During the debate, opponents have to send too many things to each other, so they have a lot to say; But the arguer should not say much, only that it is not equal. "The pillar is impermanent, so what do you do?" You promise this, just nod and say yes. If the other person says "the pillar is impermanent, not what it has done", then you can directly say that it is against it. "The position is impermanent, so it is measured." At this time, you will never know. The pillars are impermanent, so you can't say. In short, you can only have four answers to all the reasons, and you have no right to say many. Some commentators keep saying "I'll tell you this" and "I'll tell you that", which is unreasonable.

After a while, when we debate, the discussant should pay attention to the following ways: no matter what the opponent asks, if the answer is given in the form of argument, it is no, uncertainty, on the contrary, promise. However, at this time, you can still add something. For example, when someone says "the pillar is impermanent, so what do you do?", you can say that you agreed in the amount of famous sentences, but you can't win in the case of victory. If you are afraid that the other party will cover it up in another language, you can add some simple words, which is also possible. If others argue with you by combining the truth of victory with the truth of secularity, then you can say that you promise in secularity and don't promise in victory. You can answer this way. Besides, the average arguer can't add a lot. It can be seen that in the debate, there should still be a clear distinction between the language of opponents and debaters. In short, the arguer should answer from these four aspects.

When the discussant answers, if there is really no way to overturn the other party's point of view, because the other party's words are too sharp and he can't answer them himself, then he must politely follow his point of view, just as Sakya Pandita argued with a foreigner before, and finally Chuojiawa, a foreigner, followed Sakya Pandita to Tibet. If you really can't win the argument, you can play all kinds of cunning tricks, "Oh, I'm sick now. Oh, I'm not free! " Or it is unreasonable to use harsh words to say that others are at fault. If you are a truly wise person, the reasons others say are very reasonable, and you really can't refute them. At this time, you should follow his point of view.

It can be seen that it is indeed very important for us to learn from Ming. Of course, you may not fully understand it at first. Unless you are a person with innate wisdom, it is still difficult for ordinary people to learn from others. However, when you really understand the reason, a lot of arrogance will naturally disappear. In the past, many people thought: I am a doctoral student who graduated from a university ... but when you use the knowledge you have learned to demonstrate, many of them cannot be established.