200 points for the debate topic "Easy to do despite difficulties".

If you do it despite difficulties, do it despite difficulties.

Athena Chu: zh and ná n xí ng y √.

Interpretation: It is difficult to understand the truth of the matter, but it is easier to implement.

Source: Sun Yat-sen's National Character Lecture 5: "If you want to know what is difficult to know, please refer to my theory."

It is the theoretical basis of Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles.

Regarding the relationship between "knowing" and "doing", in the past, China's tradition was that doing is more difficult than knowing, that is, "knowing is not difficult, but doing is difficult". Sun Yat-sen believes that this old concept of knowing and doing completely reverses the difficulty and the easy, which leads people to "turn the difficult into the easy and turn the difficult into the difficult". As a result, they are afraid of what they should not be afraid of, but they are not afraid of what they should be afraid of. They often regard courage in practice as timidity and timidity, but they take a contemptuous attitude and disdain for knowledge and science that should really be valued and carefully studied. The negative influence of this traditional view of knowing and doing existed for a long time, until the confrontation between China and western industrialization in modern times evolved into a deep cultural background reason that decided the outcome. Sun Yat-sen also reflected on the lessons of many failures before and after the Revolution of 1911 for a long time, and thought that the failure of the revolution was due to the revolutionaries' "lack of faith in the revolutionary purpose and strategy" and "ignoring their own ambitions with ideological mistakes". The root cause is also the profound influence of the traditional old saying "knowing and not knowing are also reasons". In view of this, Dr. Sun Yat-sen resolutely advocated that "it is easier to know than to do, which has been deeply rooted in China for thousands of years and has become an unbreakable theory", "first build a theory to break this psychological enemy", establish the theory that it is easy to know, and put it forward as "the only way to save China".

I consulted a lot of books and found that "knowing is easy and difficult" or "knowing is easy and difficult" is a philosophical proposition that has never been solved. Philosophers and scholars of all ages have different views on this issue. No one can convince anyone. The public is right and the old woman is right. "Pseudo-ancient prose Shangshu Fortune-telling" said: "I don't know how to do it." There is also a saying in the folk proverb: "A three-year-old child knows that an 80-year-old man can't do it." Accordingly, it should be "easier said than done". And "Mencius wholeheartedly" said: "Do without thinking, learn without thinking; I don't know how to behave, and I am also a public "; In Sun Yat-sen's On Sun Wen-Ideological Construction of Knowing Difficulties, Sun Yat-sen also clearly put forward "knowing difficulties and doing them". According to this, it should be "easy to learn from difficulties" again.

Borrowing from Zen Buddhism, a series of "gradual enlightenment" led to an epiphany-realizing that "knowing the difficulty" and "knowing the easy but difficult" are actually correct under different conditions. Specifically, for the common and easy-to-understand "knowledge", it is really "easier said than done". For example, everyone knows that corrupt officials are bad, but once the power is in hand and there is no supervision mechanism, it is very difficult to live a clean and honest life under the temptation of money and beauty. For Li Zhi, who is related to the laws of life and nature (called "Tao" by the ancients), it is indeed "difficult to know, easy to do", so that "listening to Tao means death, and dying in the evening" is almost as simple as breathing instinct for those who have mastered the principles of life and nature.

Marx's materialist dialectics tells us that any truth is relative rather than absolute; People who have studied mathematics and physics should also know that their coordinates are different in different reference systems. Without a certain theoretical basis as a standard, we can draw completely different conclusions. This is why there are many opposing theories, beliefs and religions in the world, all of which have their own loyal followers, and no one can convince anyone. Different people, for the same or different objects, under the same or different conditions (time, environment, technology, materials, etc. ), you will come to different conclusions about whether it is difficult or difficult. Many important theories that have changed our understanding of ourselves, such as Pyrrho's skepticism, Freud's psychoanalysis theory, Darwin's evolution theory, Lorenz's theory of human nature, Watson's behaviorism, Skinner's empiricism, and Wang Yangming's "unity of knowledge and action" in Neo-Confucianism in the middle of Ming Dynasty ... We say that they are not absolute ultimate truths, but they are all conditional and limited.

