Debate in the University Debate Competition Experience in the University Debate Competition

1, concepts and standards

I usually joke with my friends that whether a debater is a beginner depends on whether he can speak two words, one is to steal the concept and the other is to compare the standard. Although this is a joke, it also objectively reflects the importance of concepts and standards for beginners. Students who have received a little debate training know that at the beginning of the opening statement, the concept should be defined "clearly from the beginning", and then the formula will generally say "a comparative debate needs a comparative standard", but most debaters may not have seriously thought about why they should do such a thing, and what is the use of concepts and standards. In a sense, concepts and standards are the basis of debate. For the pros and cons of a debate, the possibility that they define the concept of the debate differently is close to 70%, and the possibility that they define the standard of comparison differently is close to 30%. The concept and standard are the same, and this can still be argued, at least I have never seen it. We are used to the definition of concepts and standards as the premise of argument. From what I have just introduced, you will understand that in most debates, they are very happy, basically because of different premises, and there are few mistakes in pushing their premises to their own conclusions. (I'll explain later) The basic principle of the so-called rebuttal is to take its own premise but deduce the fallacy with the logic of the other party. Then prove that the other side's logic is absurd. In fact, what is absurd is not the logic of the other side, but the difference in the premise between the two sides. The master knows this well and can attack and defend freely, while the novice attacks hard and the defense is even more lacking. Since concepts and standards are so important, it is not difficult to understand why people are in a hurry to define them. If the concept can also seek a relatively objective unity by consulting the dictionary, then the formulation of standards is largely a subjective choice, and the principle of choice is simple, that is, the unity of advantage and rationality. Let's give the simplest example. If there is a debate topic, "Does the student's participation in the debate outweigh the disadvantages or does the disadvantages outweigh the advantages?" Then both sides may have such a standard: those in favor think that the pros and cons should be whether it is beneficial to students' learning, while those in opposition think that the pros and cons should be whether it is beneficial to the cultivation of students' comprehensive ability. We can basically draw the conclusion that the standards of both sides are beneficial and reasonable for our own discussion. If the opponent defines the standard as whether it is conducive to the training of students' eloquence, then it is certainly conducive to discussion, but the rationality will be greatly reduced. It is precisely because the standards defined by both sides are always as conducive to their own discussion as possible, so based on the standards of the other side, the discussion of the other side is often natural. Therefore, a clever refuter should not pay attention to the logical deduction of the other party's argument at this time, but should attack the rationality of the other party's standard, or replace the other party's standard with his own. On the contrary, as a defender, the key point of defense is to defend your own standards to the death, and tell everyone through detailed discussion that your standards are reasonable.

2, organization and level

When children are asked to write arguments for the first time, there will always be Qian Qian's absolute dissatisfaction. In fact, there are only two problems, one is disorder and the other is lack of hierarchy. This chapter is mainly about the structure of the speech. The arguments written by novices are always a lot of things, and the theory is mixed with examples, and the examples are interspersed with comments. In short, it looks very tangled, so as a senior or coach, novices are usually shown some classic arguments and the format of others' arguments. Beginners often have the question, aren't all arguments the same? In fact, this is a need.

We watched the Olympic track and field events. No matter which event, the postures adopted by athletes are often very close. Why? Because long-term experience tells them that this posture is most conducive to creating good results. In the same way, the "standardization" of presentation is also to achieve the best information transmission effect and ensure the order and level to the greatest extent. The presentation structure generally includes a horizontal structure and a vertical structure. The so-called horizontal structure refers to the parallel relationship between arguments, which is considered from different sides of the same problem. Here, it is necessary to clarify a misunderstanding. Some beginners will mistake this structure as a vertical structure, but it is still a horizontal structure.

The so-called vertical structure refers to the logical connection between sub-arguments, which is widely used in practical operation. The most classic case is Victor Gu Chian Peow's concluding statement that money is not the root of all evil. At the same time, this structure,

This is also my favorite and most commonly used argument structure.

Beginners and large-scale important competitions often choose the horizontal structure, because the horizontal structure is simple to operate and easy for the audience to understand, but the defect is that it is difficult to reflect the depth of the argument. In contrast, the vertical structure requires higher ability of debaters, especially the ability of presenters. It is not easy to explain different logical levels clearly, but the vertical structure can really reflect the thinking depth of argument. It is suggested that novices can use more horizontal structures and try more vertical structures after they have enough experience.

