What are the methods to remove data argument from the debate?

In the debate, many people like to cite a lot of data to prove the correctness of their views, and even ask some data questions to embarrass their opponents. So, how can we respond in the shortest time and skillfully solve these data problems? I'll sort out the ways to get rid of the data arguments in the debate, hoping it will help you.

The method of eliminating data argument in debate;

Reject the data argument 1: take the bottom salary of the pot

In the debate, if the data cited by the other party seems rigorous and impeccable, but the conclusions drawn from these data are unreasonable, then the debater may wish to use the method of taking a drastic measure to reveal the flaws in the other party's data, so that his views are refuted due to lack of support.

As we all know, the Three Gorges Dam was completed on May 20th, 2006. In fact, it was suggested to build the Three Gorges Dam in 1956. Lin Yishan is a supporter and Li Rui is an opponent. They also published articles in newspapers for debate. Mao Zedong also attaches great importance to this. 1958 held a special meeting in Nanning for them to debate on the spot:

Data demonstration in mitigation debate

Lin Yishan: Since Jia Rang's flood control in Han Dynasty, the Yangtze River has been flooded for more than 2,000 years, with an average of 10. In the 40 years since the Revolution of 1911, it has been once every five years on average, which shows that the floods in the Yangtze River are getting worse. 193 1 year floods caused 145000 deaths ... 1954 catastrophic floods kept the Jingjiang levee safe, but still drowned 4900 people ... Therefore, it is imperative to build the Three Gorges Dam. Only in this way can we control the flood in Chuanjiang River and alleviate the severity of Jingjiang levee. If the Jingjiang levee breaches, it will directly threaten the lives and property safety of millions of people in Jianghan Plain ... I think the normal water level of the reservoir can be between 2 10 ~ 200m, the installed capacity can at least reach13.4 million kilowatts, and the annual power generation can be above10 billion kWh. ...

Li Rui: First, although 1954 is a once-in-a-thousand-year flood in the main stream of the Yangtze River, it has not broken through the Jingjiang levee. Therefore, it is an alarmist lie to say that the Jingjiang levee breaches and millions of people will die. Second, if the Three Gorges Reservoir is built according to the dam height of 200 meters, it is estimated that more than 1 10,000 people will need to be resettled, which is an extremely serious and difficult problem. Third, the total demand for electricity in 1957 is only1900 million kwh, while a large power station in the Three Gorges will generate more than1000 billion kwh. Even if the national electricity consumption reaches 200 billion kWh after 15, the power generation of this power station will account for a large proportion of the national power generation, which will seriously affect the operation of the power grid, because the power generation of a power station is in one

Mao Zedong nodded frequently after hearing this, and sent Zhou Enlai to investigate the Three Gorges. He sighed with emotion, "This is a century-old plan, a thousand-year plan." Decided not to argue for the time being and suspended the construction of the Three Gorges Project.

Comments: Lin Yishan cited a lot of data to prove the necessity and benefits of starting the Three Gorges Project, which is well founded. However, Li Rui seized the loopholes in these data. First of all, he pointed out that it was Lin Yishan's speculation that the Jingjiang levee breach would lead to millions of deaths, which was a "false statement" and could not be the basis for proving his point of view. Then, according to Lin Yishan's plan, calculate one by one, and from a realistic point of view, draw the conclusion that the 200-meter dam is too high to be implemented; The power generation of more than 654.38+000 billion is too much, and the supply exceeds the demand, and the conclusion that it seriously affects the operation of the power grid is drawn, and its arguments are refuted one by one. All the arguments were untenable, and naturally, Lin Yishan's point of view was overthrown.

Disassembling data argument 2: Ask questions by asking questions.

When the other party's data question is difficult to answer for a while, the positive answer will inevitably get into trouble and be controlled by the other party. At this time, the debater may wish to ask questions in the form of questions, and also use data questions to ask the other party, so that the other party is caught off guard and passive, so that one can successfully grasp the initiative of the debate.

