Chapter 9 Chapter VIII Argument and Its Expression

★ Arguments for debate To make an argument is to determine one's own point of view.In the debate, on the basis of analyzing the debate topic, the next work of the debater is to focus on the focus of the debate between the two sides, according to the difficulty of the topic, the pros and cons, and in line with the principle of seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages, determine the basic principles that one should adhere to. argument. ◎Basic principles of arguments Argumentation is aimed at the possible ideas of the other party, and among the various ideas that we can choose, find the most beneficial and richest material for our argumentation.The two basic principles of argumentation are as follows.

1. Try to choose a position that is logical and not vulnerable Its main method is "high argumentation".If you entangle with the other party in any detail, you will often lose your own advantages, and in the end it will still be "a mess."So, at this time, it is better to simply admit some obvious facts, well-known opinions, and then immediately point out: these are only one aspect of the problem, but we should discuss something more important.Elevate the debate to a higher level, so that the other party's carefully prepared materials cannot be used, and confront it on the familiar position of one's own side.

What should also be noted when debating arguments is that the intention must be novel, and it must be able to "say what others have never said, and see what others have never seen".Analyzing issues from a new angle gives people a refreshing feeling, and often has a very good debate effect.At the same time, because the opponent is not prepared for this, they will be caught off guard and rush to fight.Of course, this is not to ask us to pretend to be surprising, it should be "unexpected" and "reasonable" at the same time.This requires the coaches and team members to carefully ponder and think about the debate topic, and strive to make their positions impeccable, solid, and innovative, so that the opponent is caught off guard, so that they can be invincible.

Generally speaking, when the topic of debate is beneficial to one's own side, it is relatively easier to make an argument, and it naturally has an advantage, and it is easier to argue.However, if the topic of debate is unfavorable to one’s own side, one should be ingenious, adopt various technical means, create advantages in arguments, and construct one’s own theoretical system, instead of giving up early because the topic of debate is unfavorable to one’s own side, and losing at the starting line of the debate . 2. Weaken our proposition and strengthen the opponent's proposition Argumentation should not only establish one's own understanding of the topic of defense, but also limit the other party's understanding of the topic of defense, that is, it must clearly point out what the other party should argue, and expand the scope of one's own argument as much as possible, thus leaving a large room for maneuver for one's own side.There are two main methods: one is to make a restrictive interpretation of the main concepts in the proposition; the other method is to add certain conditions to the proposition.

◎Specific methods of argumentation In the debate, there are several specific methods that can create advantages. 1. Raise the starting point and shift the battlefield It should be pointed out that the shifting of the battlefield mentioned here is not a sophistry, but to avoid topics that are unfavorable to one's own side, open up another battlefield, go beyond the scope of the opponent's proposition, promote one's own advantages, and restrain the opponent.In a debate, when the scope of the established topic is unfavorable to oneself, one’s side should predict the scope of the other’s possible proposition and try to go beyond, or not entangle with the opponent within this range, or simply admit the obvious viewpoints and facts put forward by the other side , but to argue at a higher level, forcing opponents to fight on this new battlefield.In this way, it is difficult for the opponent to use the materials and strategies carefully prepared. Once the opponent loses the advantage, he can only adopt a passive way to fight, and the advantage will naturally be transferred to his own hands.

2. Use ingenious tricks to limit the topics of debate In the debate, when we face unfavorable propositions, in order to turn passive into active, we can use the method of limiting the propositions, cleverly restrict the propositions, make them become beneficial to our own side, and then occupy the debate. The initiative to win the debate.The so-called restricted proposition is to make the proposition beneficial to oneself by defining the concepts in the proposition, or setting certain conditions, or limiting or extending the scope of the proposition.In debate competitions, sometimes the success or failure of a debate does not depend on which side is more beneficial to the debate topic, but on whose interpretation of the proposition is more reasonable.Therefore, whether it is the positive side or the negative side, when the debate topic is unfavorable to you, you must be good at using the "limited topic" technique to turn the disadvantage into an advantage.

There are two specific methods of restricting propositions. 1. Expand the extension and embrace the connotation When sticking to the scope of the original topic is very unfavorable to your side, you can expand the scope of the topic without changing the nature of the topic, so that your proposition can contain the connotation of the original topic and go beyond the scope of the original topic.In this way, it is convenient for oneself to gallop freely and horizontally in a larger range to fight with opponents.Sometimes, even part of the opponent's proposition is included, so that two birds with one stone can be killed, which not only expands the freedom of one's own argument, but also limits the opponent's room for movement, tying his hands and feet so that he cannot display his strength.

