Chapter 50 Chapter 5 Defensiveness in Debate

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. Franklin?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. 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 this 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.Zheng Fang 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 there should be 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 debate did not have the expected result because the debater did not understand 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 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 (whether 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 about the chicken-and-egg problem. 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.

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 defensive plan that is implemented in a planned manner 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: 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.

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. 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.

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 did not retaliate, but deliberately pretended to be very stupid. He read the newspaper upside down, but a sentence in English showed his extraordinary intelligence. Defeat your opponent with intelligence. 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 attended a celebrity banquet.During the dinner, a few Japanese ronin suddenly said, I have heard for a long time that Marshal Zhang 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. 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. But on the other hand, he asked Amin to find 9% of the money, using falsehood to control the falsehood, and instead became active. 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". 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?" The six-year-old Wang Yuanze didn't 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".