How to prepare for a debate

Preparing for a debate consists of two parts: solving the question and constructing the argument under the strategy.

One, the strategy to solve the problem (without favoring any position)

1, divided into debate sentence components

Get the debate first sentence breaks, divided into sentence components, grasp the main body is a very good habit.

It can make you more clearly understand the content of the defense, for those who seem at first glance obscure and difficult to understand the effect of the defense is particularly obvious.

Often, students' understanding of the topic is laughable because they misinterpret the meaning of the question by underlining the wrong sentence components.

Example: Urban development is a reflection of the convergence/divergence of human civilization.

The main idea is that development is a manifestation of convergence/divergence.

Where "urban" modifies "development" and "more" modifies "embodiment". "Human civilization" is the "convergence/differences" of the qualifier

2, grasp the opposites

The two sides of the topic of the standpoint of the two sides are often unity of opposites, *** with the same constitutes the topic of the topic of the whole content.

Example: human nature is good/evil.

Good and evil are united in opposition, and *** with constitute the whole of the description of a particular attribute of human nature.

The rigorous debate often does not have a third position, so the concepts of the two sides can not encompass each other, and can not lead to third-party concepts. These fail to capture the essence of the debate.

Example:

Children of a Chinese father and an American mother who are Chinese/American cannot introduce a third position: same Chinese/American.

Capital/knowledge is more important for economic development, can't say knowledge is a virtual capital.

Grabbing the opposing sides of the debate can give you a visual overview of the general content of each side's position. With the accumulation of experience in the game will slowly form a certain pattern, can be linked to each other to categorize the argumentation of their views can learn from each other.

Such as: utilitarianism vs. morality, benefits vs. drawbacks, subjectivity vs. objectivity, and so on.

3, what is the judgment standard

Judgment standard is the core content of the two sides of the argument. Once the judgment standard is established, the two sides immediately reveal the victory or defeat.

Example:

Debate: I and you who is more fierce.

Once the criterion of height has been established, all that is needed is to measure the height of you and me with a ruler, and the conclusion will be reached immediately.

Whether defining the battle, or setting up the situation, framing the premise, are all in order to make the judging criteria closer to their own point of view, for their own side. However, the judgment criteria should be based on public perception and accepted by the public, so as to be persuasive and able to win.

There is no absolute standard of judgment in a rigorous debate. Because this is a debate is the need to debate, absolute judgment standards once established, the two sides of a certain party is bound to not be established can not be debated.

Example:

Debate: I and you who is more fierce.

Judgment criteria set for the force who is greater than who is higher than the public accepted? But neither of them is the default absolute standard of the debate.

So for a debate on both sides of the judgment standard is bound to be different. If you construct a more reasonable and more acceptable to the public third-party judges, you will be able to lay a very solid foundation for your side of the argument.

Example: 2011 International Tertiary Debate, WU vs NUS, longevity is/is not a blessing.

The opposing side suggested that the criterion for judging whether longevity is a blessing is "whether longevity can generally make the elderly feel happy in the contemporary environment", and argued that "whether longevity is a blessing or not depends on the specific circumstances of the environment". The specifics of the situation". The opposing side wins by arguing "whether longevity itself is a single type of well-being". (Personally, I think the negative side won here, the course of the game was firmly controlled by the positive side).

Two, Raiders under the construction of the argument (standing in a position drawn by lot)

1, the definition

Opening, the definition first. It is best to have a clear and precise understanding of each word and each concept in the preparation process. In analyzing the meaning of each word should be based on the public's general knowledge and accurate definition of the word, and at the same time think about whether the other side will agree with their own definition of the word. If you think that the other side will not accept your definition, be prepared for a definition war.

The ultimate goal of the definitional battle is to convince the third party to agree with the definition and to refute the other side's definition. In the first argument, emphasize the definitions of words that the other side may not accept and that the other side must insist on.

Example: 2001 International Tertiary Debate WU vs Malaya Money is/is not the root of all evil.

Positive side: Wan means many kinds Counter side: Wan means all all.

Think: The modern Chinese dictionary has many different interpretations of "Wan", what should "Wan" mean in this debate?

2. Theoretical Logic (Theoretical Arguments, which can be directly formed into arguments)

The establishment of one's own point of view needs to be supported by arguments; the establishment of arguments needs to be supported by arguments. Arguments are divided into two kinds: theoretical arguments and factual arguments. Theoretical arguments are summarized from things with the nature of the truth of the universal law. We have studied mathematics, we know how rigorous logical reasoning. Which cited a variety of theorems is the theoretical arguments.

