Chapter 14 Chapter 14 Debating Eloquence

The topic of debate in the debate will not be particularly beneficial to one party, but particularly unfavorable to the other party.General debate topics must take into account the original balance of the two sides of the debate, and the basic equality of the two sides.It is only because of the different interpretations and analysis angles of the two sides that the debate is doomed from the very beginning.Whether the topic is solved in the debate is directly related to the success or failure of a game.The disadvantaged party can turn the disadvantage into an advantage by solving the problem.In a balanced situation, one side can also gain an advantage by cleverly solving the problem.

Then, to solve a good question, the first step is naturally to analyze the debate topic, and the purpose of analyzing the debate topic is to distinguish the meaning of the topic and find out the differences.Distinguishing the meaning of the topic is to grasp the meaning of the topic. It is necessary to clarify the connotation and extension of the concepts in the topic, and at the same time understand the background of the topic.Because the background of the proposition is the context of the concepts used, it directly affects the connotation and extension of these concepts.For example, the topic of "trade protectionism can be suppressed" has various historical and social backgrounds for the emergence, development, change and suppression of trade protectionism.Without understanding these background conditions, it is impossible to accurately and comprehensively grasp the meaning of the concept of "trade protectionism", and it is also impossible to determine whether to take a positive or negative attitude towards "can be suppressed", so understanding the background is helpful to better Geographically understand the meaning of the question.Only by clarifying the meaning of the question can we analyze its consensus points and controversial points, and then we can accurately find the differences and form our own arguments.

Although a certain amount of evidence has been mastered after the argument is formed, in order to better demonstrate one's own argument and be able to handle it freely and handily in the debate, it is necessary to collect sufficient arguments, such as facts, theoretical materials or metaphors, analogous materials.Materials are the basis for proving a proposition and constituting a defense.Without materials, a proposition becomes water without a source, a tree without roots, and an argument is meaningless. How can it be convincing? The scope of materials should be as broad as possible, and it is better to think of them than to use them, and not to ignore them because they are useful.Otherwise, you will feel stretched when conceiving your defense.All materials that are helpful for a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the content of the debate topic, as well as evidence that can enhance the persuasiveness of the propositional argument, should be widely collected for on-the-spot use.

Collecting evidence can start from four aspects: necessary, true, typical, and novel. required.It refers to the necessary evidence materials to prove one's own argument or refute the opponent's argument.It is an argument related to one's own point of view, that is, one's own point of view can be deduced from it, or the other side's point of view can be overturned. reality.Truth is the life of arguments, and only authentic and reliable arguments can prove the correctness of one's own arguments.Whether it is a factual argument or a theoretical argument, it is necessary to identify the authenticity and verify that it is correct.If the argument is distorted, it is likely to be used by the other party. This stake is self-evident.

typical.Whether the argument can effectively prove the argument depends on whether it is typical.The so-called typical arguments are representative arguments that reflect the nature of things.Such an argument is very convincing. novel.Novel arguments are refreshing, engaging, and surprisingly effective.Therefore, the choice of novel arguments will definitely have the effect of getting twice the result with half the effort in the argument. Determining the strategy is a more critical part of the debate, mainly arranging offensive and defensive strategies.Attack is to determine the methods and ways to prove one's own arguments, and to refute the methods and ways of the opponent's arguments.Defense is to determine the method and task path to resist the opponent's criticism.To determine the offensive and defensive strategy, we must know ourselves and the enemy.On the one hand, we must fully assess whether our arguments are correct, whether the arguments are sufficient and reliable, whether the arguments are sufficient and rigorous, whether the methods of defense and offense are appropriate, whether the overall cooperation is close, whether the materials related to the debate topic are prepared adequately, and whether these materials can be used well. to improvisation etc.This is "confidant".

