Chapter 20 Chapter 19 Logical Techniques in Debate

★Interpret debate topics and determine arguments In the debate on the field, the two sides of the debate draw lots on the spot.Once the topic of debate is determined, it is necessary to explain it in favor of one's own side.Be sure of your own arguments, and only attack when you are debating, pre-emptive, decent offense and defense, and easy to handle. Make an interpretation of the debate topic that is beneficial to your own side, and only through the evidence of the evidence can you gain a firm foothold and win by surprise. There are two ways to make a clever interpretation of the debate topic.

1. Definition In the 1986 Asian University Debate, the two sides drew the debate topic "foreign investment can ensure high economic growth in developing countries".Undoubtedly, from the point of view of the proposition, Zhengfang is at a disadvantage.In this regard, Zhengfang cleverly explained the problem, and did not open up new ideas. He pointed out at the beginning that "guarantee" does not mean "100% guarantee".And through illustrations, it opened up a broad stage for its own arguments, firmly grasped the initiative in the debate field, and finally won. The definition method is the most commonly used strategy in debate, especially when the debate topic is obviously unfavorable to one's own side.For example, in the debate topic "Money is everything", the affirmative side is obviously in a passive position.If the affirmative understands "universal" as a universal proposition, it is almost unreasonable and has nothing to say.Only by making an ingenious definition of "universal" that suits one's own side, and supporting it with some examples, can one gain a firm foothold and win by surprise.

The definition method is to define certain key words in the debate topic that are beneficial for oneself to use the facts, develop arguments, and win the audience, so as to preemptively strike and take the initiative. 2. Restriction Law In a university student debate, the two sides debated that "the advantages of middle school students' intercourse with the opposite sex outweigh the disadvantages".Obviously, this proposition is not conducive to the opposing side.In the face of passiveness, the opposing side strategically restricted the topic of debate ingeniously, changing the original topic of debate to "the opposite-sex communication of middle school students will do more harm than good if it develops."In this way, the cornerstone of one's own debate is greatly strengthened and the field of debate is expanded.

The method of restriction refers to the technique of subtly and appropriately putting forward some restrictions on the topic of debate when the situation is unfavorable to one's own side.Using this method can often receive the effect of bringing the dead back to life. The key to using the limitation method is that the limitation should be appropriate and ingenious. After the limitation of the topic of defense, one’s own side should be able to speak eloquently and easily, and the restriction should be seamless, so that people feel that there is no suspicion of tampering with the topic of defense. .Otherwise, if you leave the opponent with a handle, you will definitely lose.

★The beginning and the end are unified, and the front and back are complete The first and last are unified, and the front and back are complete. This is the most basic requirement for the logic of the debate.Only when the beginning and the end are unified and the front and back are complete can there be complete persuasion. Arguments must be filled with rigorous logical thinking.When doing logical thinking, people's thoughts must remain the same before and after.Keeping the same means that in the debate, the debater's thoughts must have certainty and consistency.Violation of this law will make the mistake of secretly changing concepts and topics.

A young man came to the coffee shop and first asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. After a while, he asked the waitress to replace the coffee with milk. After drinking the milk, he picked up his backpack and was about to go out.The service lady quickly reminded him: "Sir, you haven't paid the bill yet!" "What am I paying for?" "You drank milk, it costs two yuan a cup!" "I traded milk for coffee!" "The coffee is ours!" "But I gave you the coffee! I didn't drink it." The waitress was speechless. Obviously, exchanging unpaid coffee for unpaid milk is still equal to unpaid milk.The young man deliberately changed the different meanings between the unpaid milk and the paid milk, which violated the law of identity and belonged to sophistry.

Aesop, a famous fabler in ancient Greece, was a slave to nobles when he was young.Once, his master hosted a banquet, and the guests were all Greek philosophers at that time.The host ordered Aesop to prepare a banquet and prepare the best dishes to entertain the guests.Aesop specially collects the tongues of various animals and prepares a "tongue feast". When the banquet started, the host was taken aback and asked, "What's going on here?" Aesop replied calmly: "You told me to prepare the best dishes for these distinguished guests, and the tongue is the key to leading all kinds of knowledge. For these philosophers, isn't the 'tongue feast' the best dish?"

The guests were all nodded frequently by Aesop's words, and burst out laughing. The master ordered again to Aesop: "Then I will hold another banquet tomorrow, and the dishes will be the worst." But when the banquet was held the next day, the dishes served were still full of tongue.When the master saw this, he was furious.Aesop replied calmly: "Don't all bad things come from the mouth? The tongue is both the best and the worst thing!" The master was left speechless by Aesop. From one point of view, the tongue is indeed the best; from another point of view, it is the worst, the tongue is the unity of "good" and "bad".Aesop grasped the contradictory attributes of the "tongue" for debate, thereby conquering opponents and leaving people with deep rational thinking.

Keeping the same and coherent means that the debater's ideas and viewpoints must be certain and consistent in the debate.If we want to correctly understand objective things and start debates, we must abide by the law of identity.The certainty and consistency of thought in debates are the most basic requirements of the law of identity for debaters. In debates, debaters not only need abstract logical thinking, but also concrete dialectical thinking.This is because the objective world is very rich and specific, and each specific object contains certain differences and contradictions.To correctly understand and grasp objective things and win debates, it is necessary to grasp the differences and contradictions of things.In this way, thinking contains the unity of opposites, the unity of diversity, and the unity of diversity. This is the concrete law of identity in dialectical logic.Concretely applying the law of identity to debates is the art of concrete identity.In order to be invincible in the debate competition, we need to use the specific unity technique properly.

★There are causes and effects, looking for connections Any phenomenon has a certain reason, and any cause will produce a certain result. The causal connection is the most common and inevitable connection of objective things, and it is also one of the manifestations of the universal connection between phenomena. "Analyzing cause and effect, looking for connection" is a debate method that draws conclusions based on causal connections by finding out the cause of a certain phenomenon. ◎Look for connections between things In daily life, people often use causal arguments to express opinions and persuade others. Therefore, if there is a cause, there will be an effect, and if there is an effect, there must be a cause. We can use this logic to find the connection between things.

