Debate is originally a means of exploring the truth. In ancient Eurasia, those orators were almost all famous thinkers. The sparks of their thoughts flashed directly in their words. There was almost no need to think about any tactics. Everything seemed to come at their fingertips and naturally. Below is what I have collected for you about being an eloquent person. Welcome to learn from it.

It would be biased to regard debate only as a battle of words. The difficulty of debate lies not only in the fact that one must have extensive knowledge, quick thinking, and good Vocal conditions and a certain level of recitation. Moreover, debate and judging are inherently soft and rely more on the subjective judgment of the judges. Therefore, the skills of debate are like the difficult skills of gymnastics and diving athletes. Without unique skills, you cannot get high scores. As a result, ancient poems, famous sayings, Zen quips, popular lyrics, advertising slogans, and even tongue twisters and catchphrases are cleverly interspersed in modern debates. How to express rich knowledge in sophisticated language? This involves the issue of debate skills that this article will talk about.

1. Exploiting contradictions

Since both sides of the debate are composed of four team members, conflicts among the four team members often occur during the debate. Even if they are the same team member, in a free debate , because the words are spoken quickly, conflicts may also occur. Once such a situation occurs, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand the opponent's contradictions so that he will be overwhelmed and unable to attack us.

2. Correcting the source

The so-called rectifying the source, in this article’s metaphorical sense, means to point out that the other party’s arguments are not closely related to the topic or run counter to the topic, and to fundamentally correct the footing of the other party’s arguments. , pull it into our "sphere of influence" and make it serve our point of view. Compared with the "go with the flow" method of forward reasoning, this technique is exactly the opposite of its train of thought.

3. Leading the snake out of its hole?

In debates, there is often a stalemate: when the other party firmly defends its argument, no matter how we attack, the other party only uses a few words to When dealing with it, if you still use the method of frontal attack, you will have little effect. In this case, it is necessary to adjust the offensive method as soon as possible, adopt a roundabout method, and start with seemingly unimportant issues to induce the opponent to leave the position, thereby attacking the opponent and creating a sensational effect in the minds of the judges and the audience.

4. Discuss the matter

This requires grasping the topic of the debate during the debate, not digressing from the topic, but always paying attention to the main direction of attack. The statement of opinions should not be too gorgeous, but must be made clearly and systematically; free debate should not get too entangled in minutiae. Under the opponent's questioning, the affirmative side did not have a suitable answer for the moment, so it brought out the theory of white horse and wrong horse. However, the opposing side was not led by the nose. With four words, the answer was not what the question was asked, and the opponent was immediately pulled back in a direction that was beneficial to itself. No relaxation at all.

5. "Li Daitao Zhan"

When we encounter some logically or theoretically difficult debate topics, we have to use the "Li Daitao Zhan" method. Introduce new concepts to resolve difficulties. The significance of this tactic is to introduce a new concept to deal with the opponent, thereby ensuring that some key concepts in our argument are hidden behind and are not directly attacked by the opponent. Debating is a very flexible process, and some of the more important techniques can be used during this process. Experience tells us that only by combining knowledge accumulation and debating skills can we achieve better results in debate competitions.

6. Go with the flow

On the surface, we agree with the other party's point of view, follow the other party's logic to deduce, and in the derivation, according to our needs, set up some reasonable obstacles to make the other party's point of view It cannot be established under the added conditions, or a conclusion that is completely opposite to the other party's point of view can be drawn. Mythical stories are all exaggerated to show their truth, and their essence lies not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, the pros must not let the counter-parties dwell on the facts. Otherwise, the counter-parties' "methodology" that conforms to modern value orientations will surely gain the upper hand. Such a series of theories are intertwined.

It goes through every step, and uses overwhelming attack power to defeat the other party's matter-of-fact discussion. It is really wonderful!

7. Remove the fuel from the bottom of the cauldron

Tricky selective questions are the key to many debates. One of the offensive moves used by the dominant hand. Usually, this kind of question is premeditated. It can put people in a dilemma. No matter which choice the other party makes, it will be detrimental to you. The counter-examination is to extract a preset option from the other party's selective questions and launch a strong counter-examination to fundamentally frustrate the other party's energy. This technique is to draw fire from the bottom of the pot. Of course, the actual situation in the debate field is very complicated. If you want to change from passive to active in the debate, mastering some skills of resisting the guest is only one factor. On the other hand, resisting the guest also needs to rely on very good improvisation, and This is unreasonable.

8. Substitution

Eliminating the flawed parts of the other party's arguments and replacing them with viewpoints or materials that are favorable to us can often achieve the miraculous effect of "making a difference". We call this technique "transplanting flowers and trees". The technique of substituting what you have learned is a strong attack in debate theory. It requires debaters to have the courage to accept moves and fight back, so it is also a difficult and highly confrontational technique. Very persuasive argumentation skills. It is true that in reality, there are eloquent arguments and changes in the situation. Ready-made materials such as "Sun Walker" and "Sun Wukong" are not available at any time. In other words, more "transfer and graft" are available. The debater needs to accurately summarize or deduce the other party's views and our position at the time.