Theoretical arguments are derived from facts, but have been summarized and can be used directly. The use of theoretical arguments in the process must pay attention to grasp the essence of things, to seize the things and the inevitable connection between the arguments, do not mess around.

Theoretical arguments need to rely on the usual accumulation, as well as looking for information, consult a senior to obtain.

Commonly used theoretical arguments are: Marx's philosophy of dialectical materialism, Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs, famous quotes, people generally recognized as common sense and so on.

Logic, on the other hand, exists in the deductive derivation of the arguments from the thesis. It is important to be as tight as possible and not make logical errors.

3, factual examples (factual arguments)

Debate, of course, inevitably have to give examples, the facts speak louder than words, so to speak, the facts are the most important part of the debate is the most basic as the building materials needed to build a house, such as bricks and mortar, steel and other building materials.

The facts of the argument should be true, accurate, current and representative.

"An apple is still an apple even if it is cut into eight pieces" The example does not lie in many lies in the essence. And to argue the point of view to have an essential connection (this brief sentence contains too much unspeakable content) the current major hot news reliable source has been confirmed or easy to be confirmed easy to accept the facts are very good factual arguments.

4, the value (can be directly formed arguments)

We need to dig behind their own point of view of the value contained. The context of the argument and the point to be made in the debate have to be relevant and give us insights, otherwise it is just a moot point.

The promotion of values can deepen the theme and thus cause ****ing. Whether the values advocated by our point of view derived from the deep heart, if so, then not far from victory.

Example: The key to success is hard work/opportunity.

The positive side is vastly superior in terms of values: the key to success is hard work, and opportunity comes only to those who are prepared. All of us in the debate are human beings, and if we are human beings, we can only start from ourselves. The positive side can advocate for people, hard work and enterprising spirit. What about the opposite side? Do not go to advocate not as a natural, empty waiting for opportunities, waiting for the spirit of the rabbit?

Total: a good argument is inevitably inseparable from the definition, logic, facts of the three levels, and good value advocacy can be added to the icing on the cake. The format of the argumentative framework is: the point of view is supported by the argument; the argument is supported by the argument; the argument should capture the essence; logical thinking should be meticulous.

1, get the question

General preparation for a debate begins the moment you get the question. (Including the kind of pre-tournament public announcement of all the questions that need to be explained separately.) The first person to get a debate question is usually the debate team leader, the freshman debate director, or the debate team administrator. At this point, these people should be the first to post the questions to all the people involved. At the same time, the team leader or defense director should be the first to inform everyone of what to do (although in most cases most people won't do it).

Previously, what I would definitely have had people do after the first notification was ? Look up information? But now I don't think that's scientific, because no one knows what to look up at all, and at best they're just searching the internet for defense questions in a haphazard way. (The ones that do look things up don't even need you to tell them what to do.)

So now I think the first thing that should be notified? Please ask your questions about this defense? No explanation? and ? Doubts, and a handful of opinions, and record them. To put it bluntly, think about the debate, yes! Simply think.

For example:

Functions can't be made up.

(This is a boring and bullshit debate, and is only used as an example, not to mention the chances of encountering it are not low).

Get this debate and immediately think, what does this topic mean? What kind of issues are you trying to discuss? Are the concepts clear? What are the doubts that are not clear?

For example, what does merit mean? Is apologizing after stepping on someone a feat? Is getting a hundred percent on a test merit? Does merit mean doing what needs to be done well?

Used only as an example, not to discuss right or wrong.

2. Breaking the topic

After that you will have your first meeting and conference, where many debate teams start discussing what and how to play the topic. It's always easier to just skip the topic-breaking phase, then prepare for ages and suddenly think, "Holy shit? What's the definition?" "What exactly are we going to argue?" "Is that what's going to be said?"

This is because we skipped the topic-breaking phase in the first place. Admittedly, breaking the question doesn't necessarily lead to the right answer but it does prompt people to start thinking about these foundational questions early, and whenever they hit a roadblock they think about whether or not these foundational questions are out of whack.

For example, the question of whether or not the work can be made up. In the breaking stage, we have to figure out what is work, what is too much, how to count the work to make up for the fault, how to count the failure to make up for the fault, and how to understand the ability to be. And you should be able to give several positive and negative examples. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the definition of these issues to our point of view.

Generally speaking, we will call "what is the work" this kind of problem as a definitional problem; we will "what is the work to make up for the fault", "can be how to understand" this kind of problem We call it the standard problem.