In fact, most of the arguments in the world may be caused by human nature-people's laziness and unwillingness to admit their mistakes. Perhaps, this argument will last forever. ...

Debate skills

The original intention of going from customer to customer is that the customer in turn becomes the master. Metaphor turns passivity into initiative. In the debate, passivity is a common disadvantage in this field, and it is often a harbinger of failure. In the debate, the object of opposition is the main thing. What he said is to change passivity into initiative in the debate. Next, this paper tries to introduce several anti-customer skills to you by combining skill theory with practical argument analysis.

(1) Leverage

There is a trick in martial arts novels, which is called "using force to fight". It means that people with deep internal forces can use the strength of their opponents' attacks to fight back. This method is also suitable for argument.

For example, in the debate about "it's easy to do things despite difficulties", there was such a round:

Professor: Yes! Those people did not know the power of law until they went to the execution ground and died. The dignity of the law can be described as "retreat from difficulties", and the other side distinguishes friends! (warm applause)

When the other party used the example of "knowing the law is easy, but obeying the law is difficult" to demonstrate that knowing the law is easy and obeying the law is difficult, the positive party immediately turned to strengthen its point of view from the perspective of "knowing the law is not easy" and gave the other party a strong counterattack. Reversed the passive situation.

Here, Fang Zhengzhi is able to use the example of the opposing side to confront his body because he has a series of theories that are not verbally expressed and reinterpreted: the "knowledge" in the debate is not only the "knowledge" of knowledge, but also the "knowledge" based on human rationality; It is not difficult to obey the law. As a course of action, it is not difficult to kill people, but it is very difficult to know how to keep people's rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill people. In this way, the broad and high-level definitions of "knowing the difficulty" and "doing the easy" of the opposing side, and the attack of the narrow and low-level definitions of "knowing the easy" and "doing the difficult ..." effectively hit back at the opposing side, and the argumentation framework of the opposing side based on the superficial level of "knowing" and "doing" collapsed.

(2) grafting

Removing the defective part of the other party's argument and replacing it with our favorable views or materials can often receive the miraculous effect of "four or two". We call this technique "grafting" For example, in the debate about overcoming difficulties, there have been the following examples:

Counterparty: The ancients said that "it is difficult to get through the road, but it is difficult to go to heaven", which means that it is difficult to get through the road, and "doing" means "going"! If it's not difficult, why doesn't the monkey call him Sun Zhiren?

Founder: Sun's nickname is Monkey Sun, but does his opponent know that his legal name is the Monkey King, which is the "knowledge" of "enlightenment"?

This is a very beautiful argument of "replacing trees with flowers". The example of the opposing side seems to be well-founded, but it is far-fetched: it is difficult to refute "why Sun Walker is not called Sun Zhiren". Although it is almost unreasonable, it has the upper hand in momentum. The positive side keenly discovered the one-sidedness of the other side's argument, and started with the "the Monkey King" side decisively, and retorted the other side by "knowing" or "knowing", which turned the other side's quotation about "Sun" into carrying firewood to put out the fire, which backfired.

The technique of replacing flowers with wood is a strong attack in argument theory, which requires debaters to be brave in making moves and fighting back, so it is also a kind of difficulty and high antagonism. Persuasive argument skills. It is true that the actual scene is eloquent and changeable, and there are no ready-made materials such as "Monkey Walker" and "Monkey King" available at any time, that is to say, more are "body double Flowers". It is necessary for debaters to accurately summarize or deduce each other's views and our position at that time.

For example, in the debate about "it is more important to cure poverty than stupidity", one sentence is affirmative: "... the debater of the other side measures the importance by urgency, so I want to tell you that I am hungry now and need food badly, but I still want to debate because I realize that debate is more important than hunger." As soon as the voice fell, there was applause. At this time, the opposing side calmly argued: "My opponent, I think that' not eating with food' and' not eating with food' are two different things ..." The other side's answer caused more warm applause. On the positive side, it advocates that poverty is not enough to fear and the relative importance of treating stupidity with "no food to eat", while on the negative side, it immediately summarizes the essence of "no food to eat" from its own point of view, clearly compares the essential differences between the two, and effectively curbs the tendency of the other party to steal the concept.