3. Facts and eloquence

In high school, I always heard an invincible saying that facts speak louder than words. At that time, although I didn't know how to refute it, I vaguely felt strange. If facts speak louder than words, why should we argue?

In fact, this question is very simple. The more debates you have, the more you will understand that there are few ideas that can really be directly demonstrated. Facts can only be used as evidence at most, and cannot be the subject of the argument itself. Nowadays, many new debaters like to give examples, and they are also afraid of the other side's examples. In the final analysis, it is because they have not noticed that there is still a lot of logical space between the case and the conclusion, not only the case, but also the theory. I'm afraid all high school debaters will use Marx's internal factors to determine external factors, thus discussing that self-discipline is more important than heteronomy, but the question is, did Marx's father say that internal factors are more important than external factors? Why is A more important than B when A decides B? It is rare to hear such doubts in high school competitions. In fact, what we should pay attention to is not the conclusion of that theory, but the reasoning thinking of his conclusion, which we can learn from. As a defender, we can also start with the difference between the theoretical research conditions and the actual conditions at that time to crack the offensive of the other party's theoretical argumentation. Judging from the case arguments, it generally includes data and news events. First of all, news events cannot play a comparative role. At best, they can explain the advantages and disadvantages, and they can't compare them themselves.

Data can be compared sometimes, but the problem of data is influenced by many factors, such as data collection samples and processing methods. For example, there is a debate about whether CCTV Spring Festival Evening is good or not, which positively quotes the data of high ratings of CCTV Spring Festival Evening. The negative side immediately pointed out that this calculation method of ratings is unscientific. As long as the channel stays in the Spring Festival Evening program, even if it is a viewing point of the Spring Festival Evening, such a rebuttal will be very powerful and brilliant. For a long time, I didn't like to discuss it with theoretical or factual arguments. In the same example, both sides are equal. Smart debaters can often use the other side's arguments to refute their own views, so please be careful when using various examples, and also pay attention to the methods and skills of using the other side's examples.

4, admit and deny

Every time I talk about this topic, I always start with an anecdote from high school. It is said that during the debate in high school, a classmate was excited and said that his position was reversed. He said that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, which shocked the audience. As a result, the other party was even more excited. He stood up and said, no, the other side argued. . . The audience fainted. . .

Everyone knows that the debate is to refute the other side's point of view, but not everyone knows why to refute the other side, so there will be problems of refuting for refuting and denying for denying. In fact, the purpose of rebuttal is to prove the other party's point of view in turn. We see the confrontation between many experts, which seems to be an example, but if we look closely, we will find that they are often refuting each other's logic system with their own logic system. Only in this way can systematic confrontation spark a real spark, so I have always advocated that questions that do not reflect the logic of the other side's argument can not be answered, and questions that reflect the logic of the other side's argument should be answered in a way that reflects the logic of our own argument.

In the process of actual combat, especially in the process of attack and defense, it often happens that one party disagrees with all the problems or tries to avoid them. This is of course a very safe practice, and some coaches will warn debaters never to admit each other's problems. This practice has a strong operational advantage for beginners, but it is not good for the long-term development of debaters. I don't think it is possible for debaters to form such a habit of thinking. From my own experience as a debater in 23 debates, attacking debaters

There is always a step-by-step process in designing offensive and defensive problems. Generally speaking, don't kill at the beginning. We usually ask a few irrelevant questions first, and then unconsciously try to steal a concept or blur a logical relationship, giving the respondent a contradictory feeling, thus profiting from it. Generally, the effect of the first few uses will be good. After I have played against an opponent several times, when the opponent discovers my offensive and defensive habits, my offensive and defensive effect will be greatly reduced, which in turn proves the truth that there is no so-called unbreakable offensive and defensive trap, and the best way to break the offensive and defensive trap is not to blindly deny the problem, but to find out the key points of stealing concepts or fuzzy logic and seize it. To do this, one thing is of course experience. Secondly, I am very familiar with my own argument and the fundamental contradiction between my own argument and the other's argument. From my own defense experience, as long as I know the intention of the other party when asking questions, there is no unbreakable truth. Then, under the condition of understanding the attack intention of the other party, it is not counterintuitive to admit some common-sense questions, which seems to be an ordinary graduation. Why not?

Everyone must remember that in most cases, there is nothing wrong with admitting common sense problems. If the other person can infer his conclusion from your answers to common sense questions, it means that he must have used some sophistry. As long as we grasp this, we can win a great victory.

