Chapter 16 Chapter 15 Active Defense, Late Strike

★The golden cicada sheds its shell and splits the edge The golden cicada shelling technique means that when you are in a disadvantageous situation in a debate, you should not fight hard, but avoid the enemy's edge, and transfer skillfully to accumulate strength and organize a counterattack.The use of this technique must be concealed, and the language conversion must be natural and ingenious, so as to confuse the opponent. When Lincoln was studying at school, there was an exam, and the teacher asked him: "Lincoln, here are a hard question and two easy questions. You can choose one of them." Lincoln said: "I will take a hard question." The teacher said : "Okay, then you answer how did the eggs come from?" Lincoln replied: "Chicken." The teacher asked again: "Where did the chicken come from?" It was hatched by an egg, and the answer to the question is endless. If you continue to debate, you will be in a passive position, so you quickly use the other party's conditions to answer a question, and declare: "Teacher, this is what you asked. Second question." Lincoln managed to deftly get out of the predicament by clinging to the offer.

When we find ourselves in a disadvantageous position in a debate, we might as well feign a shot to divert the opponent's attention, so as to confuse the enemy, so that we can transfer or retreat covertly.This is the classic technique of debate, the golden cicada shelling technique, which is a wonderful way to get rid of difficulties. In the International Collegiate Debate, Fudan University team debater Yan Jia has repeatedly used this method to get rid of embarrassment for himself.Here's an excerpt from a debate with the University of Sydney team on "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem":

Zheng Fang: Excuse me, hundreds of thousands of medical workers are researching, are they just looking for the key? Yan Jia: We can't just let medicine participate!In many parts of Africa, AIDS has already caused "thousands of mountains and birds to fly away, and thousands of trails of people to disappear". Is it necessary to let medicine, a "lonely man with a hat" come to "lonely hook the cold river and snow"? The rhetorical question put forward by the Zhengfang University of Sydney team is very powerful. The work of the majority of medical workers is solemn, sacred and extremely difficult. It is not as easy as looking for a key. Yan Jia knows that arguing with the other party on this issue is only passive, so He cleverly avoided his sharp edge, escaped his shell, avoided talking about the efforts and hardships of medical workers, and quoted a few ancient poems, which not only diverted the opponent's attack target, but also subtly confirmed his own thesis.

Franklin D. Roosevelt served in the Navy before becoming president. One day, a foreign friend asked Roosevelt about his plan to build a submarine base on a small island. Roosevelt looked around and said in a low voice, "Can you keep it secret?" "Of course." The friend replied. Roosevelt smiled and said, "Me too." The establishment of a submarine base is a military secret, and of course it cannot be leaked.Facing his friend's inquiry, Roosevelt did not directly refuse to answer, but tactfully induced his friend to say that he could keep it secret, so as to seal his friend's mouth, and then changed the subject, saying that he could also keep it secret, and skillfully got out of the predicament.

The core of Jin Chan's escape is how to skillfully avoid the edge and change the topic.Let's see the following dialogue: A: "I would like to know, what is the final measure that your country can take on the XX issue?" B: "Your Excellency, please believe that we will finally solve this problem. But I am really worried, if the anti-government movement in your country continues to develop, whether your government still has the ability to maintain the current rule." Party A wanted to know the final measures that Party B could take, which was difficult for Party B to announce under the conditions at the time, so Party B replied, "We will eventually solve this problem" and lightly brushed it off.Then move on to another topic, that is, the topic of "how to subdue the reactionary government movement".Such a delicate transfer will help you get out of the predicament.

A school of economics once debated "whether it is possible to implement a joint-stock system in my country at present".The opposing party believes that the implementation of the joint-stock system requires the stock market as a prerequisite, but my country has not yet formed a stock market, so the joint-stock system cannot be implemented.Zhengfang retorted that the establishment of the stock market can only be discussed if the joint-stock system is implemented.Then the two sides started a heated debate on whether they should choose a joint-stock system or a stock market first.In the end, the fight was so red-faced and dry-mouthed, but no one could win.

Our debates do not have the expected results, and the reason is often that the debaters have not figured out the core of winning - the additional conditions. The topic of a debate contest was "the advantages of developing tourism outweigh the disadvantages".The affirmative said that the development of tourism needs to eliminate factors that are not conducive to tourism and create conditions that are conducive to tourism, such as political stability, clean environment, and good social order. Therefore, the benefits of tourism development are not small, which means that the environment can be transformed social or natural).The opposing side said that they are not opposed to tourism. The key depends on whether you have such conditions: "Do you have natural conditions, political stability, and people living and working in peace and contentment?" This is equivalent to saying that only by transforming the natural and social environment, to develop tourism.

Another case is also about the problem of chicken first and egg first. A farmer couple knew that eggs can hatch chickens and chickens can lay eggs, so they planned to start a chicken farm to make a fortune.They have the same understanding that the chicken industry can make a fortune, and they don't care about the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first in the world. What they care about is whether to buy the chicken first to lay the egg or buy the egg first to hatch the chicken. This is directly related to future economic benefits, and of course it is a question of practical significance that must be carefully analyzed and debated.

The husband said that he should buy chickens to lay eggs first, because it is the peak season for hens to lay eggs.My wife said that I should buy eggs to hatch chickens first, because the hatching room at home is already complete, and there is a shortage of feed at present, so it is difficult to meet the needs of large chickens.The husband finally understood that in this chicken-or-the-egg issue, the arguments were made on the grounds of the superiority of raising larger chickens or hatching smaller ones. This captures the focus of the debate: a chicken is a necessary condition for laying an egg, and an egg is also a necessary condition for hatching a chicken. You can only turn into chickens in the house), and you don’t necessarily have to lay eggs with chickens (you need enough feed to be able to lay eggs).Whether these additional conditions such as hatching room and feed are available or not is what needs to be figured out first.The wife then persuaded the husband.