On the other hand, it is necessary to fully understand the other party, not only understand their debate views and strategies, but also the other party's personal conditions, such as psychological quality, knowledge, hobbies, life experience, advantages and disadvantages, and the strengths and weaknesses of their overall cooperation, etc. It should be well understood.This is "knowing the enemy".Only by knowing yourself and the enemy can you use your own strengths to attack others' weaknesses.Determine the strategy in this way, and it is expected to win a hundred battles. After analyzing the debate topic and establishing a strategy, it is best to conduct a battle drill to simulate the upcoming debate on the spot.Drills are a simulation of actual debate, and an important way to know yourself and your enemy before the debate.Through exercises, you can fully expose your own loopholes in the preparation work, and you can compare which method and technique is more suitable for the upcoming debate, so that you can further modify and improve your own debate plan to make it more sufficient and more effective. targeted.At the same time, the exercise is also an exercise for the debaters to make real arguments on the spot.Therefore, it can be said that the exercise itself is not only a part of the preparations before the debate, but also a comprehensive inspection of the previous preparations.During the exercise, check whether the determined strategies are feasible, whether there are loopholes, and whether they need to be revised or supplemented in order to further improve these strategies.This kind of exercise can train the debaters, improve their consciousness of participating in the debate, and strengthen their adaptability on the spot.What is more important is to find and solve problems during the drill.Therefore, a battle exercise is a good way to test and improve the preparations before the debate.

In a debate, the prerequisites for establishing an argument are pertinence, clarity, scientificity, and originality. Debate is the interaction of social languages ​​with opposite sides, so the argument must first be opposed to the views and propositions of the opposite side, and the focus of the debate must be firmly grasped.If the opponent is positive, we must oppose it; if the opponent is negative, we must be positive.That's the pertinence of the argument. Pertinence requires that arguments must be focused.The debate is carried out for a certain topic of debate, and the topic of debate always has a certain complexity, otherwise, there is no need to debate.Complex propositions have various contradictions.The various aspects of a contradiction are inextricably linked internally and externally, and have various attributes and laws.It is impossible and unnecessary for the debater to put forward an argument that covers everything. They should grasp the main contradiction and the main aspects of the contradiction, and grasp the essence and core issues to establish the argument.

This will help to focus the topic and promote the debate to go deeper.To be pertinent, the arguments that are required to be put forward must hit the key points of the opposing party.Only in this way can we concentrate our strength, refute the opponent, put our side in a favorable position, and finally win the crown of victory. The clarity of the argument is the need to strengthen pertinence.Because if you want to start offense and defense with the opposing side, it must be Ding, Mao is Mao, there must be no ambiguity, and there must be no evasion.What we mean by clarity refers to the fact that an argument must be made: clear, unambiguous, and without ambiguity; the concepts and judgments in the argument should always remain the same; the attitude should be clear, and the affirmation should be affirmed, and the negation should be negated , is not ambiguous.

In our daily life, we often meet people who say such things. What they agree with and what they oppose, what they affirm and what they deny, even they themselves don't know.As a general argument, nothing is clear.If it is a debate, the opposing party must not know what to say, so how to start a "debate"?Therefore, the clarity of arguments is one of the essential conditions for debate. Debate is a social language interaction with the ultimate goal of discerning the truth, and it must not be vented at will based on subjective assumptions.Therefore, the argument of the debate must be a correct and comprehensive reflection and elucidation of the nature and laws of objective things.Arguments must conform to the nature and laws of objective things, and avoid subjectivity, one-sidedness, and metaphysics.To make the argument scientific, the most fundamental thing is that the debater must establish a scientific world outlook and methodology, that is, dialectical materialism and historical materialism.Because it is the most correct and scientific summary and reflection of nature, society, and the nature and laws of human consciousness activities.Only by mastering the positions, viewpoints, and methods of dialectical materialism and historical materialism can we improve the ability to distinguish right from wrong in debates, enhance self-awareness, reduce blindness, and thus put forward and insist on correct arguments.

Scientificity first manifests itself in the correctness of arguments, that is, to correctly reflect the nature and laws of objective things.If the arguments are not correct, the basis for winning in the debate is lost.Even if you exhaust your skills and win by luck, it will cause adverse effects and negative effects.Secondly, it is manifested in the accuracy of knowledge application and material selection.This is even more prominent if it is a debate on professional topics.If there is a mistake, the small one will make people laugh, and the big one will lead the debate astray and even hinder the smooth progress of the debate.If it is a debate on other types of debate topics other than professional, the relevant life knowledge and social knowledge should also be accurate so that the debate can proceed normally.Once again, it is expressed in the language in which the argument is expressed.The language should express the argument clearly and accurately, so that the argument is not ambiguous and clear at a glance.