2. Expand the connotation and narrow the extension This method is to add a premise to the debate topic, further increase the conditions within the scope of the existing debate topic, narrow the scope of the topic, limit and eliminate unfavorable factors, and form an argument that is most beneficial to oneself.The above debate topic "The disadvantages of heterosexual intercourse among middle school students outweigh the benefits", the affirmative side has certain limitations in defending this point of view.The affirmative adopts the method of adding connotation, and limits the topic of debate to "the opposite-sex communication of middle school students will do more harm than good if it develops."Due to the addition of the premise of "letting it develop", it has injected new vitality into the argument.In doing so, it does not change the nature of the topic of the debate, but at the same time makes one's own argument more reasonable, achieving the purpose of turning the bad into the good.

In short, we should flexibly define concepts according to the needs of our own argumentation, expand or narrow the connotation and extension of the debate topic, and pursue the effect of argumentation that is beneficial to ourselves.Of course, the adjustments made to the connotation and extension of the concept must be based on scientificity and rationality, and must be able to justify itself, withstand scrutiny, and not go too far.If you do what you want and interpret it arbitrarily, you will deviate from the topic of the debate, and "limit the topic" far-fetchedly, it will be counterproductive and will not be recognized by the audience.What must be paid attention to when using the restricted topic debate technique is that it must be properly restricted. It is necessary to restrict the topic of debate well, so that one side can change from having nothing to say to eloquent and eloquent; One cannot see any trace of changing the proposition.

3. Breaking the rules and deliberately creating new ones Debate is an instant activity, and the performance of debaters on the scene of the debate is very important.In this case, we must exercise our thinking ability in the usual practice, dare to break the routine, dare to break through the fetters of habitual thinking, reveal problems from a new perspective, hold high the banner, and come up with something new and surprising.Especially when the situation is unfavorable to one's own side, it is necessary to be able to find sufficient materials for arguments in the seemingly unreasonable, so that the arguments stand up, which is both unexpected and reasonable.

