Chapter 19 The fifth argument is rigorous and impeccable

★Use of concepts Debate is inseparable from the explanation and elaboration of concepts.Concepts are reflections of the inherent essential attributes of objective things.It is the most basic unit of thinking.Debates must conform to certain logical laws, and concepts must pay attention to certain skills. ◎Pay attention to the connotation of the concept——definition In the final debate of the 1988 Asian University Debate Contest on "Confucianism can resist the unhealthy trends of the West", the definition of "resistance" by the Fudan University team was as follows: When we say defense, of course we mean effective defense, like wearing a padded jacket to keep out the cold, on the premise that you don’t feel cold; of course defense means effective defense, which means keeping the enemy out of the country.

And the definition of Zhengfang Taiwan University team is: We believe that suppressing the tide of unhealthy trends in the West is called resistance.We know that it is not necessary to fight abroad to resist the enemy.The enemy is very tough. After he invades the country, he has to slowly resist it. To resist the enemy outside the country is called anti-aggression, not resistance. Both the pros and cons of this debate pay great attention to the definition of the basic concepts they use in order to create a favorable debate situation for themselves.But in the debate, the debaters often only pay attention to the definition that is beneficial to themselves, in order to express their own views and refute the views of the other party, and tend to ignore the connotation of the concept, which actually has its objective content.If the opposing parties cannot unify the connotation of the same concept used by each of them in this objective content, there will be no consensus, and the debate will not be able to find the focus of the real confrontation.The judges of the debate quoted above also believed that because of the different definitions of the concept of "defense", the debate failed to produce a real confrontation.It can be seen that in the debate, when the debater defines the concept, he must pay attention to two points: one is to conform to the objective reality. The focus of the debate; the second is to try to make the definition of the concept beneficial to oneself, so as to gain the initiative of the debate.

Definition is one of the main methods to clarify the connotation of concepts.In modern debates, defining concepts is of special significance, because it is often the basis for the arguments of all parties.An appropriate definition can often put the debater in a favorable position for debate. ◎Clarify the extension of the concept——division Definition focuses on clarifying the connotation of the concept; division focuses on clarifying the extension of the concept. In the debate mentioned above, the Fudan University team on the opposing side had this debate: ... Confucianism does not provide specific means to resist the unhealthy tendencies of the West. Due to historical limitations, Confucianism lacks an analysis of the complex causes of the unhealthy tendencies of the modern West.The social, cultural, and economic structures of the era in which Confucius and Mencius lived were very different from the social structure of modern Western industry. To use Confucianism to resist Western unhealthy trends is tantamount to using the spear and shield of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. Resist the modern-day AIDS that the other classmate is willing to talk about?is it possible?There are many reasons for the emergence of Western unhealthy tendencies: economic, cultural, psychological, social, etc., but the medicine of Confucianism alone cannot be effective.

Here, the opponent divides the causes of the "Western unhealthy trend" into economic, cultural, psychological, social and other aspects, thus clarifying its extension and enabling people to have a clearer understanding of the concept of "cause" . The division can be carried out according to different bases according to the needs.In debates, debaters often look for angles that are beneficial to themselves to divide concepts. In the final debate of the 1986 Asian University Debate Contest on "the advantages of developing tourism outweigh the disadvantages", the Chinese University of Hong Kong team had the following debate:

Measuring the pros and cons is a very complicated issue. The pros and cons not only include the quantity, but also the strength and weakness.One big advantage outweighs several small disadvantages.We should also pay attention to the deep-rooted problem. A benefit that can bring many other benefits is far better than a benefit that cannot bring collateral benefits.And most importantly, regarding its inevitability, one inevitable advantage is much more important than ten possible advantages. This passage divides "benefits" into how many, big and small, deep-rooted interests and interests that do not bring incidental benefits, inevitable interests and possible interests.In this way, the Chinese University of Hong Kong team took advantage of this division to help them strive for victory in the affirmative debate, because they advocated that "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages".