Creativity means that the arguments should be novel, have original insights, do not follow what others say, do not stick to previous statements, and do not make subjective assumptions. They can put forward new propositions, new viewpoints, solve new problems, and show foresight.Creativity is mainly manifested in putting forward new arguments, that is, being able to put forward opinions and propositions that have not been put forward by others.Of course, putting forward a new argument is not to be imaginative or arbitrary, but must be an innovation that conforms to the objective law of development on the basis of inheriting the correct views of the predecessors. This innovative argument is a insight that conforms to objective laws and essence.It is the development of truth, the progress of human cognition, and the viewpoint that can solve new problems that arise with the development of the objective world. The objective world is constantly evolving and changing, and the river of truth is endless.Any kind of proposition and opinion, no matter how brilliant it once was, is always produced under certain objective conditions and inevitably has certain historical limitations.The development of human cognition always requires future generations to inherit the existing cognition of the predecessors and continuously innovate to promote it. In the debate, as an argument for seeking and propagating truth, it must reflect the development of human cognition and be innovative with the development of the objective world. Masujiro Omura, a military strategist in modern Japanese history, was a very eloquent person, and he even developed a habit because of it.Once, a neighbor greeted him: "Hi, it's very hot today, isn't it?" He didn't say "Yes", but replied: "Summer is always hot." If he followed the question and answered " Yes, it's hot," and he loses his defensive stance.This has become his usual mode of thinking. Inducing the other party to say "yes" in the debate means not to involve controversial viewpoints at the beginning of the debate, but to follow the other party's thinking, emphasize the common language of each other, ask questions from the other party's point of view, and lure the other party Acknowledge your position and let the other party say "yes" again and again. At the same time, you must avoid letting the other party say "no", which will slowly lead the other party into a "trap". Businessman Wells ordered 3,000 suitcases from the luggage store, but when he picked up the goods, he said that the inner layer of the suitcases was made of wood, so they could not be regarded as suitcases, and sued the court for 15% of the loss.Lawyer Luo Wenjin appeared in court to defend the defendant when Wells made strong arguments and the judge favored Wells.Luo Wenjin took out a gold pocket watch and asked the judge: "Mr. Judge, what kind of watch is this?" The judge said: "This is a famous London gold watch. However, this has nothing to do with this case." Luo Wenjin insisted that it was related to this case, and continued to ask: "This is a gold watch. In fact, no one doubts it. But, are the internal parts all made of (yellow) gold?" The judge knew that he had been hit by an "ambush", so he was speechless. Presupposing an ambush is not only unexpected and unprepared, but also concise and clear, so that the other party has nothing to say and no words to argue. Making use of the topic refers to that when you are attacked in a debate, you can not directly reply directly, but use the topics provided by the opponent to fight back, thereby changing the situation of the debate. The ancients said: "Stop boiling with soup, the more it boils, the more it boils, and the more it stops." The boiling of water in the pot depends on the power of fire, and firewood is the raw material for producing fire.The cauldron is the pot, and the salary is the firewood.There are two ways to stop the boiling: one is to raise the soup to stop the boiling, and the other is to draw the bottom of the pot.During the debate, the thesis held by both sides of the debate is supported by certain arguments. If the basis of the thesis-the argument is removed, then the edifice of the topic will be pulled from the bottom of the pot, and its arguments will inevitably fail. In an argument, sometimes you are not in a hurry to fight an eye for an eye, but to admit that the other party's analysis and accusations are correct, so that the other party thinks that you seem to agree with the rationality of his argument, and then surprise or point out the other party's flaws. Contradiction, or tell the truth of the facts, or make another analysis, and finally achieve the purpose of proving the correctness of one's argument. Pushing the boat along the way means following the other party's thinking logic, and finally reaching an absurd conclusion to prove that the other party's point of view is untenable. Chester Ronning, a former Canadian diplomat, was born in China when his father was an American missionary to China.Little Ronning drank the milk of a Chinese wet nurse after he was born.Later, when he was 30 years old, he participated in the parliamentary election and was attacked by the opposition.The logic of the opposition is: "Langning grew up drinking Chinese milk, so he must have Chinese blood, so he cannot run for the Canadian election." Ronning countered: "Has any of you ever drank Canadian milk? If so, don’t you also have the blood of Canadian cattle? Of course, you may have drank Canadian human milk, and you have inevitably drank some Canadian cow milk. Wouldn’t you become a hybrid of human and cow blood? Maybe you grew up Now, not only by drinking, but of course you have to eat, such as chicken breast, steak, and leg of lamb... In this way, it must be difficult to determine your bloodline." In an argument, you can find a way to force the other party