1. Exploring causes and seeking differences A professor of biology found through experiments that bats have the characteristics of live radar instead of ears, while another scholar held a different opinion.So, the two started a debate. Biology professor: "Why do bats fly so accurately in dark caves?" Scholar: "Because its eyes are particularly sharp, it can see the surrounding obstacles clearly in weak light." Biology professor: "Why can bats walk through dense woods at night?" Scholar: "Maybe it has anomalous night vision." Professor of Biology: "When we cover its eyes or make it blind, it can still fly completely normally. Why? If we remove the mask of its eyes and cover its ears, it can fly How do you explain that when you run into walls everywhere?" The scholar was speechless and had to admit defeat. The professor of biology investigated the different situations of covering the ears of bats and not covering the ears: the bats cannot fly normally if the ears are covered, but they can fly normally if they are not covered. , so it is concluded that bats detect directions with their ears.The professor of biology arrived at an irrefutable conclusion by correctly applying the method of finding the difference. This method is basically the same as the search for similarities above, except that the result of the search is "difference" rather than "sameness".The so-called finding the cause and finding the difference means that in several occasions where the phenomenon under investigation appears and does not appear, the other situations are the same, only one situation is different, so it is concluded that this different situation is the cause of the phenomenon under investigation. 2. Seek common ground In the 18th century, the Russian scientist Lomonosov argued in this way when defending his point of view at an academic conference: "We rub our frozen hands, and they warm up slowly; we beat hard on cold stones, and the stones glow with fire; we beat hammers on iron blocks, and they become hot . . and from this it follows that motion produces heat.” Lomonosov looked at different occasions when rubbing hands together, hitting stones, hammering iron, etc. caused heat.Other conditions on these occasions are different, but only one condition is the same, that is, exercise, so he concluded that exercise is the cause of fever, and exercise can generate heat. Searching for causes and seeking common ground is based on several occasions where the phenomenon under investigation occurs. If other situations are different but only one situation is the same, then it is concluded that the same situation is the cause of the phenomenon under investigation. 3. Find the cause of many of the same things When a researcher investigated the causes of ground subsidence in a certain city, he found that "areas where less groundwater is extracted, the ground subsides less; where more groundwater is extracted, the ground subsides more".He therefore concludes that "pumping groundwater is the cause of the subsidence of the ground".This is the method used here. This method means that when a certain phenomenon changes, the phenomenon under study also changes accordingly, so that it can be judged that the phenomenon is the cause of the phenomenon under study. This is an important method of debate.For a certain thing, this method can not only let the audience know what it is, but also let people know why. The correct use of this method is the basis for the use of logical relations in debates. ◎Deductive reasoning, debunking opponents Deduction refers to the logical method of deducing individual conclusions from general premises, which is a method from general to individual.Since the premise necessarily implies the conclusion, as long as the premise is true, the conclusion must also be true.As a reasoning process from the known to the unknown, deduction is of great help to enrich the debater's knowledge, increase the debater's experience, and strengthen the debater's ability.In a debate, correctly mastering and using the deductive reasoning method is not only conducive to our careful argumentation, expressing our own views in a water-tight manner, and not giving the opponent an opportunity to take advantage of it, but also using this method to grasp the opponent's reasoning in time. The handle, to expose the opponent's sophistry tricks.Therefore, deductive reasoning is also one of the logical methods often used by excellent debaters. A U.S. senator said to the American logician Berklee: "All communists attack me, you attack me, so you are a communist." Belcree immediately retorted: "That's a wonderful corollary. Logically, it's the same as the following corollary: All geese eat cabbage, and Mr. Senator eats cabbage, so Mr. Senator is also a goose." From the perspective of logic, Berklee refuted the opponent's point of view using a deductive method. The middle term of the senatorial debate was based on a false syllogism with an imprecise middle term. Berklee imitated this form of inference and came to the conclusion that "Mr. Senator is also a goose", which was naturally difficult for the other party to accept.In this way, the absurdity of the other party's reasoning is fully exposed. In deductive reasoning, the most common