(3) Go with the flow

On the surface, we agree with the other party's point of view, follow the other party's logic, and set some reasonable obstacles according to our own needs in the derivation, so that the other party's point of view can not be established under additional conditions, or draw a conclusion completely opposite to the other party's point of view.

For example, in the argument that "Yu Gong should move mountains or houses":

Each other: ... We should ask each other to identify friends. Gong Yu solved the difficulties, protected resources and saved manpower.

Financial resources, what's going on?

Positive: Gong Yu's moving is a good way to solve the problem, but it is difficult for Gong Yu to go out where he is. How can he move home? ..... Obviously, we can consider moving, and we have to move after moving the mountain!

Myths and stories are only meaningful if they are exaggerated, and their essence lies not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, we must not let the opposing side tell the truth, otherwise, the "methodology" of the opposing side that conforms to the modern value orientation will certainly stand. Judging from the above argument, the other party's argument on this matter is well-founded and solid. On the positive side, it is affirmed that "moving is a good way to solve the problem", and then everyone "can hardly get out of the place where Yu Gong is", which naturally leads to the question of "how to move home", and finally comes to a series of theories such as "moving mountains first, then moving". It runs through one after another, and it beats the other side's matter-of-fact with an overwhelming attack. It's really wonderful!

(d) root causes.

The so-called radical, for example, this paper points out that the other party's argument is not closely related to the topic or runs counter to it, and fundamentally corrects the standpoint of the other party's argument and pulls it into our "sphere of influence" to make it just serve our point of view. Compared with the method of "pushing the boat with the current" of forward reasoning, this skill is just the opposite of its thinking.

For example, in the debate about whether job-hopping is conducive to the role of talents, there is such a defense:

Pro: Zhang Yong, the champion of the national table tennis championship, just jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The debater of the other side also said that he didn't contribute to the people of Shaanxi, which was really chilling! (Applause)

Counterparty: May I ask if the sports team may have jumped ship? This is the reasonable flow direction that we advocate here! (Applause) The opponent wears job-hopping glasses to see the problem. Of course, the world is as black as a crow, and all actions are job-hopping. (Applause)

Take Zhang Yong as an example. It is a fact that he has gained better space to develop himself after he moved from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The opponent immediately pointed out that the specific example cited by the other side was wrong: Zhang Yong could not go to the sports team through the irregular talent flow mode of "job-hopping", but only "reasonable flow" under the principle of "fairness, equality, competition and merit", which was highly credible, convincing and shocking, and received obvious anti-customer effect.

(5) cut the bottom wages.

Clever and selective questioning is one of the offensive means used by many debaters. Usually this kind of question is premeditated, which will make people fall into a "dilemma". No matter which choice the other party makes, it is not good for them. The correct way is to take a preset option from the other party's multiple-choice questions and carry out a strong backchat to fundamentally frustrate the other party's spirit. This skill is to grasp the root cause of the problem.

For example, in the argument that "ideology and morality should adapt to (surpass) the market economy", there is the following round of confrontation:

Counterparty: ... I asked whether Lei Feng's spirit is selfless dedication or equivalent exchange spirit.

Advantages: ... the opponents here misunderstand the exchange of equivalence, which means that all exchanges should be equivalent, but it doesn't mean that everything is exchange. Lei Feng hasn't thought of exchange yet. Of course, Lei Feng's spirit is not the same. (Applause)

Counterparty: Then I want to ask another debater, is the core of our ideology and morality the spirit of serving the people or the spirit of seeking profits?

Professor: Isn't serving the people the requirement of market economy? (Applause)

In the first round, the other side had the intention of "inviting you to wait for the urn" and came prepared. Obviously, if the mindset passively answers questions, it will be difficult to deal with the "dilemma" of the cube presupposition: choosing the former just proves the view that the cube should "surpass the market economy"; Choosing the latter is contrary to the facts and even more absurd. The debater for the positive side jumped out of the box of "either-or" for the negative side, went straight to the subject, drew "equivalent exchange" from two preset options, and completely overturned its correctness as a preset option with a calm tone, sharp words, flexible response and clever techniques, which was amazing!

Of course, the actual situation on the debate field is very complicated. To turn passivity into initiative in debate, it is only one factor to master some anti-customer skills. On the other hand, it is necessary to improvise, which is quite in place, but there is no rule to follow.