★Give full play to your advantages and benefit your defense After the establishment of the Soviet regime, someone challenged the famous poet Mayakovsky, saying: "Mayakovsky, why do you wear a ring on your hand? This is not suitable for you." The poet replied: "According to you, it should not be worn on the hands, but on the nose?" Some people belittled his poems, saying: "Mayakovsky, your poems cannot make people boil, burn, or infect people." The poet said: "My poems are not the sea, nor the stove, nor the plague." In this example, the other party's question is obviously provocative and unreasonable, but if Mayakovsky adopts the method of positive explanation, it will appear passive and powerless, and the current method of actively defending and waiting for an opportunity to counterattack appears Very powerful.For the first question, he put aside what he really wanted to answer, and humorously shifted the focus of the topic.When answering the second question, his humorous rebuttal ranged from small to large, and finally pointed out that my poem "is not the plague", which not only maintained the dignity of his own poem, but also severely refuted the sharp questioner.

In the debate, offense and defense are relative terms.In other words, there is defense in offense, and there is offense in defense, and defense is only for offense.The so-called defense refers to a form of debate tactics that takes the response as the main means to defend one's own arguments and consolidate one's position when one's own side is attacked. There are generally two forms of defense in debates: One is active defense.Active defense is a planned and implemented defensive plan based on the overall needs of the debate. The purpose is to establish and strengthen one's own point of view and accumulate strength for the next attack.This kind of defense is usually the prelude to the offense, or the continuation of the offense, and is an integral part and effective tactical method of the deployment of the debate. The other is hasty defense.Hasty defense refers to a defensive tactic that one side has to adopt under the pressure of a powerful attack due to improper strategic planning or tactical mistakes in the confrontation between the two sides.Obviously, the latter is a last resort choice when in a difficult situation. If you can't try to get out of this state, you will sink deeper and deeper. In a debate, when one's side is on the defensive, the following principles should be adhered to: 1. Take Advantage When in a defensive state, you should pay special attention to giving full play to your own advantages, such as your own advantages in arguments, arguments, geographical environment, and debaters.You should rely on your advantages to break through your own advantages, withstand the opponent's offensive, and stick to the defense line. 2. Active defense During the debate, defenders must be able to withstand blows, especially in the state of hasty defense, and their fighting spirit must not be broken. In particular, they must overcome passive defensive thinking. Take decent and forceful measures to continue to seek the initiative in the debate. 3. Flexibility Debate defense must not be passive and defend the position, but must assess the situation, be witty and flexible, actively create conditions, and adopt various methods to deal with opponents.We should constantly change our strategies and tactics, take the initiative to attack when we see the opportunity, and completely get rid of the passive situation.Just like playing football, only offense can score. No matter how good the defense is, it can only prevent the opponent from scoring goals and avoid losing points. Defense will not make one's own win.Therefore, a good debater will turn defense into offense. ★Pretending to be confused, waiting for an opportunity to counterattack An honest businessman went to the bank to withdraw a large amount of cash and returned to the car. Unexpectedly, when he was about to start the engine and leave, he saw a woman climbing up from the rear seat through the rear mirror of the car.The woman put her head into the businessman's ear and whispered nervously, "Give me your money right away, or I'll open the car door and get out and yell at you to kidnap and rape me!" The woman's hair was disheveled, and the collar of her blouse was open, and the buttons seemed to be ripped off. The honest businessman was frightened by the sudden incident, and stood there for a while. The businessman wanted to run out immediately to explain to passers-by, but judging by the way the woman was holding the car door handle, he couldn't beat her at all, and it would be impossible to clean up by jumping into the Yellow River. What would you do if it were you? The businessman forced himself to calm down and think for a while, then turned around and gesticulated at the woman to pretend to be dumb. The woman shook her head and said, "It's bad luck to have a dumb man!" The businessman picked up a newspaper that was lying on the front seat.He took out a pen from his pocket and handed it to the woman, and gestured again, which meant that the woman should write down what she was going to do. The woman loosened the