First, break the topic - that is, deeply understand the central idea of ??the debate topic and analyze the core issues in response to the topic. 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 topic of defense by the way. The topic of argument is the argument of one party in the debate. A good topic of defense must be discernible, and both sides must have room for differentiation. The two are either/or, and the contradictions and conflicts are obvious, and there is no academic and theoretical balance. Morally good or bad, otherwise this is a bad argument. 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, establishing the argument - that is, establishing sub-arguments to prove the argument (our own point of view) to support our own 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 defensible. 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 attack 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—that is, 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: “The arguments are sufficient and powerful”. I don’t know if you are in college or middle school. If you have studied writing papers, you should Know that arguments are divided into factual arguments and rational arguments. Factual arguments are facts that occur objectively, and rational arguments are fully recognized theoretical viewpoints. As far as the debate is 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", if you have not studied logic It doesn't matter, because the debate is fast-paced and the confrontation is fierce, the requirements for logical rigor 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 posit 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 a split personality. Searching for a lot of information is also very tedious work, but as long as you have patience, There will definitely be gains and improvements. Talking about some 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 the language is clear and fluent, and whether the demeanor is generous and appropriate. Second, debaters. 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 must be observed: 1-Do not insult or abuse the other party; 2-Do not discuss the other party's privacy. In school debates, everyone usually knows each other, so this situation is easy to happen; 3-Never leave the debate seat; 4- Do not use insulting gestures, such as pointing at the other party with your fingers. This is most likely to happen when novices are debating freely. If you need to point at 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 will be ignored by both the opponent and the judges except as arguments; 6-Avoid shouting, dancing, 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 point of view and refute the other's point of view, and the main purpose is to prove one's 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). If you ask a question, it will be fine if the other party cannot answer it. 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 the fault. 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 you need 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. Debate competition is a highly technical competition. During the competition, debaters will also use sophistry, subversion of concepts, subversion of ideas, circumstantial remarks, and other methods. It is of course very satisfying to be able to point out the opponent's tricks. . 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. All in all, by participating in debate competitions and daily practice, debating skills will be significantly improved, and it will also be helpful to one's ability to think and control language. I won’t discuss them one by one here. (I have been writing for more than 2 hours, hot~~~) I suggest you watch more debate competitions, watch the competition videos, and learn the debate methods; you must read the written materials repeatedly to know how the experts prepare and argue. . I really can’t write anymore, but I am eager to help you, hehe~ Finally, let’s talk about your topic in detail. I’ll provide you with some ideas for reference only. Pro: We should do what we should do. Con: We should do what we like. Because you didn’t say whether you are pro or con, you just made a comprehensive analysis: 1. "We" - this word is extremely important, but it is the easiest. Neglected. The topic of the debate says "we" and does not say "people", which means that the person making the argument has given a target group for discussion, not everyone. Therefore, only within this scope can it be a reasonable debate, otherwise it will be off topic.

What exactly "we" refers to depends on the identity of the poster; let's give a simple example to illustrate the importance of this issue: Suppose the poster is a middle school student, and give the opposite example: "Mr. Qi Baishi gave up his original life and became a He became a master of traditional Chinese painting only when he did what he likes." Zheng Fang could immediately retort: ??"Qi Baishi only started to learn painting when he was 42 years old. Is he still a middle school student? His situation cannot support this argument at all.":P 2. We all know that. "Should" and "like" are not completely opposite. There are many things you should do, but that doesn't necessarily mean you don't like them. Just like sleeping, everyone should sleep, and basically everyone likes to sleep. Therefore, the focus of the contradiction in this debate lies in the categories of "should but don't like" and "like but shouldn't". If the opponent gives an example of a gray area, refute it immediately; at the same time, you can cleverly use the middle area to skirt the edges, especially the opposition, because this debate topic is very unbalanced and the opposition is very disadvantaged. 3. Let’s talk about this argument. This proposition itself has made serious mistakes: it is too loose; the counter-argument is "we should do what we like". Please pay attention to what "should" means? --should! On the one hand, you say that you should do what you like, but on the other hand, you argue that you shouldn't do what you should do. Then you "should" still do what you like? The second aspect of laxity is as mentioned above. The two viewpoints overlap, which violates the "either/or" principle of the debate. The third aspect that is not rigorous is "we", which is too vaguely defined. Everyone has multiple identities. Who are we? student? Boys? girl? Middle school student? College student? male? child? Can't figure it out. It fully shows that the person who asked the question is extremely amateur and has little or no understanding of debate. It was just a very superficial question that asked a question that concerned me. Judging from the response to the question, it was speculated that the most likely person was a teacher, probably a middle school teacher, and the person who asked the question subconsciously supported the affirmative. I am not talking about this to criticize the person who asked the question, but I hope that the poster will have a deep understanding of the question and understand the intention of the person who asked the question. In addition, on the one hand, he can avoid the loopholes in the question and on the other hand, he can exploit the loopholes. Okay, I really can’t write anymore. I wish you good luck. Please let me know if I’m wrong. If there are any questions that need to be discussed, you can continue to contact me.

Reference material: Tiring original work~