(6) attack its key points.

In debates, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions, and the result seems to be a lively debate, but in fact it is irrelevant to Wan Li. This is a taboo in argument. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issue in the opponent's argument after the first debate and the second debate, seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to completely defeat the opponent in theory. For example, the key to the debate that "food and clothing is a necessary condition for talking about morality" is: Can we talk about morality without food and clothing? Only by always grasping this key issue in the debate can we give the other side a fatal blow. In the debate, people often have the saying that "avoiding the truth is empty", and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. For example, if the other party asks a question that we can't answer, if we don't know, we will not only lose points, but even make jokes. In this case, we should tactfully avoid each other's problems and look for other weaknesses to attack. But in more cases, what we need is to "avoid the reality and be empty" and "avoid the importance and be light", that is, to be good at fighting hard on basic and key issues. If the other party asks questions, we will immediately avoid them, which will inevitably leave a bad impression on the judges and the audience, thinking that we dare not face up to the other party's questions. In addition, if the attack on the basic arguments and concepts put forward by the other party fails, it is also a loss of points. Being good at grasping the opponent's key points and attacking can win, which is an important skill in the debate.

(7) Using contradictions

Because the two sides of the debate are composed of four players, these four players often have contradictions during the debate. Even the same player may have conflicts in the free debate because of his fast speech. Once this happens, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand the contradiction between the other side so that it can't take care of itself and attack us. For example, in the debate with the Cambridge team, the Cambridge team's three arguments think that law is not morality, while the second argument thinks that law is basic morality. These two views are obviously contradictory, and we took the opportunity to widen the gap between the two debaters of the other side and push the other side into a dilemma. For another example, the other side initially regarded "food and clothing" as the basic state of human existence, and later, under our fierce offensive, it talked about "hunger and cold". This is contradictory to the previous view. Our "spear belt, shield belt" made the other side speechless.

(8) "Draw the snake out of the hole"

In the debate, there is often a deadlock: when the other side insists on its own argument, no matter how we attack it, the other side only responds with a few words. If we still adopt the method of frontal attack, it will have little effect. In this case, it is necessary to adjust the means of attack as soon as possible, adopt a circuitous method, start with seemingly insignificant issues, and induce the other party to leave the position, thus hitting the other party and causing a sensational effect in the hearts of the judges and the audience. When we argued with the Sydney team that "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem", the other side clung to the view that "AIDS is caused by HIV and can only be a medical problem" and was unmoved. So, we adopted the tactic of "luring the snake out of the hole". In the second debate, we suddenly asked, "Excuse me, what is the slogan of World AIDS Day this year?" The other four debaters looked at each other. In order not to lose too many points on the court, the other side stood up and answered randomly. We immediately corrected it and pointed out that this year's slogan was "Time waits for no one, let's act", which was equivalent to opening a gap in the other side's position, thus disintegrating the firm front of the other side.

(9) Li Jiang

When we encounter some arguments that are difficult to demonstrate logically or theoretically, we have to adopt the method of "replacing peaches" and introduce new concepts to solve the difficulties. For example, the debate about "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem" is very difficult to argue, because AIDS is both a medical problem and a social problem, and it is difficult to separate the two problems from common sense. Therefore, according to our preconceived ideas, if we are allowed to demonstrate the positive side, we will introduce the new concept of "social impact", so as to affirm that AIDS has a certain "social impact", but it is not a "social problem", and strictly determine the meaning of "social impact", so that it is difficult for the other party to attack. Later, we got the opposite of the debate in the lottery, that is, "AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem." In this case, it is unreasonable to completely deny that AIDS is a medical problem. Therefore, we introduced the concept of "medical approach" in the debate, emphasizing the use of "social system engineering" to solve AIDS. In this project, the "medical approach" will give us more room for manoeuvre, and the other party will spend a lot of effort to pester our new concept, and the attack power will be greatly weakened. The significance of this tactic is to introduce a new concept to deal with the other side, so as to ensure that some key concepts in our argument are hidden behind and not directly attacked by the other side.