type is the "syllogism" in which two categorical judgments form a major and a minor premise and lead to a conclusion.Since a syllogism is a necessary reasoning, that is, its conclusion is deduced from premises, it is a powerful method of argument.We know that people often have to make judgments about individual things.The most convenient, effective, and at the same time the most convincing way to determine individual things is to cite general principles as the basis for argumentation. This deductive method of citing general principles to demonstrate individual things is the syllogism. A holy relic is treasured in the Cathedral of Turin, Italy. It is said that this is the fine linen cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus after his death. For more than 600 years, believers have debated its authenticity.One year, five students from the seminary came here. After seeing the shroud, they each expressed their opinions. Student A: I think this holy object is real.If it is fake, it cannot be treasured and worshiped by the faithful for 600 years. Student B: I also think it is true.Jesus was crucified on the cross. He bled a lot from his wrists and thighs when he died. Now I have seen blood stains on it with my own eyes, which shows that it is real. Student C: I think it is fake.According to experts' research, fine linen cloth did not appear until the 2nd century, but Jesus was killed in the 1st century AD, so it can be seen that this fine linen cloth cannot be a holy object. Student D: I am not sure whether it is true or not. It is best to use "carbon 14 isotope" to determine its age. If it is indeed a fabric from the 1st century AD, then it can be sure that it is a sacred object. Student Shu: I agree with B's point of view.In addition, it is better to use an instrument to determine the year of the blood on it. If it is close to the year of Jesus' death, it will be more convincing. From the perspective of argumentation, among the arguments of the above five seminarians, only student C's argumentation method is correct, while the others are all wrong.Because what they use is the conditional deduction method, but the premise of the conditional proposition of student A is false, and what students B, D, and Shu use is the wrong form of affirming the consequent in the conditional deduction. In a debate, if we want to refute the opponent's argument, we can either directly point out the error in the opponent's inference, or imitate the opponent's wrong inference form and draw a conclusion that makes the opponent feel embarrassed.This approach is also effective in exposing fallacies. ◎Push the boat with the current and take advantage of the momentum to fight back At the end of the 19th century, in the chamber of the British Parliament, there was a fierce debate that will last forever. At that time, a well-known political figure, Gladstone, launched a fierce attack on another famous political figure, Disraeli, and revealed a private inside story that was enough to destroy the other party. "Mr. Disraeli, I don't think much of your words and deeds. Putting nothing else aside, according to reliable sources, you have a venereal disease. Is there such a thing?" Gladstone was explicit and aggressive.As soon as this remark came out, everyone was shocked. All members of Congress held their breath, and the surroundings suddenly became silent and dead silent.Everyone wanted to see how Disley responded to this gravely insulting attack.Everyone focused their attention on Disraeli, expecting his answer. "Your words are not false at all. I got sexually transmitted diseases because I slept with your mistress." No one expected that Disraeli, who had suffered such great humiliation, would say such a sentence in a calm and unhurried manner. As soon as the voice fell, the entire hall suddenly burst into laughter, shaking the room, and the lingering sound lingered for a long time. Disraeli took advantage of the situation, and then took advantage of the situation to counterattack heavily, defeating Gladstone. Push forward according to the other party's thinking mode, or make deductive inferences based on the other party's core arguments, and finally draw an obviously wrong or absurd conclusion. In the autumn of 1982, a meeting of Chinese and American writers was held in Los Angeles, USA. At a banquet, the American poet Allen Ginsberg asked the Chinese writer Jiang Zilong to solve a strange riddle: "Put a chicken weighing 5 catties into a bottle that can only hold 1 catty of water. Take it out?" Jiang Zilong thought for a while, and then replied: "I will take it out as you put it in. Obviously, you put the chicken in the bottle just by talking, so I will use language as a tool to take the chicken out again." .” "You're the first person to solve this riddle," Ginsburg said. Jiang Zilong pushed the boat smoothly and solved this difficult mystery. In a debate, you can use this method to defuse the opponent's sharp words, first follow the opponent's momentum, and then use your strength to make a counterattack, catching the opponent by surprise. During the Southern and Northern Dynasties, Fan Zhen once wrote "On the Extinction of God", which believed that the body and the soul are one.He said: "God is the form, and