Debate is to express one's views on a topic, with the purpose of making the other side understand. It is a good way to discuss communication theory, so that everyone can understand other people's viewpoints and gain something. However, some people try to convince each other for various purposes in the debate, thus ignoring the significance of the debate and falling into sophistry. You think his point of view is wrong, but you can't beat him.
I have introduced debating among famous scholars who have contended for a hundred schools of thought before. Simply put, it is a shield that is attacked with a spear. If his theory is not contradictory, we can learn more about each other's views through debate. If his theory is self-contradictory and cannot be justified, we naturally don't know how to study it. Sophistication is different from sophistry. Although they all rely on eloquence under logical thinking, their purposes are completely different. There is only one purpose of sophistry: "winning".
If you want to refute each other's sophistry, you must first understand each other's routines. Sophists use logical reasoning and some means to make some distorted arguments clear. Because it seems to be well-founded, it still has a great influence on people's judgment, and it can reverse right and wrong and confuse black and white to a certain extent, thus achieving the purpose of sophists.
I summed up the methods commonly used by sophists. There are about three kinds, either playing word games in concept or doing some articles on the basis. The most hateful sophistry is to develop the difference of ideas into the opposition between people and use some offensive language to achieve the goal. Details are as follows:
First, the concept of stealing
1, stealing some important concepts in the title.
2. Stealing some important concepts in the argument.
3. The connotation and extension of the concept of stealing are transformed into another concept.
4. Confuse the comprehensive judgment with one-sided view.
5. Confuse concepts by using differences in personality and gender.
6. Explain the universal phenomenon with individual phenomena.
7. Confuse normal situations with special circumstances.
8. Use the similarity of similar concepts to dilute the differences between the two concepts.
9. Use different expressions of polysemous words and fuzzy words to confuse concepts.
Second, the wrong reference.
1, use authoritative comments or famous sayings as references.
Take my personal opinion out of context as a quotation.
3. Catch the wind and catch the shadows, misinterpret the facts as quotations.
4. Use arguments and topics to demonstrate each other.
5. Take correct but unimportant examples of related topics as arguments.
Third, personal attacks.
1, use the opponent's negative news to refute the opponent's point of view.
2, using the opponent's mistakes or gaffes to refute the opponent's point of view.
3. refute the opponent's point of view by slandering his reputation.
4. refute the opponent's point of view by refuting the source of the point of view.
5. refute your opponent's point of view with other conditions that you are superior to your opponent.
It may not be comprehensive, but it can be used as some reference. It is untenable to carefully scrutinize some of the other party's remarks and convince them with sophistry. One skill is "if you talk too much, you lose". It's the same for yourself and each other. You can also use questions to guide each other to talk more and analyze each other's logic.
Sun became famous for "a white horse is not a horse", and countless scholars came to argue without success. Confucius VI Sun Kongchuan was speechless. Until Zou Fuzi passed by Zhao, let Zou Zi and Gong Sunlongzi debate. Zou Zi complained about the harm of sophistry, explaining that the essence of sophistry is "using red tape as evidence, stealing concepts with gorgeous words, slandering each other with clever words, and always asking others to admit defeat before shutting up." It is detrimental to the gentleman's demeanor and disdains to debate. Ping Yuanjun understood that he stopped this meaningless quarrel and alienated GongSunLong.
Understand each other's logic through conversation. If you use the concept of stealing or quoting mistakes, you can directly use the part of the "child's spear" that he replaced. If the other party's speech is excessive, he will talk with a gun and label it at will, or directly expose his sophistry with the above routine, or inform the other party with useless arguments and voluntarily withdraw from the debate. Choose what to do with it according to the result you want to achieve. At this point, the mentality is crucial. A provocative opponent will not stab you in the back from the beginning, but will deliberately use some words to provoke you. When you are angry, your mind will be confused, and when you curse, you will lose.