How to deal with being speechless in the debate

3) Let nature take its course, agree with the other party's point of view on the surface, follow the other party's logic to deduce, and set some reasonable obstacles according to our needs in the derivation, so that the other party's point of view cannot be established under additional conditions, or draw a conclusion completely opposite to the other party's point of view. For example, in the argument between a foolish old man moving a mountain or moving a house, the opposing party: ... should ask the other party to distinguish between friends. The silly old man moved to solve difficulties, protect resources and save manpower and financial resources. What's wrong with that? 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! (4) Thoroughly cleaning up The so-called thorough cleaning up, in this article, metaphorically speaking, is to point out that the other party's argument is not closely related to or runs counter to the topic, fundamentally correct the foothold of the other party's argument, and bring it into our "sphere of influence" so that it can 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 on whether job-hopping is beneficial to talents, there is such a passage: Founder: Zhang Yong, the national table tennis champion, jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi, and the other debater also said that he did not 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. 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) Selective questioning is one of the offensive moves 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. A specific skill to deal with this kind of problem is to take out a preset option from the other party's multiple-choice questions for a powerful backchat, which will fundamentally defeat the other party's spirit. This technique is to solve the root of the problem. For example, in the debate on "Ideological morality should adapt to (surpass) the market economy", there was the following round of confrontation: the opposing party: …… I asked whether Lei Feng's spirit was 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. 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 opposing side came prepared with the meaning of "inviting you into the urn". 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) Go straight to the crux of the matter In debates, it is often the case that the two sides are entangled in trivial issues, examples or expressions, and they are arguing endlessly. As a result, it seemed that the debate was lively, but actually it deviated from the topic of 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 both sides of the debate are composed of four players, four players often have contradictions in the course of 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, when the other side only uses a few words to deal with it, if it still adopts the method of frontal attack, it will inevitably 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 "Li Jiang" 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.