the form is the spirit. If the form exists, the spirit will exist, and if the form fades, the spirit will disappear. The form is the essence of the god, and the spirit is the function of the form. If it is, the form calls its quality, and the god speaks its function. Form and spirit must not be different. God is to quality as it is to the knife; form is to function as the knife is to profit. The name of benefit is not the sword, and the name of the knife is not profit. There is no profit. I have never heard that the sword is gone but the profit is there, how can it be said that the body is dead but the god is there." As soon as this argument was put forward, there was an uproar in the government and the public, and people who believed in gods and Buddhas criticized Fan Zhen one after another, but no one could make Fan Zhen succumb. Wang Yannai of Taiyuan wrote an article to mock Fan Zhen: "Whoa Fanzi, I never knew where the gods of his ancestors are." Unexpectedly, Fan Zhen immediately responded to Wang Yan, saying: "Prince Wuhu, you know where the gods of your ancestors are, and you can't kill yourself to follow them." Wang Yan laughed at Fan Zhen for "not knowing" where the gods of his ancestors were, and Fan Zhen followed his lead, thinking that since you said I "don't know" where the gods of his ancestors are, you must know where the gods of his ancestors are ;Fan Zhen hits the nail on the head at this point, since you know where the ancestor spirit is, why don't you just kill yourself and go to the ancestor spirit?Fan Zhen took advantage of the situation to attack, and then launched a deadly counterattack, finally winning the debate. ★See through contradictions and win debates Seeing through contradictions is also a method of logic.Finding the opponent's loopholes and seeing through the opponent's contradictions are very important for quickly attacking the opponent.Seeing through contradictions is an effective way for us to win debates. ◎See through contradictions and attack the opponent In ancient times, there was a poor scholar who lived in a place between two rivers.One day, he invited Mr. Feng Shui to see if the place he lived was auspicious.Mr. Feng Shui found that the scholar's family was poor, so he said: "These two rivers have washed away the Feng Shui of your house." Later, the scholar won the first prize.The Feng Shui master came to the door without waiting for an invitation and said: "Zhuangyuan Lang, the place where you live is like a big bridge, and the two rivers are like two sedan chair poles to lift you up. How can you not be the champion!" What Mr. Feng Shui said before and after is like two different people. It can be said that "turning one's hand turns into cloud, and turning one's hand turns into rain". There are many such people in our lives.Consider the following example: According to legend, there is a person who likes to raise a bar, known as the "Boss of the Bar Shop".On this day, he set up a stage to challenge the eloquent people in the world. Tieguai Li rushed to the ring: "Battle head, Tieguai Li will compete with you." When the owner of the bar shop saw it, he said, "It turns out that the gods have arrived, so what can you do?" Tieguai Li replied: "Come and argue with you!" The shop owner asked, "Who will speak first?" Tieguai Li said: "You talk first." The shop owner asked, "Why did the Great Immortal descend to the mortal world?" Tieguai Li replied: "To save the people of Li." The owner of the bar shop asked again: "What are the immortal prescriptions for helping the world?" Tieguai Li replied: "The panacea in my gourd can cure all diseases." After hearing this, the owner of the bar shop laughed again: "You say that the panacea in your gourd can cure all diseases, but I can't see it." "Why do you say that?" Tieguai Li asked. The owner of the bar shop said calmly, "Since you can cure all kinds of diseases, why don't you cure your lame leg?" Tieguai Li had nothing to say at the time, and the "Boss of Gangpu" was indeed not in vain. If we carefully analyze the rebuttal of "the boss of the bar shop", we can see that in the debate, the debater's thinking not only requires certainty, but also requires coherence.That is to say, it is required that in the debate, thoughts and judgments must be consistent from beginning to end and consistent from beginning to end.Two contradictory or contradictory judgments cannot be true at the same time, at least one of which is false.By analyzing the opponent's debate, grasping the contradictions in it, and then exposing it, "use the spear of the son to attack the shield of the son", thereby exposing the absurdity of the opponent's debate and preventing it from succeeding. For some erroneous thoughts and viewpoints, if we can timely grasp certain paradoxes in the concept, judgment, and reasoning of the opponent, and use the original words to point out the logical contradictions that cannot be justified, the opponent's argument will be self-defeating. In the debate, we must be good at capturing logical contradictions in the opponent's words and counterattack, so that the opponent can fall into a self-contradictory situation. ◎Several manifestations of contradictions in logic 1. Contradictory judgments A man from Crete