When making an argument, it is necessary to break the rules and pursue novelty, but at the same time it must be reasonable, especially considering the value orientation of the audience or judges.The most fundamental basis for making an argument in a debate competition is the acceptance intention of the judges and the audience. It is necessary to impress and convince the judges and make them feel that the argument is reasonable.Therefore, when making an argument, we must fully consider the understanding of the audience and the judges, and we must pay special attention to avoid violating people's basic common sense, otherwise it will be difficult to obtain the approval of the judges and the audience.This is something we must pay special attention to when we use this method to make an argument. Fourth, define the concept and accurately define The construction of any kind of theory must be based on concepts, and there are various definitions of concepts in the construction of arguments, including broad and narrow, specific and general, and their connotation and extension. with different ranges.In this case, it provides a wide range of choices and possibilities for debaters to construct theoretical frameworks through different definitions of concepts.In the course of debate, sometimes defining concepts can be the key to raising one's banner.At this time, we might as well bring the whole argumentation and judgment into our existing track by defining the key concepts, so as to gain favorable vigor and vitality in the debate, so as to win the final victory. Establishing propositions by redefining concepts requires certain conditions, and not all propositions can be reasonable once redefined.When redefining a concept, the key is that the definition must be within the range that the public can understand and accept.And to redefine the concept correctly, even if the other party clearly knows that the concept has been redefined, but because it is within a reasonable range, the other party has no choice but to accept this reality. ★Establishment of arguments The establishment of debate arguments is the basic work of debate, and only creative, scientific, clear and pertinent arguments can guarantee the victory of debate. ◎Creativity Creativity means that the argument should be novel and unique.Don't copy what others say, don't stick to old theories, don't make subjective assumptions, can put forward new ideas, new viewpoints, solve new problems, and show foresight.The objective world is constantly developing and changing, and the long river of truth never ends.Any kind of proposition and opinion, no matter how brilliantly it once shone, is always produced under certain objective conditions and inevitably has certain historical limitations.The development of human cognition always requires future generations to inherit the existing cognition of the predecessors and continuously innovate to promote it.In the debate, as an argument for seeking and propagating truth, it must reflect the development of human cognition and be innovative with the development of the objective world. In debates, the presentation of original arguments opens up new ways of understanding and pushes the truth forward. It is a necessary condition for improving and expanding the influence and role of debates and obtaining higher social benefits. Creativity is mainly manifested in putting forward new arguments, that is, being able to put forward opinions and propositions that have not been put forward by others.Of course, putting forward a new point of view is not to make arbitrary assumptions, but it must be an innovation that conforms to objective laws on the basis of inheriting the correct views of the predecessors.This kind of innovative argument is a insight that conforms to objective laws, it is the development of truth, it is the progress of human cognition, and it is a viewpoint that can solve new problems that arise with the development of the objective world. Creativity, also manifested as a new angle of argument.Although this kind of argument repeats the truth that the predecessors have already known, it can use a new perspective that has never been used by the predecessors, and provide us with new methods and new ways to solve problems. It is not easy to make an argument original.In order to come up with innovative insights, one must be good at absorbing ancient and modern Chinese and foreign knowledge and nutrition, so that one can be well-informed and open-minded; to propose innovative insights, one must also be good at innovating on the basis of inheriting the predecessors, not superstitious in books, not blindly following authority, Inherit and develop the reasonable and scientific viewpoints and theories of predecessors, and discard their unscientific factors.Through thinking, new and old knowledge are recombined in a certain logical relationship, and new levels or new fields are explored and excavated.These are the darings a debater should have to acquire originality. ◎Scientific Debate is a social language interaction with the ultimate goal of discerning the truth, and it must not be vented at will based on subjective assumptions.The argument of the debate must be a correct and comprehensive reflection and elucidation of the nature and laws of objective things.Arguments must conform to the nature and laws of objective things, and avoid subjectivity, one-sidedness, and metaphysics.This is the scientific nature of the argument. To make the argument scientific, the most fundamental point is that the debater must establish a scientific world outlook and methodology, that is, dialectical materialism and historical materialism.Because they are the most correct and scientific generalization and reflection of nature, society, and the nature and laws of human consciousness activities.Only by mastering the positions, viewpoints, and methods of dialectical materialism and historical materialism can we improve the ability to distinguish right from wrong in debates, enhance self-awareness, reduce blindness, and thus put forward and insist on correct arguments. Scientificity first manifests itself in the correctness of arguments, that is, to correctly reflect the nature and laws of objective things.If the arguments are not correct, the basis for winning in the debate is lost.Even if you exhaust your skills and win by luck, it will cause adverse effects and negative effects. Scientificity is also reflected in the accuracy of knowledge application and material selection.This is even more prominent if it is a debate on professional topics.The use of relevant professional knowledge, professional materials, and technical terminology should be accurate. Otherwise, the small ones will make people laugh, and the big ones will lead the debate astray, and even hinder the smooth progress of the debate.If it is a debate of other types of debate topics other than professional, the relevant life knowledge and social knowledge should also be accurate so that the debate can proceed normally. Scientificity is also reflected in the language used to express arguments.The language should express the argument clearly and accurately, so that the argument is not ambiguous and clear at a glance. The accuracy of the argument is a reliable basis for the debaters on both sides to confirm the consensus and contentious points of