Debate skills

Debate contest, also known as debate contest, is a kind of competition activity in which the two sides have a formal debate on a certain issue. In fact, it is a contest of knowledge, the ability of thinking and reflection, the ability of language expression and the comprehensive ability. Presumably the students still don't understand. The following is the relevant content of the skills I brought to the debate, hoping to help you.

1, battlefield push

Refine your own battlefield (at least one argument and one battlefield), prepare a certain number of questions for each battlefield, and the four-person competition system recommends four questions for each battlefield (which can be parallel questions or multi-angle questions). In the process of free debate, answer each other's questions as concisely as possible, mainly on your own battlefield. Specific implementation process: the first debate raises questions (introducing the topic into the battlefield), the second and third debates continue to ask questions on the battlefield to deepen the impression of the judges and the audience, and the fourth debate continues to ask questions, and the questions are best summarized. Cycle in turn. Every time you ask a question, it is appropriate to introduce the topic into a new battlefield.

Description: Battlefield push can be said to be one of the most useful battlefield skills, but it is easy to be cracked and become an overall evasive problem. Therefore, we should have a good argument and control field, two or three arguments should be clever, four arguments should be sober, we should be fully prepared in the early stage and be good at asking difficult or closed questions. The successful application of this technology will be overwhelming in scenes, such as Wuhan University in 0 1 year, and heroes will be judged by success or failure.

Step 2: Dilemma

When asking questions, there are usually only two answers (the most common and lowest yes or no), but they are all traps, or the answers are obvious but beneficial to us.

Explanation: Dilemma is easy to think about and ask questions, but it is also easy to solve if the other person tries to figure out his intentions in advance (the simplest thing is that if you ask yes or no, the other person will say no when he dies, and you won't be very entangled with him when you debate freely). The most common dilemma is to force the other party to answer yes or no, but until today, no one will jump at the sight of the pit, so there are relatively novel and peculiar dilemmas, such as: is xxx a sufficient condition or a necessary condition for xxx? Wait a minute. (Note: This tactic hardly appears in the slightly standardized competitions in recent years, but is more common in freshman competitions.)

3, the closed problem

There are many answers to the question, but only a few logics. When preparing the question, all the ways to answer it are taken into account, and everyone knows how to tell this answer back to his battlefield. Such questions are called closed questions.

Note: this kind of problem is better than the dilemma and difficulty in operation. The essence of this skill is to lure the enemy into depth and explain the other side's answer in a way that is beneficial to one's own side, which is very effective for experienced debaters to cooperate with the battlefield. The questioning session is excellent as long as the momentum is enough, but if the intention is inferred, the other party will deliberately avoid the question, so the ability to control the field is higher.

4. Define cutting

When defining a concept, subdivide the concept, compare it with similar concepts as much as possible, keep the favorable side, exclude the unfavorable side, include the favorable side, and prevent the other side from including the unfavorable side.

Note: the biggest mistake in defining a concept is copying a dictionary, unless the definition in the dictionary is already very beneficial to you. Every debate has its own environment and background. Knowing these clearly will help us to reduce the definition. But most importantly, you must be able to explain your own concepts.

For example:

A, should the inheritance of traditional culture be integrated into the popularity or the original flavor: whether the traditional culture is integrated into the popularity or the traditional culture is integrated into the culture when it is inherited; Whether to keep the original flavor unchanged or retain the core value; After being integrated into the popular traditional culture, it is still not traditional culture.

B, it is easier to succeed if the edge is exposed, or it is easier to succeed if the edge is not exposed: whether it is only exposed or both advantages and disadvantages are exposed (in the dictionary, both disadvantages are exposed); Whether the sharp blade will never be exposed or when it is time to be exposed; A leopard catches prey and lurks for a long time. Is it sharp? Is it only when you wait for the rabbit that you can not show your strength?

C is love simple or complex: is the complexity of love caused by family discord, responsibilities and obligations, and personality disagreement the complexity of love itself? Does love only contain that feeling in my heart or a lot?

D. Effect or motivation is the criterion for judging the good and evil of behavior: whether the good and evil discussed is aimed at human behavior or an event constituted by the whole behavior; Is there a distinction between good and evil? The result is to look at the long-term or the present.

5. Rational planting

When the opposing debater has narrow examples, unique definitions, irrational ideas or paranoid debating skills, it can be planted reasonably. Commonly known as "labeling".

Description: This technique is used to avoid problems and make your scene look better. It is a tactical defense technique. Usually, when a team is forced by an opponent to use reasonable planting, it usually encounters problems that can't be solved by theory and examples. Of course, I don't deny that there are reasonable plants for good scenes. But it should be emphasized that reasonable planting should never become unreasonable. Common phrase: "Is the other person's vision too narrow?" "You agree, but everyone here may not agree!" "Why do other debaters only pay attention to XX today?" "You mean these xxx deserve it?" "xxx is not important?" Wait a minute.

6, bunt suppression

In the free debate, all the answers were quickly reduced to absurdity, refuted and quickly launched their own battlefield. Try to let your opponent answer trivial and unclear concepts, waste your opponent's time and give yourself more than 30 seconds. Finally, the other side's "trial by default" (taking turns to state the attack, the other side can't talk, and the dumb eats coptis).

Description: This style of play is rogue, which needs to cooperate with the battlefield to refute, with quick response and high execution. In case of mistakes, it is difficult to save the situation, so we can only rely on the quality of the debater. It is necessary to cooperate with a better argumentation framework with low discussion cost and better operation technology to increase the discussion cost of the other party.

7. Battlefield rebuttal

In the preparation stage of the debate, guess as much as possible about the other party's possible theoretical direction and battlefield planning, sum up all the possible directions of the other party to their own battlefield, and let all the problems of the other party be brought back to their own battlefield during the free debate stage (including the confrontation stage).

Commentary: As the saying goes, "Many good things grind". Really, if you are well prepared, you will feel relaxed in the debate. Battlefield rebuttal is actually not a tactic, but should be prepared before every debate.

8. Logical return to absurdity

Deduct the other party's theory logically during the debate, or find out the logical mistakes since the other party's reverse deduction.

Explanation: This method should be the instinct of debaters, such as whether the logic of the other party is reasonable, whether there is a causal relationship between cause and effect, whether the premise of syllogism is wrong, whether concepts are stolen in inference, and so on.

;