said: "Everything the Cretans say is a lie." A person who is good at debating asked him: "Is this a lie? If it is true, then Not everything Cretans say is a lie, because you are a Cretan; if your words are not true, then you are lying, since all Cretans say lies, this A sentence is also a lie, so we have to admit that what some Cretans say is not a lie.” In this case, the objector's rebuttal was indeed very powerful.This is because the refutors seized on the paradox of the Cretan: on the one hand, he said that all the Cretans said was a lie, and on the other hand, he claimed that what he himself, the Cretan, said was true. talk.Quick-thinking rebutters discovered the contradictions in his argument, and pointed out the contradictions in his language with the spear of the son and the shield of the son, and refuted the Cretan. If the opponent affirms two contradictory or opposing judgments at the same time, it must violate the requirements of the law of contradiction, and the opponent can be refuted by grasping this point and counterattacking. 2. Contradictory thinking In a debate, if the debater's thinking and opinions are inconsistent and inconsistent, it will produce self-contradictory and chaotic thinking.And if one can catch his confused thoughts and expose his contradictions, he can refute the debater. 3. Contradictory concepts Concepts are the cells of the mind.If the concepts contradict themselves, then there must be something wrong with the whole thought process. The words of the revolutionary teacher Engels when criticizing Duhring can fully illustrate this truth. (See the section "Attacking the Other Party's Contradictions" in Chapter 14.) In the case, Engels pointed out Dühring's self-contradiction: if it is infinite, it cannot be calculated; if it can be calculated, it is not infinite.Duhring combined "infinite sequence" and "computable" by force, and could only create absurd self-contradictory concepts such as "square circle" and "wooden iron".In a debate, you can attack the opponent if you catch a contradictory concept in the opponent's words. ◎Expose each other's contradictions There are many effective methods for exposing contradictions. You can directly expose the obvious contradictions that the opponent has appeared before and after, and you can also expose the implicit contradictions in his arguments, and you can also make a real proposition that contradicts the opponent's viewpoint.When these methods are used in debates, they can give full play to the combat effectiveness of criticizing gaps and guiding funds, making the opponent helpless. In 1983, US Secretary of State Schultz visited my country, and Deng Xiaoping met with him.When the two sides talked about the Huguang Railway bond case, Deng Xiaoping pointed out that the dispute over the Huguang Railway bond case was nothing more than something in someone’s pocket, which could be taken out at any time to cause trouble in Sino-US relations, and the US government should stop such behavior. Schultz explained: The judicial system in the United States is independent, and the government has no right to intervene.The few Americans who sued are nothing more than asking for some compensation, not creating trouble. Deng Xiaoping retorted: "In this way, the United States actually has three governments—the Congress, the Cabinet, and the courts. Which government should people deal with? If the Americans have the right to demand compensation from us, then we Chinese people must We have suffered so much loss from imperialist aggression and oppression for more than a hundred years, can we all order you to pay compensation?" Faced with Schultz's contradictory views, Deng Xiaoping analyzed them from various levels, relationships, and phenomena: first, he pointed out that the United States actually has three governments, and which of these three governments represents the United States is a cross-sectional contradiction. Then, according to the process of the development of Sino-US relations, make a vertical contradiction analysis, and combine horizontal thinking and vertical thinking, from the analysis of vertical and horizontal contradictions, reveal its substantive problems and refute them. In ancient Greece, the representative of the Sophists, Cratylus, often engaged in some sophistry.When Aristotle refuted him, he used the technique of anti-contradiction. Cratylus believes: "The affirmation or negation we make of anything is false." Aristotle retorted: "The proposition of Cratylus is equivalent to saying 'all propositions are false'. It is logically contradictory, because if all propositions are false, then the proposition 'all propositions are false' should itself be false; if the proposition 'all propositions are false' is not If the proposition of Cratylus is not included, then an exception is admitted, and the proposition 'all propositions are false' cannot be established." Aristotle's rebuttal was indeed powerful. He found that the other party's sophistry contained self-contradiction, and used one judgment of the other party to negate another judgment, thereby overturning the proposition of the sophist. ★Cleverly set the premise, implicit judgment Some clever questions themselves contain certain answers.Cleverly setting the