the proposition. ◎Sharpness The clarity of the argument is the need to maintain pertinence.Because if you want to attack and defend with the opposing side, you must be Ding, Mao is Mao, there must be no ambiguity, and you must not be evasive.By distinctness we mean that an argument must: Be clear and unambiguous, without ambiguity or ambiguity; The concept and judgment in the argument should always remain the same; With a clear attitude, affirm what should be affirmed, and deny what should be denied, without ambiguity. In daily life, we often encounter people who say such things. What they agree with and what they oppose, what they affirm and what they deny, even they themselves don't know. As a general discussion, they don't discuss anything clearly.If it is a debate, the other party must not know what to say, so how to start a "debate"?Therefore, the clarity of arguments is one of the indispensable conditions for debate. ◎Targeted Debate is the interaction of social language with opposites, so the argument must be opposed to the views and propositions of the opposite party, and the focus of the debate must be firmly grasped. If the other party is positive, we must oppose it; if the other party is negative, we must be positive.That's the pertinence of the argument. To be pertinent requires the arguments to be focused.The debate is carried out for a certain topic of debate, and the topic of debate always has a certain complexity, otherwise, there is no need to debate.Complicated propositions have various contradictions and different contradictory aspects, they are inextricably linked internally and externally, and have various attributes and laws.It is impossible and unnecessary for the debaters to put forward arguments that are comprehensive. They should grasp the main contradiction and the main aspects of the contradiction, and grasp the essence and core issues to establish the arguments. To be pertinent, it is required that the arguments put forward must hit the key points of the opponent, so that we can concentrate our efforts to refute the opponent, put ourselves in a favorable position, and win the crown of victory. ★Expression of debate arguments The presentation of the argument is very important.It is related to whether the debate around the topic can be successful, and whether one's own views and propositions can be understood by the audience.To express the argument well, it must meet the preferred angle, clearly define, properly summarize and be reasonable. ◎Optimal angle In the final of the 1986 Asian University Debate, the topic of the debate was "the advantages of developing tourism outweigh the disadvantages".According to the general straight-line thinking, it is to analyze the opposing points of this debate: "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" or "the disadvantages outweigh the advantages".According to common sense inference, it is easy to understand that "advantages outweigh disadvantages". In fact, some countries or regions have developed their own or regional economies due to the development of tourism, and even tourism in some countries and regions has become the core of their national economies. important pillar.As for "doing more harm than good", from an economic point of view, it is indeed difficult to find such examples.How did the Peking University team, who was the opposing side of the debate, establish and express their arguments?After Zheng Fang, the Chinese University of Hong Kong representative team listed the facts, explaining that the development of the tourism industry has more advantages than disadvantages, the first debater of the Peking University representative team spoke: After listening to the speech of the other classmate, I have several questions that I would like to ask.First, are tourism, tourism and tourism development the same thing?Second, you have talked for a long time that the advantages of developing tourism outweigh the disadvantages, but I still don't understand how you measure it?Third, according to your logic, it is unconditional that the advantages of tourism development outweigh the disadvantages, that is to say, the advantages of tourism development outweigh the disadvantages under any conditions.If this is the case, I would like to remind the other party that your argument is untenable... As for the development of tourism, the other party's classmates are even too far away.We advocate the development of tourism. This kind of development should be healthy, effective and beneficial to the future development of mankind.To achieve this, in addition to many objective prerequisites, such as: first, natural conditions; second, a certain social infrastructure; third, a good living environment; fourth, political stability, etc., more importantly, A country's government must have appropriate policies and plans for the development of tourism.If, as the other student said, the development of tourism can be developed unconditionally and without restraint, then there must be more disadvantages than advantages, and it is likely that there are disadvantages rather than advantages.The profit we are talking about not only considers the local profit and immediate benefit, but more importantly, considers the long-term benefit and the overall benefit... The representative team of Peking University chose the perspective that the development of tourism requires certain material and social conditions, and established and expressed its own arguments that "there are more harms than benefits" and "there may be more harms than benefits".This argument is indeed convincing to a certain extent, and the attack force of the debate is also very fierce, which greatly admired the audience present.This shows how important the preferred angle is. To express an argument, choose the best angle.A good angle can avoid difficult points, and it can also be unique and enhance the persuasiveness of the argument. ◎Clearly defined The topic of the 1999 International Collegiate Debating Group A Finals was "Is Beauty an Objective Existence or a Subjective Feeling?" The standard statement of the Zhengfang Malaysia University Team was based on the definitions of the concepts of "beauty", "subjective" and "objective". Starting to illustrate the point: Beauty is the characteristic of a thing or behavior, and it has three characteristics: the first is imagery, the second is infectiousness, and the third is utilitarianism.First, figurativeness refers to how a thing can display its beauty, it must have a specific image or form; second, it must also have an infectiousness, so that people can arouse their own joy or love. Feeling; third, it also has a utilitarian nature, which can give people spiritual and material benefits, such as purification and use.Since the existence of beauty must be measured by these three characteristics, an objective law is produced, and since this objective law is used to measure, how can the other party say that this is a subjective feeling! In addition, the three characteristics of beauty are also independent of human subjective ideas.People's subjective feelings cannot change the laws of these three characteristics. In the process of appreciation, the relationship between the subject and the object can only be the process of feeling and being felt. A sense of beauty creates the beauty of objective things.Beauty