9. Stalking

This point seems to be the same as the previous point, but please read it carefully. The content says that principled questions must be pursued and pursued persistently. The most important thing to note is not to let the opponent get away easily. In every game, "heavy artillery" questions must be set that the opponent cannot answer. Keep your opponent at bay. How to formulate heavy artillery? Both sides of the debate are always reasonable and unreasonable. There are always some questions, especially specific matters or philosophical principles, that the other party cannot or cannot answer directly. These questions should be sorted out. Talking about the matter means not straying from the debate topic in any round or any example; stalking means insisting that the other party will not relax on issues that are beneficial to you and have been prepared in advance. One large and one small, one body and one body, one side, one side, look at it carefully and experience it.

10. Attack the key points

In debates, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions. As a result, it seems that they can argue It’s hilarious, and actually way off topic. This is a big no-no in debate. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issues in the opponent's argument after the opponent's first and second defense statements, so as to seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to theoretically defeat the opponent completely. For example, is food and clothing a necessary condition for discussing morality? The key point of this debate is: Can we talk about morality without food and clothing? Only by always grasping this key issue in the debate can we deal a fatal blow to the opponent. In debates, people often make false claims, and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. Being good at grasping the opponent's vital points keenly and attacking fiercely to win is an important skill in debating.

11. Active transfer

Whether or not this can be done is often the fundamental difference between junior and senior competitions. To make this clear, we must first clarify the meaning of debate—especially free debate. In the third game of the college debate competition for freshmen some time ago, both sides spoke very fast. The competition seemed tense and intense, but in fact they made the mistake of ignoring the overall situation, which caused the competition to fall into the mud of "two children's debate day".

The purpose of free debate is to persuade the audience. It is impossible for both sides to accept each other, so there are only two points to make the audience agree: one is to improve one's own theory, and the other is to point out the other party's fallacies. These two points are that unilateral actions do not require the approval of the other party: if you point out a mistake, just point it out; if you fix the hole, just make up for it. Therefore, it is necessary to propose an active transfer after completing a tactical goal.

other side. This method can also be applied to debates.

For example, in the debate on "Easier said than done", there was this round: Proponent: That's right! Those people only knew the power of the law because they went to the execution ground and were about to die. The dignity of the law can be said to be "knowing the law is difficult", but the other party is friends! Warm applause. When the other party used the example of "knowing the law is easy to abide by the law" to prove that "knowing the law is easy but hard to do", the advocate immediately changed the following: "know the law" Strengthen your own point of view from a difficult angle and give the other party a powerful counterattack. Reversed the passive situation.

Here, the reason why the affirmative side can use the negative side’s examples to counterattack is because he has a series of theories that are not expressed verbally and reinterpret the words as a strong backing: the arguments in the argument "Knowledge" is not just "knowledge" of "knowledge". It should be based on human rationality. It is not difficult to abide by the law. As a behavioral process, killing is not difficult, but it is difficult to know how to maintain human rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill in the heart. . In this way, the affirmative's broad, high-level definition of "It's easy to know" and "It's easy to do," take advantage of the opponent's narrow, low-level definition of "Easy to Know" and "Easy to Do," to attack the opponent effectively, allowing the opponent to build on knowledge. The superficial level argumentative framework of ? and ? Bank of China collapsed.

13. Slow-down tactics

In daily life, we can see the following situations: when the fire brigade receives a call for help, they often answer it in a slow and calm tone. This gentleness The tone is to stabilize the speaker's emotions so that the other party can explain the situation correctly. Another example is when two couples are quarreling, one party is angry and the other party is not anxious, but the latter actually has the upper hand. For another example, political and ideological workers often use the "cold treatment" method to deal with difficult issues slowly. These situations all show that in some specific situations, "slowness" is also a good way to deal with problems and resolve conflicts. The same is true for debates. In some specific debate situations, fast attack and quick action are disadvantageous, but slow progress and slow action can win the victory.

To correctly use the "slow to win" method in a debate, you must pay attention to at least the following three points:

First, wait slowly and strike later. As the saying goes: "Haste makes waste." . ?Acting hastily when the time is not ripe often fails to achieve the goal. The same is true for debate. Slowness is also necessary under certain conditions. The "slowness to win" method is actually a delaying tactic in the debate. The delaying tactic is a strategy to delay the opponent's advance. When the debate situation is not suitable for a quick resolution, or the time is not yet ripe, direct confrontation of tit-for-tat type should be avoided, but time should be delayed to wait for the arrival of a fighter jet. Once the time is right, you can take advantage of the situation and defeat the enemy. As in the first example, Churchill was not in a hurry to succeed when the time was not ripe, but waited slowly. At a critical moment in the debate over the choice of prime minister, silence and opposition ultimately won the day.

Second, use slowness to make plans, use the weak to overcome the strong? Use slowness to win? This method is suitable for debate situations where disadvantages are against advantages, and weak against strong. It is a strategic method used by a weak party to defeat a seemingly powerful party. There is a strategy in the slow movement, and the slow movement must be clever. The word "slowness" here is not synonymous with slow response and poor rhetoric, but one of the magic weapons used by orators who are wise but foolish and arrogant to make plans.

Third, use slowness to control anger and use coldness to heat. Slowness is still a good technique to control anger in debates. People with poor self-control can easily become agitated during arguments. In this case, to persuade an overly excited person, it is best to use slow movements and a slow tone of voice. Only by slowing down anger and using cold against heat can it "cool down and decompress". Only when the other party is calm can he successfully accept the truth you are saying?