Debate is a very flexible process, in which some more important skills can be used. Experience tells us that only by combining knowledge accumulation with debate skills can we achieve better results in debate.

(10) plan to slow down the troops.

In daily life, we can see the following situations: when the fire brigade receives a call for help, it often answers it in a slow tone. This gentle tone is to stabilize the speaker's mood so that the other party can explain the situation correctly. For another example, when couples quarrel, one side is depressed and the other side is not in a hurry. As a result, the latter prevailed. For another example, political and ideological workers often adopt the method of "cold treatment" to deal with difficult problems slowly. All these situations show that "slowness" is also a good way to deal with problems and solve contradictions in some occasions. So is the debate. In some specific debate situations, fast attack and quick battle are unfavorable, but slow progress can win.

For example, in 1940, Churchill served as Minister of the Navy in Chamberlain's cabinet, and was respected by people because he advocated declaring war on Germany. At that time, public opinion welcomed Churchill to succeed Chamberlain as British Prime Minister, and Churchill also thought that he was the most suitable candidate. But Churchill did not rush for success, but adopted the strategy of "winning slowly". He has publicly stated many times that he will be ready to serve the motherland under the leadership of anyone in the extraordinary period when the war breaks out.

At that time, Chamberlain and other Conservative Party leaders decided to recommend Lord Halifax, who supported the appeasement policy, as the prime minister candidate. However, the British people who participated in the main battle realized that only Churchill had the ability to lead the war politically. At the meeting to discuss the candidates for prime minister, Chamberlain asked, "Does Mr. Churchill agree to join the government led by Halifax?" The eloquent Churchill said nothing and was silent for two minutes. Halifax and others understand that silence means opposition. Once Churchill refuses to join the cabinet, the new government will be overthrown by angry people. Halifax had to break the silence first, saying that it was inappropriate for him to form a government. Churchill's wait finally paid off and the king authorized him to form a new government.

For another example, in a shop, a customer came to the door angrily and said endlessly, "The heels of these shoes are too high, and the style is not good ..." The clerk listened to him patiently without interrupting him. When the customer stopped talking, the salesperson said calmly, "Your opinion is very straightforward, and I appreciate your personality. Tell you what, I'll go in and choose another pair to please you. " "If you are not satisfied, I am willing to serve you again." The customer's dissatisfaction was exhausted and he felt that he had gone too far. He was also embarrassed to see the salesperson answer his questions so patiently. As a result, he made a 180 turn, praised the clerk's new shoes, and said, "Hey, these shoes are good, just like those made for me." The clerk let the customers vent their anger from slow to fast and from cold to hot, so as to achieve psychological balance and resolve the dispute.

From the above example, we can sum up that we should pay attention to the following three points in order to correctly use the method of "winning by slow" in the argument:

First, take a slow standby preemptive strike.

As the saying goes, "haste makes waste." Acting rashly when the time is not ripe often fails to achieve the goal. The same is true of debate, and "slowness" is also necessary under certain conditions. In fact, the method of "winning slowly" is a tactic to delay the enemy's invasion. When the debate situation is not suitable for quick decision, or the time is not yet ripe, we should avoid direct confrontation between the needle and the wheat, but should delay the time to wait for the arrival of the fighter plane. Once the time is right, we can attack the enemy from behind and defeat him. For example, in the first case, Churchill was not in a hurry to succeed when the time was not ripe, but slowly stood by. At the critical moment of discussing the candidate for prime minister, he expressed his opposition with silence and finally won.

Second, the implementation is slow, weak and strong.

The method of "winning by slowness" is suitable for the debate occasions where disadvantages are against advantages and disadvantages are against strengths. It is a strategic means adopted by the weak to defeat the seemingly powerful side. There is a trick to "slow", and slow motion should be clever. The word "slow" here is not synonymous with slow response and inarticulate, but one of the magic weapons used by eloquent speakers who are still wise and stupid. For example, in the first case, Churchill's playing dumb and stalling in the face of Chamberlain's questioning is actually a delaying tactic. In this stubborn stalemate, Chamberlain's side finally lost his temper, and Churchill finally won by taking the measure of delaying tactics.

Third, slow down anger, slow down cold and heat.