In the early 1930s, when Zhu Jiahua was the director of the Civil Affairs Department of Zhejiang Province, he held a county magistrate's exam, which included a written test and an oral test. There is a candidate named Zhu, and his written test scores are among the best. During the oral examination, several examiners took turns to ask questions, and Zhu answered them like a stream. Finally, Zhu Jiahua asked, "Do you know the words * * * in the will of the Prime Minister?"

Zhu was stunned by the question. After the reaction, he immediately retorted: "Excuse me, Director Zhu, what's your name?" This question, Zhu Jiahua also froze. After returning to absolute being, he accepted Zhu's words with a smile.

Comments: At that time, "the last words of the Prime Minister" were well known, and Zhu Jiahua could not visit Zhu too much. However, his questioning angle is quite sharp, asking him how many words he wrote in "The Last Words of the Prime Minister". Imagine, who will pay attention to the number of words in an article? Unexpectedly, Zhu wit, jumped out of Zhu Jiahua's question, with the same logic, asked him an equally familiar and difficult question-there are several names * * *, which successfully solved the data problem.

Disapproving data argument 3: on-site evidence collection

In the debate, we often find that the other party's data is wrong, but we can't refute it because we don't have the corresponding data. At this time, we might as well try the method of on-site evidence collection, seize some things at the debate site as arguments to refute each other in time and demonstrate our own views.

In 2006, in the final of the "Golden Autumn Debate Competition" of Wuhan University, the debate topic was "Does the network do more harm than good?" There is a debate in the free debate session:

On the contrary, the data shows that 70% of college students are addicted to online games and skip classes. Doesn't this mean that the disadvantages of the network outweigh the advantages?

Professor: If it is really 70%, then 70% of the audience are addicted to online games and skipping classes. But why do we see that 100% of the audience are listening and watching the debate seriously? Are you a little alarmist?

Comments: The opposite data clearly shows that the situation of college students indulging in online games is very serious. In the absence of corresponding data to respond, the opposing party narrowed the scope of college students to the debate venue by means of partial evidence collection, and put the other party's data on the college students' audience at the scene, and reached the conclusion that "70% of the audience at the scene are addicted to online games", which is obviously untrue. Naturally, "now 70% of college students are addicted to the Internet.

Disarmament data argument 4: circuitous evasion

In fact, in a debate, it is impossible for the debater to fully know what the other party is going to ask, and naturally it is impossible to remember all the relevant data. Therefore, in the face of data questions that we can't answer, circuitous evasion is also a common trick.

In the questioning stage of a debate entitled "Does the mobile phone bring people closer or alienate people", there is such an argument:

Counterparty: Ask the other debater to answer. What percentage of people in Taiwan Province province say that the use of mobile phones has brought people closer together?

Professor: Another debater, today we are holding a debate contest, not a statistical contest. As soon as you came up, you asked me a question that required professional statistics to draw a conclusion. Not only am I not very clear, but also the judges and audience present are not very clear. If the other party thinks this has much to do with our debate, please elaborate on it and let's have a meaningful debate! (Applause)

Comments: The question of the opposing side is very professional, and you can't answer it without preparing in advance. However, active debaters are smart. First, the "debate contest, not the data statistics contest" is the first shield, indicating that the other party's question is inappropriate; Then take "the judges and the audience are not very clear" as the second shield, indicating that the other party's problems are not universal; Finally, he called for a "meaningful debate" to completely classify the other party's data questions as not answering, avoiding the edge of the other party's questions.

Of course, there are not only four ways to solve the data problem in the debate. This article is just a brick to attract jade. I hope readers can draw inferences from others and sum up more methods.

Debate related articles:

1. Encyclopedia of Arguments

2. Rules of the Debate Competition

3.20 17 on the topic of junior high school students' debate competition

4. Chen Ming, Zhou Xuanyi, Ma Weiwei and Huang Zhizhong participated in the Star Competition of the Second China Debate Competition.

5. How should the judges comment on this debate?