Definition means that we are discussing whether or not the thing we are discussing is the thing we want to discuss in the debate, and criterion is to determine whether or not an action, behavior, or event is in line with what we are talking about (could, could, could be, should, must, etc.).

After that, all of our discussions will be centered around the definitions and criteria, and if you find that you can't go any further or that it's difficult to go any further, look back at the definitions and criteria.

Talking about two more advanced topics here (Tricks: it's worth emphasizing that things like tricks, especially with a limited understanding of the debate, aren't necessary to make don't make as much as possible, and that there are tricks and ways to break them.)

A. Definitional Packaging

As mentioned above, some neutral or conventional definitions or general expressions may not be favorable enough for our position. At this point we need to modify and explain the definition appropriately, so that it is favorable to our side, or to reduce the negative impact. (Remember that at its core, debate is a competition and not a mere pursuit of truth, and that the pursuit of truth is a means and an effect, not an end. The pursuit of truth in most debates results in Neither being right, the combination of the two is right.)

For example:

The inheritance of traditional culture should be original \The inheritance of traditional culture should be integrated into the popular.

This debate is actually after a little discussion you will find that it is not very favorable to the positive side.

What does it mean to be original? Is it to keep everything the same? If so, it will be very difficult to develop the positive side's argument.

So the pro side's definition should avoid being set in stone as much as possible; the con side's definition should probably be set in stone as much as possible. All of this is to lower the cost of exposition for your side and raise the cost of exposition for the other side. It is important to realize that the higher the cost of argumentation, the less effective the message, the less offensive it is, and the more difficult it is to argue. In short, there is no good in a hundred harms.

So in some of the concepts of the exposition should be as much as possible to increase the cost of the other side and reduce their own costs. So like packaging this technique is not too much of a solution in the case do not use. Because avoiding the conventional definition necessarily requires a higher cost of exposition. But when we can pay this cost in exchange for more battlefield and argument space, sometimes it is worth it. Take this debate for example.

So what is it about originality that isn't static? Well, we could say that it's keeping the core of the culture the same, but the outer form can be changed. For example, let's say I courier a piece of ancient jade to a history fair to introduce it to people.

I teach people how to play with a firecracker made of plastic. All these behaviors are traditional and original in nature, although they use modern elements and methods or techniques in their form. (No discussion of right or wrong, just methodology, this description is for example only, not necessarily perfect) So you'll find a lot more room for argument and defense on the right side.

At least it won't be this kind of question that kills you: "May I ask the other side of the defense if you still want to keep our original traditional culture of flying pigeons to send letters today?" (Of course this question could also be properly addressed by saying that pigeon flying is not a culture).

Packaging this means can be used not only for the definition, but also include examples of expository methods and so on, will not explain this method later.

B, the division of the premise

Sometimes you will find that some of the debate if the problem domain is very wide, it will seriously lead to the two sides of the discussion is not on a plane, always wind horse and cattle. At such times, it's all about the debater's ability to control the field. Not to mention the fact that most of the time the problem domain will be very unfavorable (mainly because of the high cost of argumentation).

So sometimes we need some way to circle the problem domain of the question. That is, to delimit the premises.

Still for example:

Should universities be loosely managed.

In the discussion or competition on this issue (including the model defense), it is natural to find the positive side of the battlefield will be the opposite side said, this does not matter, that does not matter in the end the students are finished, that is, they are beaten into no management

So you can start out by setting the premise that, "the so-called loose management, the first thing is to have a management, in the case of a management can ensure the basic order, as loose as possible." Of course, at that time we further set is "should loose management, refers to a kind of university to more relaxed orientation, this orientation is embodied in: change majors more free, dormitory can be uninterruptible electricity, you can feel free to discuss the problem, you can have an overnight study room and so on. Of course this is not the same as regardless, skipping classes and other basic issues still need to be managed, loose management is not the same as no management."

3, after breaking the question to check the information (pay attention to the title is not to check the information)

Well, after breaking the question you all have to start checking the information. After the previous topic breaking I'm sure you guys will feel like there is a lot of information to look up.

For example, examples that support the definition, academic support for the definition, questions that were asked during the question-breaking but couldn't be figured out, and information on whether or not previous debates have been fought on the subject. (I will elaborate on methods of looking up information about debates in a separate question later, so I won't go into too much detail here.)

At this point in the research I will also be assigned the following tasks:

A. Write three arguments in support of your side's thesis.

B, please write three arguments in favor of the other side's thesis (optional depending on the situation).