is not changed by the individual subjective ideas of the appreciators. The normative statement of the anti-Xi’an Jiaotong University team also puts forward arguments from the definition: We believe that beauty is the spiritual pleasure caused by emotional imaginative activities, which needs feeling and existence and will be in the soul. And then seize the opponent's definition and launch an attack: If beauty exists objectively, like this table, we don't need to "feel" or "understand" at all, we just need to "see", which is very convenient!It's just that what we see will be the same beauty, because beauty exists objectively, so as long as everyone's eyesight is similar, the understanding of beauty should be the same!If this is the case, there are some problems that are difficult to explain. Why do we have to constantly communicate about our feelings about art, painting, music, including debates? Regardless of the content of this round of debate, we can understand from the analysis of the methods and steps of their debate: defining concepts is a method often used when expressing arguments.A well-defined method can be used to illustrate the argument, and a well-defined method can be used to refute the other party's argument.A slight mistake in the definition may make the argument fail; similarly, a mistake in the definition of the opposite party may also make the refutation successful. In debates, definition is a very important issue. Whether it is defense or refutation, differences in arguments are often manifested in the understanding of concepts.Sometimes there are only subtle differences in understanding, which can also become the focus of mutual confrontation and the target of mutual attack.For this reason, when debating, we must first clearly define and clarify the concept. ◎Appropriate summary When we establish and express our arguments, it often happens that general principles are deduced from individual things and phenomena, which requires generalization. Lu Xun wrote in the preface to "The Posture of Living China" written for Uchiyama Wan: "A traveler walked into the study of a rich official in Xiaye, saw many expensive inkstones, and said that China was an 'elegant country'; an observer came to Shanghai and bought some obscene books. And pictures, and then go to find strange things to watch, and say that China is a 'land of pornography'." Here, the conclusions of both the traveler and the observer are unreliable because they both make the mistake of generalizing. The proper generalization we mean refers to the generalization of general principles from individual things or phenomena. To make this derivation inevitable, the general can be deduced from the inevitability of the individual, neither expanding nor shrinking, it must be just right.If it is enlarged, it will be generalized; if it is narrowed, it will be generalized.If there is a lack of inevitability at all and you have to push it hard, the argument will be disconnected from its basis and it will become an imposed point of view. ◎ Reasonable Establishing and expressing arguments must be reasonable in order to correctly reflect the objectivity.If it is inconsistent with the facts, this argument will lose its correctness and scientific nature. It contained talks on oil by diplomats from the two countries.The exporting country asked for an additional price increase per barrel of oil that exceeded the full price of the original barrel of oil, and the buying country was deeply dissatisfied with this: "Sir, if we are to discuss matters sensibly, there are some principles that must be shared." "What principle?" "For example, no part of something is greater than its whole." "This principle is untenable. Well, let me use an analogy, isn't a fox's tail usually longer than its body?!" This is a sophistry, and the reasons for the arguments on both sides are unreasonable.The principle of the buying country is that the part cannot be greater than the whole. In fact, the additional price increase of the commodity and its own price are not the relationship between the part and the whole. The relationship between the two and the final transaction price is the relationship between the part and the whole.It is also unreasonable for the exporting country to explain that the part can be greater than the whole on the grounds that "the fox's tail is longer than its body", because the whole of a fox should be the sum of its body and tail.Such unreasonable arguments cannot make correct and scientific conclusions. ◎No ambiguity When the famous mathematician Hua Luogeng was in middle school, there was such a thing: the teacher of Chinese class asked the students to write an article on the preface poem written by Hu Shi for his own collection of poems "Experimental Collection".Hua Luogeng wrote an article entitled "The Concept of "Trying" Cannot Be Confused".According to the article, Hu Shi's preface poem said: "There has been no success in attempts since ancient times, and Fang Weng's words may not be true. I will reword it now, and success has been trying since ancient times." The two "attempts" in this poem have fundamental meanings. different.The former concept refers to the first test, while the latter concept refers to all tests in general, which may refer to the first test or countless tests.Hua Luogeng discriminated and analyzed the semantics of the concept of "trying", revealed the mistakes in the preface poems, and thus refuted Hu Shi's point of view. If there is ambiguity when expressing the argument in the debate, if it is intentional, it is sophistry, and the meaning of the debate will be lost; if it appears inadvertently, it is also a mistake, which can seriously make the argument untenable . Ambiguity refers to a language, or a word or a sentence, whose meaning is not single. It can be interpreted as this meaning or another meaning. At this time, its semantics are uncertain.If the language in which an argument is expressed is ambiguous, the meaning of the argument is uncertain. ◎Beware of contradictions The statement cannot be contradictory. If there is a contradiction, it will be difficult to justify itself.Such an argument can also be denied by itself, and it is untenable. If there is a contradiction in the argument, it only needs to be pointed out by the opponent a little, and the battle will be defeated.The debate between Hao and Liang is a good example. Zhuangzi and Huizi swim on Haoliang.Zhuangzi said: "Swift fish swim leisurely, which is the joy of fish." Huizi said: "You are not a fish, how do you know the joy of fish?" Zhuangzi said: "You are not me, how do you know that I don't know the joy of fish?" (" Zhuangzi · Autumn Water Chapter") From this argument, it can be seen that Zhuangzi is very resourceful, and he can keenly grasp the contradictions in Keiko's arguments and refute them.Huizi thinks "You are not a fish, how do you know the happiness of fish?" This contains a contradiction, if you are not a fish, you don't know the situation of the fish, then, "You are not me, so of course you don't know my situation."As for my situation, I know "the joy of fish", but you are not me, and you don't know my situation. Of course, it is impossible for you to refute that I know "the joy of fish".Zhuangzi pointed out the contradiction in Keiko's argument, and Keiko's argument naturally became untenable.