react in a very short time; 2 analogy style should be high, don't compare what you think, so as not to be counterproductive; The analogy must be familiar to everyone, otherwise it will have no effect.

Fifth, take precautions and strike first.

In general, it seems natural to refute the last one. But here, I want to introduce a trick to refute the first one. First of all, I have anticipated your argument. Before you speak, I will refute your argument to pieces. When you carry it out again, it will be as boring as eating a ready-made meal.

In the final of the computer contest TV debate, the first and fourth debates are supported by multimedia images, so that the audience can listen to the speech and watch the prepared images. The final debate topic is: the intelligence of the computer may lead to the simplification of the human brain. As opponents, we (Huazhong University of Science and Technology) assume that the simplification of the human brain will be defined as the degradation of brain structure and the loss of function, while we define the human brain as the unity of consciousness and matter. Quot "The Inner Universe" defines the simplification of the human brain as: simplification of thinking, indifference of emotion, belief nihilism and so on. In order to avoid endless conceptual arguments, we took the risk of taking the "preemptive strike" tactic. In the multimedia CD, we made such a pattern in advance: there is an eye-catching word on it: "Is this a human brain?" "The picture below is a schematic diagram of the human brain. When we finished our argument, we were delighted to see that in the course of the argument, the image of the other side was "the human brain is …". The picture below is also a schematic diagram of the human brain. Because of the coordination of audio and video, the other party dare not tamper with the argument. Therefore, the fatal weakness of "talking about the human brain without its sociality" was exposed in its argument, and we took the lead from then on.

Above, I introduced an example of our team using "rebuttal first", which can be said to be a successful example. The reasons are as follows: ① We made a thorough analysis of the debate before the game and thoroughly knew ourselves and ourselves; The competition system determines that the first and fourth debates cannot be modified at will, and the seemingly dead East is used flexibly by us; Our argument is satisfactory and easy to be accepted by everyone. Otherwise, it is self-defeating and let the other party take the lead. Pay attention.

Sixth, attack in a roundabout way and seize the main line.

The debate field pays attention to initiative everywhere. If you refute it just for the sake of refutation, it must be obvious.

Passive, follow the opponent everywhere, even if the rebuttal is wonderful, it is not superior. How can we strongly refute each other and unconsciously guide them to discuss in areas that are beneficial to them? Realizing what the other party is saying, what we say is the first thing to do. A clear-headed and quick-thinking debater will perform well at this moment.

Debate: hieroglyphics are more suitable for computers than pinyin.

Stage: free debate.

On the positive side, there are four arguments: things can't be different from things you don't do. It is impossible and necessary for Mount Tai to cross the North Sea. It is impossible and necessary to break branches for the elderly. Hieroglyphs are more suitable for computers, and for other debaters, it is neither for nor for! Why not do it? Ask the other debater to answer directly!

Three arguments that contradict each other: how is it possible and why if you take each other's beautiful words to the computer for word segmentation?

First of all, we should see that in this debate, the positive side obviously has an emotional advantage, so the positive side hopes to fight a "sensational war" in the cage; But the other party actually has an advantage in specific technology, so I want to talk about specific technical details. According to this idea, the other party's three arguments find a very special angle, which not only cleverly refutes the other party, but also returns to the specific technical field of "word segmentation", which can be described as killing two birds with one stone.

Seven, volley, magnificent.

A common phenomenon in the debate field is that one party runs out of time first. So how does the other party seize this favorable opportunity? At this point, after the whole free debate, the truth that can be made clear has already been made clear, and the audience is exhausted. So what matters at this time is the momentum, not the truth. At this moment, it is better to refute than to take sides; It is advisable to compare short sentences instead of tedious arguments. Please see how the other party entered the "trial by default" as follows:

Debate: information warfare replaces traditional armed warfare.

Stage: "trial by default" of free debate.

Three arguments against the other side: the opposing side looks at the war in isolation, but does not know that different political motives require different ways of fighting.

Four arguments against one side; The other debater looked at the war with wishful thinking, thinking that only you could hit me, but not me.

Three arguments against the other side: the other side is still watching the war, but it doesn't know that different war processes have different ways of fighting!

The opposing party argues that another group of friends look at the war unilaterally, but they can't see that the information war is also fragile!

Four arguments against the other side: the other side thinks that Somalis can also fight information warfare.

Three arguments against the other side: the other side simply looks at the war and thinks that an information war can conquer the world.

The other side took advantage of the last chance. Taking turns bombing, several debaters have a tacit understanding. They uniformly adopted the way of "the opposing debater watched the battle like this", which was magnificent and had a shocking effect on the scene. This is much better than picking up a card and reading it dry. It takes time to read a card. We vividly call this "trial by default" "firing a gun". If free debate is weak, shooting can turn the situation around. If free debate prevails, shelling will be even more destructive. Of course, you should also be careful not to be too fierce when firing, giving people the feeling of being reasonable and merciless. We should also be reasonable, and don't let people think that we are "labeling".

Whether a debate can be won depends largely on whether the rebuttal is strong or not. Debate is the struggle of thinking, and refutation is the art of confrontation. The so-called "unpredictable soldiers, unpredictable water", either retreat to advance, or attack to defend; Either positive or circuitous ... needs to be arranged skillfully according to the situation of the debate. This article only wants to throw a brick to attract jade, and the spark of real thinking depends on friends themselves colliding in the debate.