premise may lead to the answer you want.This method is also often used by debaters. ◎Cleverly set conditions to win Cleverly setting conditions is a method of winning the debate by setting certain conditions and then making a judgment on the situation of things. Setting conditions is a unique method, mainly aimed at some vague, absurd, tricky, and even stupid questions from the other party. At a gala, the host asked a participant: "Under what circumstances is two plus three not equal to five?" The participant thought for a while and replied: "If one plus two is not equal to three, then two plus three is not Equal to five." The host affirmed this ingenious answer, and the audience burst into warm applause. Ingenious setting of conditions is a powerful and eloquent trick. To use it flexibly and freely, one must be good at grasping the necessary conditional connection between things, and skillfully set conditions based on this conditional connection.To do this, you must have ingenuity and on-the-spot adaptability. In life, many people use this method to engage in sophistry or set up traps for others, making people in a dilemma, so we must keep our eyes open and carefully identify their tricks. ◎ Identify the relationship and logical reasoning There is always a certain relationship between objective things. If we want to understand objective things and win debates, we must accurately grasp the relationship between objective things.Relational argumentation is a method of debate by accurately grasping the relationship between objective things. The famous American writer Mark Twain once answered reporters’ questions at a reception and said: “Some members of the American Congress are sons of bitches.” the indignation of politicians.However, as soon as the remark came out, the congressmen in Washington asked Mark Twain to apologize publicly, otherwise, the writer would be taken to court.In order not to suffer from punishment, Mark Twain not only issued an "apology speech" to some congressmen, but also published an "apology statement" consistent with the content of the apology speech in the "New York Times": A few days ago, I made a speech at a banquet, saying that "some members of the US Congress are sons of bitches".Afterwards, someone questioned me about Xingshi.I thought about it again and again, and felt that this statement was inappropriate and not in line with the facts.Therefore, I hereby publish a statement in the newspaper and amend my words as follows: "Some members of the US Congress are not sons of bitches." Here, Mark Twain admits that "some members of the U.S. Congress are sons of bitches" is "wrong", which is based on the premise that "some members of the U.S. Congress are not sons of bitches".Mark Twain used the relationship between things. In this method, according to whether the relationship between things is symmetric, it can be divided into three situations: symmetric, asymmetric, and antisymmetric.To win a debate, one must be good at grasping these different relationships between things, and then argue skillfully. In the Northern Song Dynasty, two relatives of the emperor went to the court to sue in turn due to the uneven distribution of property. The emperor didn't know what to do, so he handed over the case to the prime minister Zhang Qixian for handling.After Zhang Qixian learned about the case, he called all the complainants and asked: "You all think that the other party's property is divided more, and you share less, don't you?" "Yes!" Both sides answered in unison. Zhang Qixian recorded all their ideas and asked them to sign them.Then say: "Since you both said that the other party's property is divided more, now exchange your property, and both parties should be satisfied!" So he summoned two officials to take people from family A to family B and people from family B to family A. The people changed places without moving any property, and the documents for property distribution were exchanged.In this way, neither side has anything to say. Zhang Qixian's trick in handling this case is to correctly grasp the relationship of "less than".From a logical analysis, "less than" is an antisymmetric relationship, if A is less than B, then B must not be less than A.Both parties think that their share of property is less than that of the other party. If the property of both parties is exchanged, both parties will get what they think is more, so naturally there will be no words. ★Arranged in a dilemma, unable to advance or retreat Dilemma is a unique eloquent trick, which is frequently used in debates. Using the dilemma often makes the opponent unable to advance or retreat, and it is difficult to move an inch. ◎Application of Dilemma Reasoning Dilemma refers to a method of argument that exhausts all possibilities (usually two possibilities) and makes the opponent fail no matter which possibility he admits.Using the dilemma method often makes the opponent unable to advance or retreat.The dilemma method is frequently used in daily debate practice, but many people have not reached the level of self-awareness when using this method, so it is not rigorous and standardized, and is easy to be refuted.The correct use of this method requires grasping as much information as possible involved