rope that was not really tied, took the pen and paper, looked out the window nervously, gave the businessman a hard look, and then hurriedly wrote a few words—take out If the money comes, get out of the car and yell at you to kidnap and rape me. As soon as the woman finished writing, the businessman took the newspaper and rushed out of the car before the woman recovered. At the same time, he locked all the car doors with the remote control. Not long after, the businessman with the newspaper in his hand led several police officers to the scene. It seems that sometimes learning to "pretend to be deaf and dumb" and "pretend to be crazy and stupid" is a good way to get out of a predicament, allowing opponents to "shoot themselves in the foot". Dazhiruoyu refers to the fact that the debater is resourceful but pretends to be stupid. That is to say, he shows his stupidity when he is wise, and shows his inability when he is capable. This method is used to deceive opponents, gain the initiative, and win the debate.Those who use the method of great wisdom and foolishness to achieve success in debate often show a calmer thinking, stronger patience, and higher art of debate. Once, Mr. Gu Hongming, a famous scholar, sat on the seat in a car, with his feet folded, admiring the scenery outside the window.A few young foreigners came up on the way and commented disrespectfully on Mr. Gu's image of wearing a long robe and mandarin jacket with pigtails.Mr. Gu calmly took out an English newspaper from his pocket and read it calmly.The foreigners stretched their necks to see, and couldn't help laughing, and shouted repeatedly: "Look, this Chinese idiot, who doesn't understand English and still reads newspapers, has turned the newspapers upside down!" When these superficial foreigners had finished yelling and laughing, Mr. Gu Hongming said slowly in pure English: "English is so simple, it's really meaningless if you don't look at it upside down." The foreigners turned pale with shock when they heard this, and looked at each other in blank dismay. Mr. Gu Hongming is a well-known scholar who has mastered both Chinese and Western cultures. In front of young foreigners making fun of him, he didn’t take offense at the crime, but deliberately pretended to be very stupid. He read the newspaper upside down, but a sentence in English showed his extraordinary intelligence. And defeat the opponent. Zhang Zuolin was born recklessly, but he is very witty. When dealing with some situations that seem to be going badly, he can often highlight strange tricks and get unexpected results.Once, Zhang Zuolin was attending a celebrity banquet. During the banquet, a few Japanese wanderers suddenly said, "I have heard for a long time that Zhang Dashuai is both civil and military. Please appreciate a calligraphy and painting on the spot."Zhang Zuolin knew clearly that this was intentionally making things difficult, but in the presence of the public, he had no choice but to agree and ordered his pen and ink to wait on him.I saw him strolling to the table in a chic way, on the rice paper laid out, he wrote the word "Xu" with a big stroke of a pen, and then proudly signed: "Zhang Zuolin's hands are black." After finishing writing and stamping the red seal, Zhang Zuolin threw his pen with great ambition.Several Japanese wanderers looked at the words "Zhang Zuolin's black hand" and looked at each other, not knowing what it meant. The attendant secretary found a mistake. How did "hand ink" (handwritten text) become "hand black"?He quickly approached Zhang Zuolin and whispered in Zhang Zuolin's ear: "The word 'ink' you wrote is missing 'soil', and 'hand ink' has become 'hand black'." "Black"?Wouldn't it be a disservice if it was corrected in public?Zhang Zuolin twitched his brows, deliberately reprimanded the secretary and said: "I didn't know there was a word for 'soil' under the word 'ink'? Because this is what the Japanese demand, and it's called not giving up an inch of land!" As soon as the voice fell, the audience cheered, and the Japanese ronin realized the taste. Although Zhang Zuolin didn't mean to be wise and foolish, but after the secretary reminded him, his actions had the taste of "great wisdom and foolishness". No wonder the audience applauded. In Xiangtan, Hunan Province in modern China, there lived Mr. Wang Kaiyun, who was well-known for his profound knowledge and talent.During Mr. Wang's stay in Beijing, Yuan Shikai, the country thief, sent people to accompany him almost every day. One day, these people accompanied him to the "Xinhua Gate" in front of the Forbidden City.Wang Kaiyun deliberately pretended to be old and dim-sighted, and said in an exclamation tone: "Why, the place has been renamed 'Xinmangmen'?" Mr. Wang pretended to be confused, pronounced the word "Hua" as "mang", and compared Yuan's stealing the country to Wang Mang's usurping the Han, showing great irony.Originally, when I read the wrong word myself, it was to show it to be stupid, to show it to be weak, and to deliberately leave the flaw to the other party. In fact, it has other deep meanings. Dazhi Ruoyu's method is a product of curvilinear thinking, that is, an offensive method that beats around the