◎Properly limit and generalize concepts In the debate between National Taiwan University and Fudan University on "Confucianism can resist the unhealthy trends of the West", the Fudan University team once said: In fact, in a society ruled by Confucianism, extreme individualism is viciously inflated, teenagers in colorful costumes gather in groups, pornographic violence is rampant, and family responsibilities are becoming weaker and weaker. Here, "society" is limited to "the society ruled by Confucianism" to emphasize that Confucianism cannot resist the unhealthy trends of the West.

Then they said: Confucianism is a kind of ethic egoism, and it needs certain conditions for it to have a direct effect on specific social behaviors.No idea can directly affect social behavior, it needs to be implemented concretely, and empty truths are not worth a specific practical action... Here again, Confucianism is conceptually generalized and transitioned to "any thought" to emphasize that any thought "cannot directly affect social behavior and needs to be implemented concretely." Of course, Confucianism is no exception. Fudan University has limited and generalized the concept very well, which is very useful.

In addition, we must also pay attention to the relationship between concepts. For example, in the debate on "Confucianism can resist the unhealthy trends of the West", the Taiwan University team, as the affirmative, pointed out: ...Resisting does not mean eradicating. Only one day, when the Western evils are gone, that is, when Confucianism penetrates into everyone's heart and turns into every inch of action, can it be resisted.Therefore, resistance does not mean elimination, and the existence of Western unhealthy trends does not prove that Confucianism cannot resist Western unhealthy trends.The point of view of the two logical inferences should be a small mistake.

Here, it is pointed out that the relationship between the two concepts of "resistance" and "elimination" is not the same, so they cannot be used interchangeably. Distinguishing the relationship between concepts can make the concepts clear and precise, which is another important aspect to ensure the correct use of concepts in debates. ★Use of judgment Judgment is the most powerful tool for expressing one's own point of view and criticizing the other's point of view, and it is the basis for smooth reasoning.The application of judgment is directly related to the use of logical relationships in debate.

◎The judgment made should be appropriate Judgment consists of four parts: the object to be judged—the subject, the quantity of the subject—quantity, the content of the judgment on the subject—the object, the copula that connects the relationship between the subject and the object—associated items . Proper use of judgment in debate should take care to make all four parts accurate. 1. Quantity items should be exact The quantity item is the quantity that expresses the main item, so the quantity item is exact, and the scope of this judgment can be clarified.Judgment items can be divided into full name and special name.The full weighing item refers to all, all, and all main items; the special weighing item refers to partial, several, and individual main items.The full weighing item can generally be omitted, but the special weighing item must not be omitted.