"Slow" is still a good skill to "control anger" in debate. In an argument, people who are angry and have poor self-control are easily excited. In this case, to convince people who are overly excited, it is advisable to deal with them in slow motion and slow tone. Slowing down anger, from cold to hot, can make it "cool down and decompress". Only when the other person is calm can he talk to you smoothly.

Accept it. For example, in the second case, the salesperson calmed the other party's anger and resolved the contradiction with a calm attitude and gentle tone.

In short, "fast" and "slow" in the debate are also a dialectical relationship of unity of opposites. Soldiers are expensive and fast, and "fast" is of course good. However, sometimes "slowness" has its beauty. Slow can stand by, slow can make plans, and slow can control anger. Slow is a tough tactic, slow is a protracted war, and slow is a delaying tactic in the war of words. Although it takes a long time to walk slowly and spend slowly, it is often a shortcut to victory, although there is a big bend.

Dewey's view of knowing and doing is of special significance in his trip to China. Revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, reformist Hu Shi and educator Tao Xingzhi were all influenced by him. For example, Sun Yat-sen opposed China's traditional theory of "knowing what is difficult" and held the theory of "knowing what is difficult and doing what is easy", emphasizing the importance of revolutionary theory to the revolutionary cause and inspiring the revolutionary party's fighting spirit with the feasibility of practice. 19 19, Dewey met with Sun Yat-sen shortly after arriving in China. They talked about the relationship between knowledge and practice. Dewey said to Dr. Sun Yat-sen, "If you overemphasize practicality, it is unrealistic. No one in the West believes that' knowledge' is an easy thing. " {28} In China's speech, he also talked about the relationship between knowing and doing many times:

In ancient China, I heard that "it is not difficult to know, but it is difficult to do". The experimental method is the opposite. This is just a line, and then you can know. Without action, there is no real knowledge. With action, we can discover new bright and organized facts and previously unexplored knowledge. Therefore, without lines, there must be no real knowledge. {29}

Dewey's pragmatism epistemology is based on action, and he named his epistemology "pragmatism epistemology", which he summarized as follows:

Its essential feature is to persist in understanding and purposefully change the continuity between environments. Pragmatic epistemology holds that in a strict sense, knowledge includes all kinds of resources in our rationality-including all habits that make us act wisely. Only the knowledge that has been organized into our psychological tendency, which enables us to adapt the environment to our needs and our goals and aspirations to our situation, is the real knowledge. Knowledge is not only what we realize now, but also our psychological tendency to use it consciously when we understand what is happening now. As an action, knowledge is to consider the connection between ourselves and the world we live in and mobilize some of our psychological tendencies to solve a puzzling problem. {30}

Perhaps because of pragmatism's outstanding emphasis on action, it is often understood that pragmatism regards action as the purpose of life. Dewey clarified this misunderstanding and pointed out that action is the medium to apply concepts to the process of existence, and the result of application constitutes the real meaning of concepts to the change of existence. Therefore, pragmatism is by no means a compliment to the kind of action for action that is regarded as the characteristic of American life.

As mentioned above, Dewey puts knowledge in the process of starting from the experience of action and then returning to the experience to verify it, which may be called "action produces true knowledge"; But this does not mean that he ignored the discovery of new facts and new truths, which is more valuable than the argument of the old theory. When discussing the transformation of philosophy from the old way of thinking to the new way of thinking, he cited Bacon's example. He introduced with appreciation that Bacon reasonably believed that no matter what the theory was, anyone who took the method of knowledge as an argument for the truth obtained was suppressing the spirit of research and binding people's minds so that they could not go beyond the traditional knowledge. Bacon pointedly pointed out that the discovery of new facts and new truths obtained by thoroughly exploring natural secrets is superior to the old argument. As the father of induction, Bacon saw that the significance of science lies in marching into the unknown, not in the repeated narration of the theory of known things-the endless discovery of unknown facts and principles is the real spirit of induction. Dewey's induction this time can be described as "action leads to new knowledge". Whether "true knowledge" or "new knowledge" means that action makes knowledge effective, and education can only affect individuals and change society.

In education, "learning by doing" advocated by Dewey is the full application of the principle of action in education. In experimental schools, exploring the relationship between knowledge and practice is an integral part of educational philosophy.