bush. Therefore, using this method can often produce a strong sense of humor and irony.However, if you are only foolish but ignorant, you can only make people laugh if you are stupid without great wisdom; only when you appear stupid on the surface but are wise in essence, can you truly subdue your opponent. ★Use the real to control the false, and use the false to control the false In the contest debate of "advocating the purchase of domestic products is beneficial to economic development", there is this paragraph: Square: "What we are indeed seeing now is that many developed countries are pulling their salaries from the bottom of our country and jumping on the 'fucking horse'. At this time, can we still be 'pawns' in front of us?" The opponent's powerful attack is difficult to deal with. Seeing that the situation is not good, he conveniently throws out an emergency move and takes out a pre-prepared card to declare: "Then there is one problem I don't understand. Many of our domestic products have been advocated for decades, but these industries have reached the age of thirty, and they are still counting stars in the arms of their mothers!" At first glance, this paragraph of response does not feel far-fetched. In fact, this paragraph can be followed by any question from the other party.Therefore, before you can't find a suitable and powerful response material, you might as well come up with almighty language for emergency, and respond to all changes with the same stability, which is a good way to liberate yourself. The characteristic of the method of using reality to control fiction is that the opponent's argument is false and cannot be verified; the argument I am answering is also unverifiable, but it is "real". It can be expressed as small, it can be expressed as far, or it can be expressed as near. In short, the answer should be answered with "truth" that the other party cannot verify according to the specific occasion. There was a king who thought he was very clever and liked to make difficult problems to baffle others.Once, he called 12,000 scholars and asked them where the center of the earth was, but no one could answer.The self-righteous king was very proud, and immediately issued a notice to ask for people who could answer this difficult question, and announced that those who answered correctly would be rewarded and those who answered incorrectly would be punished. When people read the notice, most of them shook their heads and walked away, but after reading the notice, Afanti led the donkey and went straight to the palace to meet the king. The king asked: "Why, do you know where the center of the earth is?" "I know," Avanti replied, "the center of the earth is where my donkey's left fore hoof steps." "Nonsense, I don't believe it!" "If you don't believe it, please measure the whole earth yourself, and punish me if you make a mistake." "This... this..." The king thought for a long time, but couldn't say a word. At that time, it was impossible for the king to measure the center of the earth. Avanti casually pointed to a place in front of him, but the king could not prove his falsehood, so he was speechless. It must be paid special attention that the method of using the real to control the false can only be used to subdue those unreasonable troublemakers and those who deliberately make things difficult for others, but it cannot replace rigorous scientific research, because scientific research cannot just say any data and you're done. In debates, some debaters like to ask unverifiable, unanswerable questions.When encountering opponents trying to baffle us with some illusory and unverifiable topics, we might as well do the opposite and retaliate with specific and real topics.Since the other party cannot verify whether it is true or not, we can naturally respond to the other party's challenge effectively and gain the initiative in the debate.This is the art of controlling fiction with reality. In the course of the debate, when the opponent deliberately uses the false concept to attack, you may wish to concoct it according to the law and use the false concept to retaliate. This is the art of falsehood. Two men came up to the judge arguing, and the plaintiff pointed to the defendant and said: "He was carrying a heavy load and it fell off his shoulders. He asked me to help him up. I asked him how much he would pay him. He said, 'Nothing.' I agreed and helped him up immediately. onto his shoulders. Now I want him to pay me 'nothing'!" The judge thought for a while and said, "You have a point in suing him. Come here and help me pick up this book!" The plaintiff walked over and helped the judge pick up the book. Suddenly the judge asked, "What's under the book?" "Nothing," said the plaintiff. "Then you take 'nothing'!" said the judge solemnly. Originally, helping things was just a little effort, and there was no need to ask others for wages, but this person made trouble unreasonably, insisting that others pay "nothing". "Nothing" means nothing, which is a false concept, and he tries to confuse others with it.In order to satisfy him, the wise judge asked him to take "nothing", and did not allow the other party to mess around. A Jiang and