1. What is a debate?

Some people say that debate is a demonstration of eloquence, while others say that debate is for the sake of truth. Personally, I think the debate is neither so simple nor so heavy as the latter. In my opinion, the student debate contest is a kind of training, not just the training of expression, but a series of training processes from obtaining a question, collecting information, studying and analyzing the question, and finally effectively expressing one's research results. During the whole debate, this process is not a simple linear process, but a continuous cycle. From the preparation before the game to the debate with the opponent in the game, we will experience such a process of constantly emerging new problems, then collecting information, then analyzing and judging, and then effectively expressing them. In fact, this process is also a general method for us to study problems, so all students who have been trained in correct debate competitions usually have not only excellent expression ability, but also quite high learning ability and problem research and analysis ability.

Second, what is a debate?

As can be seen from the last question, the debate is definitely not just about who is faster or articulate. It is generally believed that the debate is to see who defines the concept more accurately, whose logic is more rigorous, whose expression is more vivid, whose value is higher and so on. In fact, these are just methodological statements. From the fundamental purpose, the debate is actually "persuasion". The object of persuasion in the debate is not the other party, but the audience and judges under the stage.

In fact, it is from the long-term debate practice that we find that accurate concept definition, rigorous logic, vivid expression and higher value can often convince the audience and judges more effectively, so these have become our pursuit goals. However, it should be emphasized that, fundamentally speaking, there is no difference between logical persuasion and emotional persuasion, but they have their own choices according to the style characteristics of different debaters and different teams.

Through the description of the above two points, my core point of view on the debate is that the debate should be a practical training project, so I oppose all technologies that can only be used in the debate field. I hope the debater can get from the debate competition, not only the ups and downs brought by the competition, but also a wealth that can benefit for life.

From the beginning to the present, I have communicated with many people who are very good at debating competitions, shared my feelings about debating competitions, and shared my own views on debating competitions. Generally speaking, there is a common understanding that the least regret in college is to join the debate team and form an indissoluble bond with the debate. The process of debate requires us to keep thinking, asking questions and accepting different views, so it will give me a deeper understanding of some issues. Therefore, debate is really my mentor and friend, which can benefit me immensely.

Third, the basic methods of debate

After knowing what a debating contest is, we can discuss how to proceed. Brother Guo Yukuan summed up the method of debate into four tricks, namely, defining, questioning logic, collecting arguments and enhancing value. This should also be a hobby of general debate.

Good people's * * * knowledge, let's introduce them one by one.

1, definition: To discuss any issue, we must first understand what we are discussing, just like we discuss the issue of debate, and we must first understand what the debate is about. Generally speaking, the definition of the problem is the premise of discussion. If the two sides of the discussion don't even have the same basic definition, then the following discussion is completely meaningless. In fact, in most student debates we see, both sides often. There are two problems here. First, the questioner's question. The concepts of many debates are vague, which gives both sides more imagination space, thus leading to different basic definitions. Another problem is that some teams think too much about definitions, which is what we often call "picking definitions". For example, after watching a competition entitled "Adults ignore villains", they said that excesses are minor mistakes, and mistakes are major mistakes. Today's debate on excesses is a minor mistake in principle. Such a debate is easy to fall into the misunderstanding of sophistry, which I do not advocate. The most basic principle of definition is convention, that is, common sense, which makes me feel very uncomfortable. From my feeling, this is often not rigorous, but it seems to be a drag. Brother Guo Yukuan gave an example, saying that he went to a restaurant and said to the waiter, "Give me a glass of water." As a result, the waiter poured a glass of water from the toilet, which was indeed water, but the context clearly indicated that he wanted a cup to drink.

2, ask logic:

Almost all debaters know how important logic is, but few can really play logic smoothly. Some friends also ask debaters to connect before and after each sentence when training the team. I have never done such training, so I think it should be an extremely difficult thing. The training of logic is mainly aimed at two goals, one is to be able to identify each other's logical mistakes, and the other is to avoid making their own logical mistakes. Here are some mistakes that beginners often make in debating. (1) Absence comparison: The mode of many debates is: Which is more important, A or B? Many newcomers compare "what would happen without A, so A is more important than B". In fact, A and B are often indispensable elements in this type of debate, so the other party can also say "what would happen without B, so B is more important than A". Of course, this argument is invalid, because from this perspective, A and B are both necessary conditions, and it is impossible to compare which is more important.