2. The subject and object of the judgment must be related It is necessary to determine the correlation between the subject and the object of the judgment: if it has a positive relationship, it is related; if it has a negative relationship, it is also related.If there is neither a positive relationship nor a negative relationship between the subject and the object, it is irrelevant.If the subject and the object of a judgment are irrelevant, that is, there is no assertion about the object of the judgment, then the judgment is wrong, or there is no need to make a judgment at all. Third, the joint item must be exact Because the joint item connects the subject item and the object item, it should indicate whether the judgment is affirmative or negative. Therefore, no error or ambiguity in the joint item is allowed. The exactness of the terms determines the nature of the judgment. ◎ Appropriately use the relationship between judgments Whether a judgment is correct or not depends mainly on whether its various parts are exact.Briefly, there are the following relationships: 1. Selection judgment Alternative judgment is the judgment of certain possible situations for asserting things.This relationship between judgments requires a choice from a variety of possible situations.There are two situations: one is a compatible selection relationship, that is, various situations can coexist at the same time; the other is an incompatible selection relationship, that is, various situations cannot coexist at the same time, either choose this situation, or Choose that situation. When using the selection of words to judge, we should also pay attention to whether the selection of words is exhausted.The authenticity of an allegative judgment can only be guaranteed when its optional limb exhausts all possibilities; This selective judgment will be false, untrue, and unreliable.There is a joke that says: A man passes a city gate with a bamboo pole, and he can’t get through by holding it horizontally, vertically, or horizontally. Someone gives him an idea: "If you saw two sections, can you pass it?" The man actually did so.The possibilities listed in their selection judgments are not completely exhausted. In fact, they can pass through the city gate freely by holding the bamboo pole back and forth without damaging the bamboo pole. What they left out is the most correct choice. Method. 2. Joint statement judgment Joint statement judgment is the judgment to conclude that several things and situations exist at the same time.The adequacy and reliability of a joint statement depends, in the final analysis, on whether all its joint statements are simultaneously true.If each of the joint parts is true, then the whole joint judgment is true; if one of the joint parts is false, then the whole joint judgment is unreliable and inappropriate.Therefore, to correctly use the joint statement judgment in the debate, one must pay attention to whether different situations in the judgment exist at the same time, that is, to determine whether the joint statement is judged; the second is to pay attention to the fact that each joint statement must be true. 3. Hypothetical judgment Hypothetical judgments generally consist of two limb judgments.Among them, the judgment that expresses the condition is called the antecedent; the judgment that expresses the existence of the condition is called the latter, and the connecting word between the two is called the connecting item. Hypothetical judgments can be divided into sufficient conditional hypothetical judgments and necessary conditional hypothetical judgments.Sufficient conditional hypothetical judgment asserts that if there is an antecedent, there must be a consequent, and if there is no antecedent, it does not mean that there is no consequent. The truthfulness and appropriateness of a hypothetical judgment does not depend on whether the antecedent and the latter are true, but whether the relationship between the antecedent and the latter can correctly reflect the conditional relationship between things. "If language can produce material wealth, then the boastful person will become the richest person in the world." This is a hypothetical judgment, its antecedents and consequences are false, but it reflects the relationship between things. Necessarily connected, therefore, the whole judgment is true and proper. ★The use of reasoning Debate can't just be the accumulation of concepts, nor can it just make some simple judgments.When proving the correctness of one's own point of view and refuting the mistakes of the opponent's argument, it is more important to use the logical method of reasoning.Because it is always necessary to connect various related concepts and judgments in debates, and derive new judgments based on known judgments, therefore, debates are inseparable from the use of reasoning. ◎Inductive reasoning Reasoning from individual to general is a reasoning method that derives general conclusions from the premise of individual knowledge.There are two methods of inductive reasoning: complete induction and incomplete induction: 1. Complete induction It is to sum up every individual object in the same kind of things without omission, so as to summarize their common attributes.Since the complete induction method studies all objects of the same kind, and draws a general conclusion based on their having (or not having) a certain attribute, this conclusion must be true and reliable. In a debate, when we use this completely inductive method to reason, if our judgments on those individual phenomena are true and exact, and the object of judgment is the whole of the same kind of things, without any omission, then the deduced The conclusions drawn must be true.This certainly lends great persuasive force to the arguments we debate. 2. Incomplete induction It is very time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform a complete induction on too many individual objects contained in the same kind of things. Moreover, the number of individual objects contained in some similar things cannot be counted or exhausted, so it is impossible to perform a complete induction.Therefore, when conducting inductive reasoning, more people still use incomplete induction. ◎Syllogism reasoning method Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning.Deductive reasoning is from general to particular reasoning.It takes universal knowledge as a premise and deduces conclusions with individual knowledge.A syllogism is a commonly used method in deductive reasoning. It consists of three judgments. The first two judgments are known judgments, called the major premise and the minor premise, and the last one is a new judgment introduced, called the conclusion.Syllogism is a kind of reasoning of necessity, and its conclusion is reliable and persuasive. To use syllogism reasoning, it must be done: the premise must be correct and true; the reasoning must be logical. If the premise is wrong, the conclusion must be wrong. The reason why this conclusion is wrong is because the major premise "language is classed" is wrong. If the reasoning is illogical, the conclusion will be wrong. ◎Analogical reasoning From the same properties of two individual objects, it is inferred that they have other properties that are also the same.This is reasoning from particular to particular. The objective basis of analogy reasoning is that the attributes of objective things do not exist in isolation, they are interrelated and restricted. Therefore, if two objects have the same series of attributes and one of them has other attributes, then Another object may also have the same properties. Analogy reasoning is of great significance in people's understanding and transformation of the objective world.The reasoning by analogy is specific, persuasive, and instructive, but its conclusion is not very certain and reliable, so it can be used in debates. When using it, it should only be used as an auxiliary means of argumentation, and it should also be used in conjunction with other arguments. Inference methods are used in combination.