A Ming like to "fight", and they met together one day. A Jiang asked: "How much did your new house cost?" "It cost one cent." Amin said, "If you want to buy it, I'll sell it to you for one cent, but I can only charge you one cent, and I don't want any more." "Really?" A Jiang smiled and said, "Then I'll give you a penny, and you can give me nine per cent. It's natural to pay for things, but it's illegal not to give someone's change. Please give me some change!" Everyone knows that RMB does not have a denomination of 1 cent, and the extension of "money with a denomination of 1 cent" is zero. On the other hand, Amin was asked to find 9% of the money, using falsehood to control the falsehood, but became active instead. The "virtual" mentioned in this method refers to the virtual concept of the corresponding object that does not exist in the objective world, and its production is purely fabricated by people.That being the case, if you want to subdue your opponent, you should temporarily fabricate the corresponding "fictitious" to fight against it according to the specific situation, and you should not consider whether your own point of view is "true". ★Say "no" skillfully and refuse in good time To reject the other party, we must pay attention to strategy.If you refuse tactfully, the other party will be convinced; if you refuse bluntly, the other party will feel dissatisfied, even hold hatred and hate you.So we must remember to reject the other party and try not to hurt the other party's self-esteem.Let the other party understand that your rejection is out of necessity, and feel sorry and regretful, and try to make your rejection gentle and gentle. 1. Leave room If someone asks you to introduce a job, it is difficult for you to do so.Looking back, he asked: "I asked you a few days ago, how is it now?" You can answer: "It's not easy, I told you last time, your education does not meet the requirements, the hardware is not enough, and the number of places is so small. Less, more monks, less porridge. But I can ask other units to help you take a chance. Of course, we should not be too optimistic.” Although there is no rejection here, but the next step has been prepared for the next rejection. From the perspective of interpersonal relationship, the reasons for refusal should be as full as possible.From the perspective of the recipient's psychological acceptance, it is necessary to leave enough room for mental preparation to the other party.In this way, when it is appropriate to reject the other party, it can also make the other party feel that you have at least tried your best. 2. Transfer rejection A grandfather saw a 4-year-old child he was familiar with, holding an apple in his left hand and an orange in his right hand, happily shaking it in front of the grandfather.The old grandpa said amusedly: "Yangyang, the teachers in the kindergarten praised you for being very good-looking and sensible. Now you have apples and oranges, and you can't finish them all. Can you give me one?" The old grandpa thought that Yangyang must be reluctant to part with apples, so he Will you give him oranges?Unexpectedly, Yangyang replied solemnly: "Grandpa, go quickly, there are still more at my mother's place!" Yangyang's answer didn't say it directly, but also expressed his meaning in a tactful manner. This is the way to transfer the rejection. Third, the way of evasion When someone asks you: "Do you like the sexy star Madonna?" If you don't like it in your heart and you don't want to spoil the interest of the other party, you can just laugh it off without expressing your opinion.If someone is gossiping about someone else behind their back, if you don't want to agree with it, don't participate in the discussion, just show that you have received the information, but don't comment on the information. This is a case of polite refusal with the help of some morphological language. We can also use "drag" to express refusal. If a colleague asks you to go to karaoke to sing at night, you can answer: "Let's make an appointment at night, and I will call you then." "Oh, what a coincidence, I'm working outside, so I'll try to go! For another example, if someone knows that you just got a bonus and asks you to borrow money, you can answer vaguely: "I promised my wife the day before yesterday to make a coat, and I have already ordered it. If you need it urgently, I will go back with you." My lover will discuss it with you before I tell you." If the person who borrowed money from you keeps trying to win the other person's love, you can continue to evade it confidently until the other person gives up.But be careful, don't be blunt. Four, tactful way If you need to object or refuse a job assigned by your boss or supervisor out of a sense of responsibility, then what kind of rejection method should you choose to insist on your opinion and protect the dignity of your boss?You can choose a certain aspect of the boss's opinion that you agree with to affirm, and then put forward the opposite opinion, that is, first use compliments to dispel the displeasure of the boss's opinion being rejected, so that he does not lose his dignity. "The director is right. We should pay full attention to this aspect. This is one of the prerequisites for solving the problem. I think that in addition to this, we should also..." Later, I put forward my own point of view, through examples, let The boss realizes that your point of view is more practical than his.Don't rush to change your point of view and go along with your boss just because you see a bad face from your boss.Not only can this not solve the problem, but it also exposes the mediocre side of me who is timid and uninitiated. 