in the debate and the more comprehensive ideas of the other party, relying on the high-strength and rapid comprehensive ability to grasp the key points and arrange a tight ambush circle. In "Warring States Policy · Qin Policy", there is a story about Yongrui rescuing Wei Choufu.The Queen Mother of Qin Guoxuan loved Wei Choufu very much. The Queen Mother was seriously ill and ordered before she died: "After I die, Wei Choufu must be buried for me!" Wei Choufu panicked when he found out, so he begged Yongrui to save him.Yong Rui then said to the Empress Dowager: "Does the dead know?" The Empress Dowager said: "Ignorance!" Yong Rui said again: "If the Empress Dowager's spirit knows the ignorance of the dead, why use the person I loved before life for nothing? How about burying an unconscious dead person? If the deceased was really sentient, then the king must have been angry for a long time, and the queen mother doesn't even have enough time to make up for her mistakes, so how can she have the time to love Wei Choufu privately?" After hearing this, the queen mother was in a dilemma, so she had to withdraw the previous order, so that Wei Choufu would not die. What Yongrui said to the queen mother is a typical dilemma: If the dead are ignorant, then why use the ones you loved in vain to be buried with the dead?Therefore, Wei Choufu should not be buried with him; if the deceased knew it, it would be too late for the queen mother to take care of the late king, so how could she have the time to love Wei Choufu privately?Nor should Wei Choufu be buried with him. Therefore, Wei Choufu should not be buried with the empress dowager whether she was knowledgeable or ignorant after her death. "Dilemma reasoning" is an extremely powerful debate tool, and a person who is good at using it can make the opponent unable to escape his conclusion and fall into a dilemma.In ancient and modern China and abroad, debate masters are very good at using "dilemma", and there are vivid examples of using "dilemma reasoning" to make the other party in a dilemma. According to legend, Princess Wencheng is both smart and beautiful, familiar with scriptures, history, poems, and essays, and is proficient in ancient divination. She is a very knowledgeable woman.Many people proposed to her at that time.To many suitors, Princess Wencheng put forward a condition: whoever can ask a question that stumps her, she will marry.Many suitors raised many strange questions, but Princess Wencheng was able to answer them fluently, making them happy and disappointed. After Songtsan Gampo knew about it, he thought about it for several days and decided to use the "dilemma" to force him to submit.So Songtsan Gampo went to see Princess Wencheng, and he said frankly and earnestly to Princess Wencheng: "Excuse me, princess, in order to make you my wife, what questions should I ask to confuse you?" Without saying a word, the marriage was agreed. The reason why Princess Wencheng agreed to the marriage without saying a word was because Songtsan Gampo had set a "trap" in the question, no matter how she answered, she would fall into a dilemma. If the princess can tell Songtsan Gampo a question that can confuse her, then Songtsan Gampo can use this question to confuse Princess Wencheng, making Princess Wencheng Songtsan Gampo's wife; If the princess can't tell Songtsan Gampo the problem that can confuse her, then Songtsan Gampo's problem will confuse the princess, and Princess Wencheng will have to become Songtsan Gampo's wife; Either the princess can tell Songtsan Gampo, or she cannot tell Songtsan Gampo; 总之，文成公主都要成为松赞干布的妻子。 松赞干布的妙问，使文成公主左右为难，无法躲避，只得以身相许。 二难引申法通常是将对方的二难法中两个条件命题后件的位置互换，然后分别予以否定。 有一位旅客住进某旅馆，旅馆的设施看上去还可以。但是，当天夜里突然下了一场大雨，旅客发现卫生间漏水特别厉害，无法进去使用。于是，客人便打电话给经理，要求派人来维修。经理在电话中答道： “对不起，先生。现在天下雨，我们无法修理；天晴后，就又不需要修理了。天气不是下雨就是天晴，所以不是无法修理，就是不需要修理。” 而那位旅客当即针锋相对地反驳道： “经理先生，你说得不对。现在天下雨，就有修理的必要，如果天晴，就有修理的可能。天或者是下雨或者是天晴，所以或者是有修理的必要，或者是有修理的可能。” 这位聪明的旅客将经理两难推论中两个条件命题后件的位置互换了一下，并分别予以否定，这样就得出了与经理截然相反的结论，有力地驳斥了经理的谬论。 清代大学者纪晓岚自幼勤奋好学，当他还是个孩子的时候，就经常跑到书摊上去看书。掌柜见他光看不买，就不耐烦了，对他说： “小孩子，我们是靠卖书吃饭的，要看，就买回去看好了。” 纪晓岚说：“买书就得先看，不看，怎么知道哪本书好？” “你看了多少书，难道就没有一本好的？” “你这书摊上好书倒是不少，不过我看完后就能背了，还买它何用？” 掌柜想他是在瞎说，于是随手拿起一本纪晓岚刚看过的书说道：“要是你当着我的面把这本书背下来，我就把它白送你；要是背不下来，就永远别再来白看我的书了！” “好，一言为定！”纪晓岚当即把两只小手一背，仰头望天，果然把那本书背下来。 掌柜大吃一惊，赞叹这孩子他日必成大器，就把这本书送给了纪晓岚。 纪晓岚在与掌柜的辩论中，列举“看书”与“不看书”这两种情况，看书，看过就背下了所以不买；不看，不知道书好不好也不买，总之就是不买。这充分显示了作为一个孩子的纪晓岚的辩才。这里使用的方法就是二难制敌法。 要想用二难制敌术制服对方，就必须注意各路设卡，使对方无论做出何种选择都感到为难，这样才能使对方无法逃遁，束手待擒。 从前，有个县官非常可恶，凡来县衙打官司的百姓如果不给钱，就会被他打得死去活来。当地有个艺人编了出戏，叫《没钱就要命》。演出那天，县官也去了看戏，一看演的是他自己，当时就火了，没等戏演完，就回到县衙，命令衙役把这个艺人传来审问。那个艺人听说县官传他，就穿了龙袍，大摇大摆地跟着去了。县官一见艺人带到，便把惊堂木一拍，喝道： “大胆刁民，见了本官为何不跪？” 艺人指了指身上的龙袍说：“我是皇帝，怎能给你下跪？” “你在演戏，分明是假的！” “既然你知道演戏是假的，为什么还要把我传来审问？” 这位艺人在与县官的辩论中使用的就是二难制敌。他列举了“演戏是真的”与“演戏是假的”两种情况。如果是真的，则不能下跪；如果是假的，则不能审问他。弄得那个县官左右为难。 从前有个皇帝向全国宣布说：“如果有人能说出一件十分荒唐的事，使我说出这是谎话，那我就把我的一半江山分给他。”人们闻讯，纷纷来到王宫，说了各种弥天大谎，结果都被皇帝一一驳回。这天，一个农民挟着一个斗，来到皇帝眼前，说：“万岁欠我一斗金子，我是来拿金子的。”皇帝很恼怒，说：“一斗金子？我什么时候欠的？撒谎！”农民不慌不忙地说：“既然是谎话，那就给我一半江山吧！”皇帝急忙改口说：“不！不！这不是谎话。”农民笑着说：“那就给我一斗金子吧！” 这个农民巧用两难，各路设卡，皇帝说是谎话或不是谎话都感到为难，终于使得皇帝进退两难。 两难制敌术是一种神奇的雄辩绝招，有些诡辩者往往用错误的两难来发难，对此要巧妙破解。 正确地运用两难法要注意：前提中条件命题必须真实；析取命题必须将某个方面的情况列举完全；必须遵守条件命题、析取命题的有关推演规则。 ◎二难推理的形式 一、简单构成的二难推理 所谓“简单”，是因为这一推理的结论是一个简单判断（直言判断）；所谓“构成”，是因为在推理过程中运用了充分条件假言推理的肯定前件式，由肯定两个假言前提的前件而到肯定它们的后件。 