C. Please find one example or data for each of the above arguments that supports their validity.

D. Please organize your information to form your own understanding of the argument and tell it to the group at the meeting the next day.

The extent to which these tasks are accomplished will mean how well the next stage works.

4. Brainstorming

Finally, it's time for this step, and many debate teams stay on this step from the moment they get the topic until the day before the tournament. Then on the day of the tournament, they put all the brainstorming information together and go off on their heroic quest, which is really courageous.

The point of this step is to open minds and eyes. In particular, it is important to do The speaker is not guilty Widely open the way. More points of view less counter-argument, more to find the flash point less nitpicking. Find as much useful information as you can, don't argue, don't say everything is wrong, think about how that wrong thing can be improved to make it right.

Another focus of brainstorming is to put pen to paper!

During the brainstorming phase you generate a lot of information, and this information is generated by different people. Since different people have different modes of thinking, if you try to absorb most of another person's information, or even just the highlights, you often can't remember it by your brain alone because your modes are different, or at least your modes are very different during this storming phase.

Often some of your extreme opposition to the point of view of there will be a lot of flash in the inside, even if you think more about why this person will put forward this wrong point of view, how he thinks a lot of times are very profitable to you, and even open up another piece of heaven and earth. So take note of this valuable information, because you will find that at a later stage, no matter how much you refine your debates, most of your thinking will not be able to escape from this circle, and this will be the basis of all that you may use to come up with.

The sooner you write it down, the sooner you can get out of the brainstorming stage. Move your pens and move your keyboards, or you'll train all week in a frenzy and you'll end up on the first day. Because you all come in every day with just so much in your head, and every day you come in is a new day, and every day you come in to storm a little bit, and every day you all come in with a different idea.

After the brainstorming, I will deploy different tasks to different people:

A. Write your side of the argument

Right! Start writing your standpoint today, as soon as you have an idea, and this standpoint will probably be revised countless times in a short period of time. Writing a thesis is the best vehicle for thinking, writing is the best gatekeeper for logic, and writing it down is a true reflection of your thinking.

B, write the other side of the argument

Knowing the enemy and knowing the enemy is not dangerous, you often need a model defense group has been playing the role of the opponent. They need to prepare the opponent's information thoughts on the stance. Well, I would even allow them to be less reasonable. Because, you don't only meet reasonable opponents, many times unreasonable opponents are more out of your league.

C. Write N questions that can prove your side's point (this is a teasing and boring task).

D, look up information

There is a lot of information generated during the day, and there is a lot of information about what you want to understand and what you don't want to understand. Where you do not understand something to check the information to understand, all think of understanding but need data or examples to support the data and examples, and even counter-examples.

E, (in fact, there may be many other tasks, I can not think of, these will be based on the discussion of the situation randomly adapted to speak here just to give you some examples).

5, set the argument

Yes, it is necessary to start early to set the argument. The only way to ensure the effectiveness of your training and preparation is to set your arguments early. Otherwise, what are you practicing for? What are you preparing for? Practice and preparation have to have a goal. When you don't even know the argument, otherwise you are preparing blindly, otherwise you are setting the argument.

After the argument is finalized, if there is not much problem, revision is often not recommended the further back you go. Assuming of course that the argument is seriously settled. But! Not revising an argument doesn't mean not refining it!

Also for example: (examples only, no discussion of right or wrong, good or bad).

Human development of nuclear power has more pros than cons/cons than pros.

I was on the opposite side at the time, so I'll roughly show you what we argued initially and what we eventually refined.

Initial argument:

Firstly, nuclear power has serious safety issues and could bring about the end of mankind.

Second, the construction and maintenance of nuclear power will consume a lot of cost.

Thirdly, the benefits that nuclear power can produce are not really high.

Finalized arguments:

Firstly, all the advantages of developing nuclear power are based on safety, but as long as there is a problem with safety, the harm it can do to human beings is destructive and unbearable to human beings.

Secondly, under the short-term benefits of nuclear power, there are long-term disadvantages.

Finally, in the face of such serious and unavoidable disadvantages of nuclear power, its advantages are not obvious.

We can see that the core of the three arguments before and after the modification has not changed, but after the modification there is a comparison, which is the key to the comparison of the pros and cons of the debate, since it is a comparison of the pros and cons of the comparison of the comparison of a well.

a, destructive unacceptable: there is no comparison this is the biggest problem, disastrous disadvantages.

b, short-term benefits: long-term disadvantages.

c, serious unavoidable disadvantages: not obvious advantages