5. Choose diplomatic rhetoric In life, when we are temporarily unable to determine "yes or no", diplomatic expressions such as "no comment", "God knows", "I don't understand this", "it's hard to say" can all be borrowed. It should be noted that when refusing, the attitude must be sincere.End the conversation with a warm handshake and a little apology.A successful rejection may sow the seeds of hope for a future handshake or deeper connection. In a debate, it is inevitable that there will be rejection of the other party.How can I express my rejection more mellowly?When you have to say no to something without hurting the other person's feelings, you can look for excuses.We can take some measures to get out of the embarrassment, which can not hurt the other person's feelings, but also let the other person know that you have difficulties.Much better than just saying "no" unequivocally. ★Plausible, evasive A businessman was sailing at night. When he passed a large bridge, a man on the bridge asked rudely, "What kind of boat?" The interrogator's questioning was cleverly avoided by the businessman, which made the interrogator very embarrassed.In fact, the businessman understands the purpose of the question.The question "what ship" means to ask what is loaded on it, and "what is it for" means to ask what the boat is for.But the businessman's evasive answers caused the interrogator to question twice and fail twice. Wang Yuanze, Wang Anshi's youngest son, was very smart when he was a child, and he was famous for his intelligence.One day, a group of Wang Anshi's friends came to visit. One of the guests gave him a deer and a deer in a cage as a gift.A guest wanted to question Wang Yuanze, and pointed to the cage and asked him, "Which of these two animals is a deer and which is a deer?" Wang Yuanze, who was six years old, did not know deer or deer at all.But he rolled his small eyes, and immediately replied: "The one next to the deer is just a deer, and the one next to the deer is just a deer." Wang Yuanze's answer was extremely ingenious.Since a roe and a deer are kept in the same cage, there is a "neighbor" relationship between a roe and a deer: the roe is next to the deer, and the deer is next to the roe.Although he didn't know which was a roe and which was a deer, based on this "neighbor" relationship, he made two relationship judgments.Although it didn't specify which one was roe and which was deer, the answer was certainly correct.If he answered "don't know" truthfully, it would appear mediocre and would be a disservice to his reputation.Such ingenious answers revealed his youthful intelligence and witty humor, which made the guests marvel at his wisdom. Questions and answers in debates are a unity of contradictions.Answers are responses to questions.Asking is a science, and answering also requires superb skills.The real clever answer is by no means that you answer what the other party asks; or that you answer whatever he asks.A eloquent person always thinks and chooses the best answer after receiving a question from the other party.Esotericism is the art of replying to those unanswerable but unavoidable questions. The wonderful effect of using evasion in argumentation is to get you out of a difficult situation with wit and humor. Evasion is best used in diplomatic debates.In foreign affairs activities, sometimes the facts you have are classified as confidential and cannot be disclosed, but others try to find out.When encountering such sensitive topics, avoidance can easily lead to suspicion, and a positive answer cannot tell the truth. This can be used to escape the shell and get out of the predicament in a humorous play. At a symposium, colleagues in the American film industry discussed with Xie Jin what kind of films are the most popular, and how to cooperate in films between China and the United States.It should be said that this is a friendly puzzle.A positive answer or a general answer is obviously difficult to satisfy the questioner, and the specific prediction or promise is not yet met because the conditions are not yet met, and it is inevitable to fall into the embarrassing situation of partial generalization and empty-to-empty.Facing questions from friends, Xie Jin said wittily and humorously: "Mr. Reagan will not be president in the future. If he is still interested in acting, then he will star in it, and I will direct it. It will be co-produced by China and the United States. It must be a hit all over the world." Xie Jin's answer was very humorous and witty, with a lot of overtones, which made the American friends present applaud. Used well, this method can not only get you out of trouble, but also produce the effect of overtones and undertones. The