古希腊有个国王，想把一批囚徒处死。当时流行的处死方法有两种：一种是砍头，一种是处绞刑。怎样处死这批囚徒？他决定让囚徒自己去挑选一种。挑选的方法是这样的：囚徒可以任意说出一句话来，而且这句话是马上可以验证其真假的。如果囚徒说的是真话，就处绞刑；如果说的是假话，就砍头。结果，囚徒或者因为说了真话而被绞死，或者因为说了假话而被砍头，或者是说了一句不能马上验证其真假的话，而被视为说假话砍了头，或者是因为讲不出话来而被当成说真话处以绞刑。 在这批囚徒中，有一位是极其聪明的。当轮到他来选择处死方法时，他说出了一句巧妙的话，结果使得国王既不能将他绞死，又不能将他砍头，只得把他放了。 这个聪明的囚徒说：“要对我砍头。” 这句话使得国王左右为难。如果真的把他砍头，那么他说的就是真话，而说真话是应该被绞死的。但如果把他处以绞刑，那么他说：“要对我砍头”便成了假话了，而假话又是应该被砍头的。或者绞死，或者砍头，都没有办法执行国王原来的决定，结果只得把他放了。 从推理形式看，这个囚徒是在国王面前构造了一个“简单构成式”二难推理：如果把他砍头，那么，会违背国王原来的决定；如果把他绞死，那么，也会违背国王原来的决定；或者把他砍头，或者把他绞死；总之，都要违背国王原来的决定。 二、简单破坏式的二难推理 所谓“破坏”，是因为在推理过程中运用了充分条件假言推理的否定后件式，由否定两个假言前提的两个后件而到否定它们的共同前件。 在一次外交场合，原苏联霸权主义者曾说：“中国反对缓和世界局势。”周恩来总理驳斥道：“你那么想缓和世界局势，为什么不做一两件事情，比如从捷克斯洛伐克或者蒙古撤退军队，归还日本北方四岛，来证明你的诚意呢？……” 周恩来总理的驳斥，雄辩地做了这样的推论：如果苏联霸权主义者真想缓和世界局势，那么就应该从捷克斯洛伐克或蒙古撤军；如果苏联霸权主义者真想缓和世界局势，那么就应该归还日本北方四岛；既然苏联霸权主义者不肯从捷克斯洛伐克或蒙古撤军，也不肯归还日本北方四岛，可见苏联霸权主义者不是真的想缓和世界局势，而是在制造世界紧张局势。 三、复杂构成的二难推理 所谓“复杂”，是与前面讲的“简单”相对而言的，指的是这一推论的结论是一个复合判断（选言判断）。其特点是：选言前提的两个选言肢分别肯定两个假言前提的不同前件，结论的两个选言肢分别肯定两个假言前提的不同条件。 一次，赵飞燕在汉成帝面前告班婕妤的状，诬陷她曾向鬼神诅咒过成帝。成帝听后大怒，遂传讯班婕妤，眼看她就要大祸临头了。 但聪明伶俐的班婕妤没有惊惶失措。传讯中，班婕妤从容地回答说：“妾闻'死生有命，富贵在天'修善尚且不能得福，做坏事还能得到什么呢？假使鬼神有知，它们就不会接受坏人的诉说；假使鬼神无知，向它们诅咒又有什么好处呢？因此，我是不会那样做的。” 成帝闻听，甚感言之成理，遂命班婕妤退处后宫。班婕妤靠着她的如簧之舌，使一场凭空飞来的横祸，化险为夷。在她巧妙的回答里，她首先没有正面回答自己有没有向鬼神诅咒，而是把成帝一方的注意力引向另一个有利于她自己的话题——“鬼神天命”。 如果鬼神有知，它们不会接受坏人的诉说； 如果鬼神无知，向它们诅咒没有什么用处； 或者鬼神有知，或者鬼神无知； 总之，或者不会接受诅咒，或者诅咒无用。 通过这个二难推理说明，无论鬼神为哪种情况，诅咒成帝都对自己没有好处，从而雄辩地证明自己没有向神明诅咒过，非常有利地向成帝澄清了是非。 四、复杂破坏的二难推理 复杂破坏式的特点是：选言前提的两个选言肢分别否定两个假言前提的不同后件，结论的两个选言肢分别否定两个假定前提的不同前件。 隋文帝杨坚不相信墓地风水之类的鬼话，他用自己家庭的具体事实来证明风水不可信。他是这样论证的：“我家墓地，若云不吉，我不当贵为天子；若云吉，我弟不当战死。”整理成逻辑推理形式则是： 如果说我家墓地不吉利，那么，我就不会当皇帝； 如果说我家墓地吉利，那么我弟弟就不会死在战场上； 现在我当了皇帝，而我的弟弟却死在战场上，可见，我家的墓地谈不上吉利，也谈不上不吉利。 “二难术”是极有力量的辩论工具，善用的人可以使对方逃不出他的结论而陷入两难境地，无论古今中外，雄辩大师们都极善于使用“二难术”，生活中也随处可见用“二难术”令对方进退维谷的生动例子。 ◎设置两难左右夹击 在论辩中设置两难，其推理要严密，不能给对方任何缝隙，否则，不但无法驳倒对方，自己反倒会一败涂地。这就要求在一开始即堵死对方回答问题的几个可能路口，使他无论如何都必须按照你的意愿掉进“陷阱”而无路可逃。 古时有个国王，自吹听遍了世上所有的故事。有一天，他向全国发了一道诏示：谁能讲一个国王没有听过的故事，国王就把独生女儿嫁给他，并赐给他很多钱。消息一传出，天天都有人跑来给国王讲故事，但国王总是摇摇头说：“唉，早听过了。”讲故事的人无可奈何。 一天，一个农夫来到国王跟前说：“我讲一个绝妙的故事，我敢保证，您一定没听过。” 国王看着这个穷农夫，根本没把他放在眼里。只听农夫不慌不忙地讲道：“很久很久以前，您的祖父欠了我祖父一大笔钱，到了您父亲手上，这钱连本带利就欠得更多了。到了您手上，您不但欠我比您父亲更多的钱，还欠我一个女人。”农夫讲完，脸上堆着笑问道：“陛下，这个故事你听过没有呢？” 国王脸色骤变，懊悔不迭。但他的许诺早已家喻户晓，为了维护国王的威信，他只好把独生女儿嫁给了农夫，并赐给农夫很多钱。 ◎针对两难的反击战术 双刃术是针对诡辩者错误的二难推理，驳论者不是直接以正确的推理来回击对方的错误推论，而是另外再去构造一个同样错误、同样不合理的与该二难推理相反的二难推理，然后以包括对方的推论在内的两个“二难推理”为理由来反驳对方。这种方法我们可以叫它双刃术。 乔治在卡其乐公司当职员，他为人正直，主持正义，爱说公道话。他的朋友劝他：“你何必如此？批评了老板，老板恨你；批评了雇员，雇员恨你。你无论批评老板，还是批评雇员，总会有人恨你。” 乔治莞尔一笑说：“恰恰相反。我如果批评老板，雇员喜欢；如果批评雇员，老板喜欢。我或者批评老板，或者批评雇员，总是有人喜欢，我何乐而不为呢？” 朋友张口结舌、无言以对。 这种方法是辩论的一种有效武器，在某些特殊的场合，它甚至可以使你在“山穷水尽”之时绝处逢生、出奇制胜。 “双刃术”的运用，与“二难术”相比较，方法略为简单些。因为它无需像“二难术”那样要选取“关节点”，可直接利用对方假言前提的条件（前件），导出与之相反的结果（后件），继而推出与之相反的结论。这种反驳针锋相对，显得更为有力。例如：有些不爱学习的人曾这样为自己的惰性开脱：如果一个人是“天才”，那么就用不着努力（因为他不努力也比别人聪明）；如果一个人不是“天才”，那么也用不着努力（因为努力也没用）。一个人或是“天才”，或不是“天才”，总之，都用不着努力。这里边就包含一个错误的“二难推理”，其错误在于支持前提的理由站不住脚，假言前提不能成立。 ★虚实相克，左右逢源 以虚克实，才能出奇制胜。虚而显实，弱而示强，两者交相辉映，能达到以少胜多、以弱胜强的境界。 ◎以虚克实，出奇制胜 论辩时运用以“虚”克“实”，以“实”制“虚”法，可以左右逢源，主动、灵活。 在莎士比亚剧中，描述了鲍西娅巧用计谋战胜夏洛克的故事。安东尼奥借了夏洛克3000金币，夏洛克为了报复安东尼奥，提出条件：如果到期还不上，就从安东尼奥身上割下一磅肉，狠毒的夏洛克还要安东尼奥立下借据为凭。借期到了，安东尼奥无力偿还夏洛克的钱，夏洛克执意要从安东尼奥身上割下一磅肉来，并告到法院。 这时，鲍西娅扮成律师为安东尼奥辩护，她对夏洛克说：“你得请一位外科大夫，免得他流血过多，送了命。”夏洛克非置安东尼奥于死地不可。他说：“借据上没有这一条。”鲍西娅说：“这借约上写的是给你一磅肉，可没有给你一滴血，这说明割一磅肉时不能出一滴血。另外，割的肉，不能多于一磅，不能少于一磅，否则都是违反契约的，那将受到法律的制裁。”夏洛克左右为难，只得作罢。 这里鲍西娅运用了以虚克实的方法制服了论敌。“一磅肉”是一个很实在的概念，割肉时如果不多不少，不出血地正好割下一磅那是不可能的，无论如何都会出现意外，而这“意外”是虚的，而这虚的总会存在。以虚克实使夏洛克陷入了进退不能的境地。 以虚克实是虚实相克法的一种，除此以外，还有以实克虚、以虚克虚。 以实克虚法是指当论敌运用一些虚幻的、无法验证的论题来为难我们时，我们反其道而行之，以一些具体的、实在的论题回敬之，从而取得论辩的主动权。 从前，有位财主召来在他家打长工的刘伯要他回答一问题，看天地之间有多长距离？如果答不出来就扣发一年的工钱。 刘伯百思不得其解，回到家中，小儿子知道了此事，第二天来到财主家。当财主问起这个问题时，小儿子说：“天地之间相距1234567公里，一点不多，一点不少。” “你是怎么知道？可靠吗？”财主问刘伯的小儿子。 “请大人自己去量量，如果不对，我爹甘愿受罚。”刘伯的小儿子得意地说。 财主出的难题是一个虚假的数，是不存在的，刘伯的小儿子聪明机灵，报它一个实数，并要财主自己去验证，这着实给财主将了一军。这样也就有效地回答了财主的难题。 生活中，有些人故意刁难别人，凭空虚构一个虚假的命题，让人左右为难，对此，我们也如法炮制，虚构出相应的“虚”与之对抗。 阿凡提开了个小染坊，巴依很想刁难他一下。这天，巴依来染布，对阿凡提说：“阿凡提，我染的颜色普通极了，它不是红的，不是蓝的，不是黑的，也不是白的，不是绿的，不是黄的，也不是青的，你明白了吗？” 阿凡提说：“我明白了，我一定照办。” “那么，我哪一天来取咧？” “你就到那一天来吧！不是星期一，也不是星期二，也不是星期三和星期四，也不是星期五和星期六，更不是星期日。巴依，你知道了吗？” 巴依哑口无言。 巴依染布否定了所有的颜色，是一个“虚”概念；阿凡提以牙还牙，排除来取染布的任何一天，也是一个“虚”概念，以虚制虚，令巴依无言以答。 ◎虚而显实，弱而示强 虚张声势是指故意假装出强大的声势来吓唬人的一种策略。《百战奇法·虚战》云：“凡与敌战，若我势虚，为伪示以实形，使敌莫能测其虚实所在，必不敢轻与我战，则我可以全师保军。”所以，虚张声势也是在面临危机时的一种应变术。 当年，刘邦为夺关中，9月领兵抵达跷关（陕西兰阳东南）。跷关为兰阳与关中的交通要隘，易守难攻，为抢夺咸阳的东南大门，是兵家必争之地。因此，秦军派有十分精锐的兵力把守。而刘邦当时手下只有2万人马，如不顺利地拿下此关，项羽就有抢先夺去关中的可能。刘邦心急如焚，想强行攻取。张良经过调查，认为秦兵势强，如果妄动，不仅会消耗自己的实力，而且还会拖延入关时间。于是向刘邦提出智取之策：一方面虚张声势，在跷关四周山上多张旗号，以迷惑守关秦军，扰乱敌心；另一方面针对守关秦将喜好小利的特点，派人携重金贿赂守关将领。果然，跷关守将见刘邦军兵声势浩大，甚是惶惧；同时又贪恋钱财，终于倒戈。刘邦引兵过关，向西挺进，兵叩咸阳。 唐太宗李世民在少年时，也曾用虚张声势之计，吓退敌军。 大业年间，隋炀帝率军与突厥作战失利，被困于雁门关外。炀帝命人将诏书系在木块上，投入汾水中，向下游郡县告急，命他们募兵援救他。当时李世民在将军云定兴帐前供职。李世民了解到前方的敌情之后，对云定兴说：“敌人胆敢围困天子，是因为他们料定我主力无法及时增援。因此，如今我们如果将兵力分散，拉开数十里的行列，白天要让敌人看得见旌旗，夜晚要让敌人听得见更鼓声，敌军不知虚实，一定会以为大批援兵迫近，这样，就可以不战自退。”云定兴听从了李世民的意见，依计而行。突厥的侦察哨远远地看见隋朝大军浩浩荡荡，连绵不绝，立刻飞报可汗。突厥可汗果然中计，连忙撤去了包围隋炀帝的军兵。李世民初入军旅，便献此虚张声势之计，兵不血刃，吓退敌军，解除了隋炀帝的危急，由此，他也获得了极高的声誉。 虚张声势在于虚而显实，弱而示强。这也经常被用在辩论中，是战胜对手的一个有力的武器。 ★诱惑对方，肯定自己 因势利导才能水到渠成。诱导对方否定自己，才是对自己的肯定。 在《庄暴见孟子章》中有一段这样的精彩论辩： 孟子进见齐宣王，问：“你曾经告诉庄暴说您爱好音乐，有这么回事吗？” 齐宣王有些不好意思，只得据实而说：“我并不是爱好古代音乐，只是爱好一般的流行音乐罢了。” “只要您非常爱好音乐，那齐国便会很不错了。无论您爱的是现在的流行音乐，还是古代的音乐都是一样的。” 齐宣王说：“这个道理可以说给我听听吗？” 孟子说：“一个人单独地欣赏音乐的快乐，跟大家一起欣赏音乐的快乐，究竟哪一个快乐呢？” 齐宣王说：“当然跟大家一起欣赏更快乐。” 孟子说：“跟少数人欣赏音乐的快乐，跟多数人欣赏音乐的快乐，究竟哪一种更快乐呢？” 齐宣王说：“当然是跟多数人一起欣赏更快乐。” 孟子立即接着说：“那么，就让我和你谈谈欣赏音乐和娱乐的道理