(2) Virtual premise: For example, "Is online virtual derailment a manifestation of derailment?" Zhengfang defines online virtual infidelity as a sign of infidelity. Because derailment is a manifestation of derailment, online virtual derailment is also a manifestation of derailment. However, whether the online virtual derailment here belongs to derailment is a question to be proved, and it is a mistake to make a false premise on this premise.

(3) Variables are not uniform: Some people say that there is nothing wrong with China's Great Leap Forward. At that time, people starved to death because they didn't promote the use of chemical fertilizers. After the reform and opening up, it was not because of good policies, but because China promoted the use of chemical fertilizers, so they would not starve to death. The argument here makes the mistake of inconsistent variables. Because the difference between the two periods is not only whether to use chemical fertilizers, but also different policies, it cannot be demonstrated that the use of chemical fertilizers has solved the problem of food and clothing in China.

3. Collecting arguments: This is the most boring job, and it is also very technical. Whether you can find an authoritative argument that is highly consistent with your own point of view can often determine the outcome of a game. However, it needs special attention that the argument itself cannot prove the point of view, and the argument needs to be combined with logical argument to effectively prove it. Therefore, while collecting arguments, we should try to avoid the above three logical errors. Mastering a higher ability to collect arguments is very helpful not only for debate, but also for any future study and research work.

4. Value enhancement:

As I said before, in the final analysis, this competition is about persuasion. There is no difference between different persuasion methods. Sometimes, even if the logic is weak, excellent values or touching feelings can impress the audience and judges and make them stand on your side. Different people have different understandings of value promotion. My understanding is to tell you the purpose and significance of this view today. Being valuable is the most taboo. Always remember that if you want to impress others, you must first impress yourself. A good value promotion can turn the tide.

There is such a case in history: Martin in those days? Luther king, the debate with the governor of Alabama on whether to retain apartheid, the governor of Alabama is also well trained in the debate, this Martin? Luther King's debate training is also very good. They are both famous debaters. The governor of Alabama put forward a convincing theory that the abolition of apartheid would bring about the deterioration of social security. In Alabama, he combined empirical investigation with data and arguments. We in Alabama only adhere to the apartheid system, so our law and order in Alabama is the best in the United States. This was a fact at that time. For the most intuitive example, he said, you are on the streets of new york. Do young girls dare to go out at night 1 1 later? Dare not! In Alabama, any woman who walks in the street at night has no sense of danger, and there is no problem with social security in Alabama. Judging from his words, the definition is very clear. Everyone knows the apartheid system and the logical syllogism is complete. Our goal is to build a harmonious society, stability and unity. Because we adhere to the apartheid system in Alabama, our law and order in Alabama is particularly good, especially stable and United, supported by factual data, and the crime rate in Alabama is really low. We China people are too eloquent at first glance, Martin? Luther King gave up. What about Martin? Luther King won't give up, Martin? Luther King's eloquence lies in that I won't argue with you on this issue on the basis of these data and facts. I challenge your point of view on the value level to make the society understand, Martin? Luther King proposed that equality for all is a constitutional commitment, and all people are born equal. Everyone is equal before God, and it goes without saying that you don't need those arguments at all. It is, because we believe it is. Once people's faith was aroused at this level, the governor of Alabama was at a loss when he expressed this view. Although his previous definitions of facts and logic were no problem, his value level was untenable. This is a society with a low crime rate, but he doesn't realize that our higher spiritual needs as a person are a kind of respect for people. This value can be distinguished by taste in many cases. However, it is often impossible to make it clear with morality and logic. But it doesn't mean that these problems are completely irrefutable. What he means is that this argument can't be completely summarized by logic, but it can be an inspiration and arouse a feeling in people's hearts. We believe that everyone is connected and has the same heart and feelings. Maybe in the past, some of your conscience feelings were blocked and you didn't realize it. For example, when a white man thinks that black people should be segregated, he doesn't say that white people at that time are bad people, but that his heart is not inspired. He thinks that black people are different from us, and he also knows that God requires everyone to be equal, but everyone does not include black people because they are different races from us. When he was inspired, Mark Twain wrote The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. His hero approached the black man, and he found that, wow, it turns out that the black man has the same feelings as us. He will cry, he will bleed, he also has love, and suddenly he is just like us. At this time, your inner feelings will be awakened.