use of evasive words is more common in daily interpersonal communication. A Chinese student was dancing with a French girl. The girl asked: "Do you like French girls or Chinese girls?" The foreign student replied: "I like all the girls who like me." The art of debate.For another example, when someone inquired about the age of a young lady, but the young lady was unwilling to tell the other party, she thought for a while and replied, "One year older than last year." Evasion is not evasion, it is not avoiding and not answering; it is not vague language, it is not ambiguous;On the contrary, evasive words are to give an answer, but also not to answer the question; to answer clearly, but also to miss the answer.Therefore, when using "evasive words", the key is to grasp the gist of "evasive words, specious". ★Turn defense into offense, attack later In 1984, during the televised presidential debate in the United States, Reagan's opponent Mundell claimed that he was young, strong and knowledgeable, and tried his best to attack Reagan for being too old for this important task.If Reagan retaliates with fire and swears, he will naturally lose the advantages of being calm, prudent and wise as an elder.So, according to his own strengths and the other party's weaknesses, Reagan used the form of pretending to be negative, and answered Mundell with a smile: "Mundell says I'm old and not energetic, and I don't think I'm going to take advantage of my opponent's youth and immaturity in the campaign." Reagan's defense won warm applause from the audience. It is conceivable that if Reagan's answer was "You say I am old and not energetic, then you are young and immature".In this way, the two sides will fall into a quarrel of attacking each other, and the impression on voters will naturally not be good.However, Reagan did not say this, but used the method of using defense as an offense. In a calm manner, he made use of his strengths and showed the weaknesses of the enemy. One angle attacks and reflects the shallowness and narrowness of the other party, and establishes a noble personality image in front of voters. In a debate, in order to counter the opponent's domineering provocation, sometimes we might as well use defense instead of attack, and retreat instead of attack, that is, to deny our point of view on the surface. The advantage of doing this is that it not only keeps our debate language lively, but also shows that we are not in the company of vulgar and rude opponents, which can achieve excellent results; this method is a method of retreating instead of attacking.The specific method is to make a false affirmation first, and after a short pause, immediately implement a logical turning point to complete the attack on the opponent.The logical turning point is the most important content, and it can usually go straight to the opponent's vital point and catch the opponent by surprise. Former Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov was born in an old aristocratic family.At a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, a diplomat from the British Labor Party challenged him, saying: "You are from an aristocratic family, and my family's ancestors are miners. Which one of us can represent the working class?" Molotov replied calmly: "You are right, however, we have both betrayed our own class!" Here, Molotov also adopted the method of turning defense into offense and retreating instead of attacking.In specific use, this method can also adopt an attitude of approving the opponent's offensive words first, and take over the opponent's words, and then integrate it with your own thinking logic, and change positions in use to approach the opponent's point of view The opposite side, thus finally completing the counter-offensive. In the free debate of "Is the population issue the key to the success or failure of future social development" in the fourth round of the preliminary round of the 3rd China Famous College Students Debating Competition, the anti-Shanxi University team failed to grasp the time, and the pro-Fang East China Normal University team caught chance, and finally won the debate.It can be said that the affirmative has successfully used the tactics of turning defense into offense.Please see: The second debate on the opposite side: We all know that the driving force behind social development is productivity, so I would like to ask the other side to argue... (bell rings) Chairman: Sorry, time for the opposing side is up. The affirmative argues: What the other party is talking about is nothing more than a population problem, and what the other party has always argued has never denied that the population problem of one’s own side is not the key to success or failure. I would like to tell you what is the premise that threatens future social development?It's a population issue. The second debate of the affirmative: what oppresses the guarantee of future social development?It's also a demographic issue. 正方三辩：是什么阻碍着未来社会发展的目标呢？还是人口问题。（掌声） 正方一辩：人口问题的解决过程本身就是社会全面进步的过程。 正方二辩：所以说，无论如何，不管怎样，人口问题都是未来社会发展的成败关键。 正方三辩：过去我们有“黄河远上白云间”，可为什么现在却是“黄河之水天上来，断流断水到河南”？ 正方二辩：人口问题的解决固然很难，但天下事有难易乎，为之则难者亦易矣，不为则易者亦难矣。（掌声） 正方一辩：按对方所说的，经济是万能的，那么当我们告别这个世界的时候，我们就可以说，轻轻地，我们走了，剩下一大群人口，反正你们可以购买另外一颗地球嘛。 正方三辩：对方喜欢谈可持续性发展，但为什么对方所在的山西省，人均耕地从1985年的3.4亩下降到了如今的1.8亩，这叫做可持续性发展吗？ 正方二辩：对方刚才三位辩手，根本没有回答我方的一个问题：中国绝对资源大国与人均资源小国之间的矛盾是如何产生的？（提示铃响） 正方一辩：现在世界上每秒钟3人、每分钟180人，每周一个费城，每年一个德国，人口问题还不紧迫吗？ 正方二辩：对方辩友刚才对人口问题的解决，倒是情有独钟。可是又不愿承认人口问题是未来社会成败的关键，为什么对人口问题都是多情却是总无情呢？ 正方三辩：中国每年增加人口1400万，但耕地为何却减少了700万亩呢？ 正方一辩：中国的GDP已列世界前茅，可人均却只有九十几位，其原因难道不是人口多造成的吗？ 正方二辩：现在如果我们认识到人口问题是成败关键，我们还有回天之力，如果现在还不认识到这一点的话，只怕将来与对方辩友再见面时，只能是“相顾无言，只有泪千行”了呀。 正方三辩：我方也从不排斥系统，但恰恰在系统中，唯一的主动力就是人口啊。 正方一辩：鉴于我方已充分阐明我方观点，建议主席能够停止自由辩论。 本来，双方势均力敌，但是，由于反方此时已无还手之力，所以，正方连续进攻，使得平衡被打破。 在辩论的过程中，当己方对对手的意图不太了解，或者出于战略考虑不急于展开进攻；相反，对方自恃优势，锋芒毕露，咄咄逼人，此时，己方则从容迎战，先稳住阵脚，然后视战局发展，瞅准了时机和突击点后发制人，充分施展攻击技巧，组织反攻，毕其功于一役，制服对手。 这是一种先守后攻的战术，通常在敌强我弱的复杂态势下使用。看准了机会再出手，一旦出手就要打到对手的痛处，往往能以弱击强，以劣胜优。 使用反守为攻这种战术，必须紧紧抓住机会，抓住对方的矛盾，捕捉对方的弱点，这样，攻击才会有力度。此外，还必须注意站在正确的立场上使用这种方法，如果明明白白知道是自己或我方错了，为了一己私利，嫁祸于人，这就不是一个出色的辩论者所为的事情了。 ★装聋作哑，沉默是金 第一次世界大战后，土耳其代表伊斯麦在与法、意、美、日、俄、希腊等国代表的谈判中，就采用了装聋作哑的方法。这在前文已经讲过，伊斯麦“装聋对策”，在当时的谈判中，对其有利的发言，句句听得真真切切；对他不利的时候，就聋；对于威胁和恫吓，“聋”得更厉害，这就回避了对方的无理条件，维护了本国利益。 除了装聋作哑，沉默也是一种无声的特殊的语言。辩论中，如果辩论者中断有声语言的运用，这就是沉默。沉默同样可以成为一种辩论取胜的方法。用这种方法，可以借助面部表情、动作、眼神，表示赞成或反对，展开心理攻势，进而达到目的。 也就是说，在特定的情况下，什么话也不说，同样能够表达自己的思想和情感。在辩论中，面对不利的辩论形势，为了避免对方警觉，麻痹对方，不妨使用装聋作哑的办法，不动声色地暗中谋划，寻找战机，由被动转为主动，这就是装聋作哑的方法。 生活中，遇到那些强词夺理甚至恶语相向的人，如果与其争是辩非，往往只会招致他们变本加厉的胡搅蛮缠。对付这种人的最好办法就是沉默，无言的回敬往往会使他们理屈词穷、狼狈不堪。 在很多场合，只要恰当使用沉默，都可以使对方因为不知我们的底细，做出对己方有利的选择。 爱迪生发明了发报机之后，因为不熟悉商业行情，不知道能卖多少钱，就与妻子商量，妻子说：“卖二万。” “二万？太多了！” “我看肯定值二万，要不，你卖的时候先套套对方的口气，让他先说说看。” 接着，在与一位美国经纪商进行关于发报机技术买卖的谈判中，商人问到货价，爱迪生总认为二万太高，不好意思说，于是沉默不语。商人按捺不住，说： “那我说个价格吧，10万元，怎么样？” 这真是出乎意料，爱迪生当场拍板成交。当然，这是爱迪生不自觉地应用沉默所取得的效果。 沉默与精心选择的词语具有相同的表现力，就如同音乐中的休止符和音符一样重要。在长篇大论的辩论中，同样也需要沉默。沉默可以营造回味的余地，为辩论者的审时度势创造机会。 当然，装聋作哑与沉默的使用都要适当。不分场合，故作高深而滥用沉默，或者一味地装聋作哑，只能给人以矫揉造作或难以捉摸的感觉。因此，在使用这一方法时，要注意场合和现场的情况。争取为自己谋取最大化的利益。 ★以问代答，把握主动 下面是'99国际大专辩论会上香港大学队（正方）和新加坡南洋理工大学队（反方）之间的一段辩论： 反方三辩：讲了这么久，对方连书本有什么功能都说不清，难怪看不出不会取代的理由了。那我就请问对方辩友，法律上的那本《圣经》你又如何取代呀？ 正方三辩：那么对方同学，你今天讲的书本就是《圣经》吗？ 反方一辩：对方辩友连《圣经》的例子都解决不了还要和我们谈其他！请问对方辩友，那本《圣经》如何取代？ 正方一辩：对方辩友，我告诉你，现在已经有电子《圣经》出版了，这不是告诉大家电脑的普及化吗？ 反方二辩：普及等于取代吗？电子《圣经》出版商说过要把所有的书本（圣经）一网打尽吗？ 正方二辩：对方辩友，今天的命题是“必将”，所以如果现在有这个趋势，已经有电子《圣经》出现，为什么掌上电脑就不会成为我们明天的书本呢？ 反方三辩：可能的趋势就等于结果的必然吗？今天上海交易所的股票是一千点，明天是二千点，后天它会突破一万点吗？ 此例中，正反双方都在发问，仿佛回答了，但都没有作实质性的回答。当一方提出问题后，另一方采用一个不置可否的转折，马上过渡到回问对方问题，双方你来我往，如法炮制。因为他们明白，针对对方抛出的难题，回答稍有不慎，就会被对方打开缺口，陷于被动。当然此例中的辩手还稍嫌稚嫩，技法还显得有些生硬。 在辩论中，对方常常提出一些敏感性的或难以回答的问题，你不愿或不能正面回答，便可采用以问代答法，向对方提出一个与之相关，其实质内容却又背道而驰的问题，使之无法回答，从而化被动为主动。 我国驻印度大使李连庆在1986年举行的一次记者招待会上，一位记者突然向他提出一个难以回答的问题—— 记者：据说，中国在新疆帮助巴基斯坦试验核武器，对此，大使先生有何见解？ 李连庆：“据”是一个推测用语，在这样重大的问题上，使用这样的词语是不够慎重的。据谁而说？证据何在？中国一贯主张销毁核武器的原则立场是众所周知的，它自己制造核武器，也是为了打破超级大国的核讹诈，以至最终销毁核武器，怎么会再去帮助另外一个国家试制核武器呢？ 记者的问题提得非常尖锐，回答稍有不慎，就会给自己甚至给国家带来不利影响。李大使先抓住“据”字做文章，指责对方用词不当，接着采用一系列的反问，表明中国的严正立场，批评记者的捕风捉影。 ★以退为进，巧妙制敌 面对论敌的强大攻势，有时可以采用以退为进，以让求取的策略，首先承认甚至褒扬对方的观点、理论或做法，待敌深入或者失去了戒心，再突然发动进攻，予以迎头痛击。“退”、“让”、“嚷”、“扬”是一种有计划、有步骤的诱敌策略，最终目的在于反攻制胜。 在关于“信息社会仍须还是无须读书破万卷”辩题的辩论中，反方中国青年政治学院二辩就有这样一段先扬后抑、以退为进的精彩辩词： 听了刚才对方同学的发言，我深深地为对方同学那种执著的追求知识的精神而感动。今天，我们和对方同学一样地渴求知识，然而求知的目的何在，在于认识和改造世界。因此，无论怎样求知，都必须适应这个目的。我方同学认为在信息时代无须通过读书破万卷的形式来达到这个目的。首先，随着科技的发展，行业的分工越来越细，人类社会创造的知识总量早已成为一个巨大的知识金库了。面对信息量的骤增，知识量的爆炸，对方同学如何去选择呀？还用读书破万卷的方式能行吗？人脑因为生理的原因，其记忆、存储、提取、容纳的程度总是有限，面对信息量的大规模流动与更新，对方同学如果说过去还能够通过读万卷书而成为一个“通才”的话，那么，今天如果想通过读万卷书而成为一个通才能行吗？时代要求我们打破这种读书破万卷的农业社会、田园文明的知识方式了。先知是痛苦的，然而以为无知识不知现实就可以瞒天过海，那岂不更是自欺欺人吗？其次，信息时代的到来，使以读书破万卷这种方式来获取知识和发展社会显得更不经济，更无效率。信息时代，时间就是财富，时间就是发展，如何实现对时间的最优配置，是信息时代社会发展的首要任务。 辩词开头一句是褒，是扬，也是退，而且感情异常真挚，不能不使对手和听众感动。但随之一转，以确凿的事实和严密的逻辑强烈地抨击了对方“仍须读书破万卷”的观点。 以退为进法，“退”要把握好分寸，“进”要把握好火候，转折过渡要合情合理，不能授人以柄。 ★寻找借口，达到目的 唐朝武则天时期，严禁捕杀动物，连河里的鱼也在被保护之列。御史娄师德被派到陕西任职，刚到陕西，厨师用肉招待了他。娄师德问：“全国都禁止宰杀，怎么会有肉？”厨师毕恭毕敬地回答说：“是豺把羊咬死的。”娄师德说：“这豺真懂事。”过了一天，庖厨又为御史娄师德献上鱼。娄师德又问这鱼怎么来的，庖厨说：“这鱼是豺咬死的。”娄师德叱责庖厨说：“你真是太蠢了，不会说是獭咬死的吗？” 从这里我们看出，找借口还要找得巧，这样一来就需要动脑子想办法。 借口是人们在交际中为了达到某种目的而提出的假托理由。在必要的时候，如果你能借助巧妙的借口，促使交谈获得良好的结局，那反而是一件令人高兴的事。 一、拒绝他人的借口 自己不想在某种交际场合待下去时，也可以找一个合适的借口离开。 王处长到一个单位办事，快到中午了，领导非要留他吃饭不可，可是他和这个单位的另一个领导有些不和，不想和他同席，于是就找借口说：“实在对不起，今天中午我得回去，我有位朋友要来，我不能失约。” 这么一说，人家自然不便再强留。运用这类借口时必须注意，说出来的理由一定要比对方挽留的理由更充分，不好拒绝，才能达到目的。 有时，自己不想参与某事，就需要找一个借口加以拒绝，这既不失礼，又达到了目的。 有一个人约小李晚上看电影，小李不喜欢这个人，但人家是好意，自己不想使她下不来台，他不得不找借口，说：“很不巧，今天晚上我还有约会。”用这个借口回绝对方的邀请是恰当的。 这时的借口必须有正当的又不被人怀疑的理由才是成功的。如果所找的理由不足以使人家相信，这个借口就可能影响人际关系。 二、找借口成全别人 在家里，嫂子见小姑子的男朋友来了，就这么一间屋子，两个人说话不方便，嫂子微微一笑，说：“你们坐着，我上街买点儿东西。”她找了一个借口溜了出来。两个青年自然十分感激嫂子这个借口。 一般说来，这种借口是虚构的，是说假话，但却是善意的、积极的。 在交际过程中，如果发现自己继续在场是多余的，会妨碍他人正常交际时，就应找一个借口适时地退出现场，为别人创造一个理想的交际环境。 三、借口也能隐藏本意 有一个情窦初开的姑娘爱上了一个小伙子，但又不好当面开口，她几天没看见男青年，十分想念，想直接到他家去又怕别人笑话。于是她拿了一本书，来到他家，说：“我来给XX还书，他在吗？”小伙子的母亲说：“他这两天不舒服，在屋里，快进去吧。”这个姑娘就是借助了一个无可挑剔又遮人耳目的借口而达到了目的。 在人际交往中，有时不想把自己的真正意图暴露给对方，常常需要为自己的行为找一个美丽的借口，即找一个合理的事情来为自己打掩护。这种借口，既可推动交际成功，又不授人以柄，具有保护自尊的作用。 四、用借口争取时间 在交谈中，人们常常以“去洗手间”或打电话为借口。某公司经理在与一家外国公司谈判中，对方要价太高，不能接受。本来本公司已到了不签约就揭不开锅的地步，但自己的让步已经到了底线，再作更大的让步自己就没权了。于是，他说：“对不起，我去一下洗手间。”他离开现场，马上给公司董事长打了电话，请示怎么办。得到指示后，他心里有了底，又开始继续谈判，从而使谈判成功。 令人尴尬的场面也许人人都经历过，当你陷入某种难堪境地时，默不作声，生气乃至动怒，都难以摆脱窘境，而有时一两句机智、巧妙的话却可以打破沉寂，化解难堪，使你心中的不快烟消云散。 美国总统林肯在一次讲演中，一位先生递给他一张纸条，林肯打开一看，只有两个字“傻瓜”。林肯镇静地说：“本总统收到过许多匿名信，全都只有正文，不见署名，而今天正好相反，刚才那位先生只署上了自己的名字，却忘了给我写信。” 欧阳修也曾有过这样的故事。 欧阳修不喜欢佛教，如有人当他面谈佛事佛书，他往往给人家脸色看。但他小儿子的小名却叫和尚。有人问他：“您既然不喜欢佛，又排斥和尚，但为什么给您儿子起名为和尚呢？”欧阳修答道：“这正是因为我看不起和尚的缘故。就像如今人们常常用牛、驴来给幼儿起名字一样。”提问的人不禁大笑，对欧阳修的口才称赞备至。 显然，欧阳修找寻的理由，并非真正理由，但他却在一般人无言以对的时刻，找出如此令人信服的借口，这正是机智的表现。