to say what you want to know as soon as possible so that you can deal with it earlier. One way to do this is to deliberately stop in the middle of the conversation and let the other person continue.Such as: "So, you mean..." "According to what you said, it means..." When you use these half-words to induce the other party, the other party will probably say this without thinking. The sentence is finished according to the meaning.At this time, you will easily have another "hole card". Whoever holds the initiative in the debate field is guaranteed to win.In order to seize the initiative, in addition to making full use of the initiative and grabbing the flag to win people's hearts, first of all, we should strive to be steady and steady in the procedural speech, try to speak something that is balanced and leeway, and leave no opportunity for the other party to take advantage of. Secondly, in the free debate, choose the weakest link of the opponent to attack first, and strive to win first; after gaining an advantage, take advantage of the victory and enter the next round, and accumulate small victories for a big victory; when falling into a disadvantage, promptly switch to a position that is beneficial to oneself, and implement a counterattack; When in a stalemate, don't get entangled, don't fight hard, jump out and pull to a higher level.This gives the judges and the audience a clear feeling that you have firmly grasped the initiative, and you are always instigating new topics.Wherever you choose, the opponent will follow, and the audience will lead the opponent by the nose. In the end, don't give the other party "loopholes" to take advantage of.Some powerful and effective words, but easy for the other party to take advantage of the loopholes, can be said in the free debate when the other party’s time has run out, or arranged to be spoken during the procedural four debates, because the other party has no speech at this time Opportunity, it is impossible to exploit loopholes again. Chasing and attacking is a method commonly used by the party that has the upper hand in debates, and its key trick is to ask questions when there are answers. Players who have not received special training and are not experienced enough are often unable to handle the relationship between answers and questions in free debates: or they only answer without asking questions, and are led by the nose by the opponent. or only asking questions without answering, making the judges and the audience feel that they are obviously avoiding the other party's questions, leading to the final failure.Ask questions when you answer, that is, when you refute the opponent's point of view with witty answers and win the applause of the audience, immediately "retort questions", so that the opponent has no chance to breathe, and finally you are chasing and defeating. Conflicts generally fall into three categories: The first is that the opponent's arguments contradict the objective facts.At this time, reliable factual materials should be used in a timely manner to point out that the other party's point of view has loopholes and the materials are not true. In 1990, when the Nanjing University team played against the National Taiwan University team, when the National Taiwan University team mentioned that military expenditures around the world have increased year after year, and since 1945, twelve wars have been going on every day, the Nanjing University team immediately cited the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The authoritative survey report emphasizes that in 1988 the world's military expenditure was reduced by 2%, and that in the 1960s there were about 30 wars, but in the 1980s there were less than 10 wars. This indicates a moderating trend. The second is that the statements of different debaters on the other side contradict each other.At this time, it is necessary to immediately point out that the opponent is contradictory and logically confused. When the Nanjing University team was debating with the Singapore Polytechnic team, the other side put the "economic alliance" on the one hand. Strictly defined as the highest form of economic integration, that is, member countries cancel tariffs on each other, freely move various factors of production, unify currency, coordinate and unify foreign trade, fiscal, economic and social policies, and thus do not recognize any economic union in the world; On the other hand, organizations such as the European Community are commented on as economic unions.The South Team firmly grasped the opponent's self-contradiction and attacked fiercely, which finally caused the opponent's situation to be in chaos. In the end, the argument of the other party contradicted the position they should hold.At this time, you can "sincerely" thank the other party for helping to demonstrate your point of view. Rebuttal is the key to winning a debate, and it is also the most important part of a debate. Its artistic charm can often give people a great enjoyment. In 1990, the 3rd Asian University Debate, Nanjing University vs. Macau East Asia University team.The title of the competition is: "Confucianism is the main driving factor for the rapid economic growth of the four Asian tigers". The Nanjing University team is against it, which means that Confucianism is not the main driving factor.In response to this competition, the Nanjing University team designed a question that caused headaches for the opponent: "Confucianism has existed in East Asia for thousands of years, why did it take the past 10 to 30 years to promote rapid economic growth?" This is a programmatic question they refuted to each other after they had mastered a lot of data on the rapid economic growth of the four Asian tigers. The purpose was naturally to show that Confucianism was not an important driving factor for the rapid economic growth of the four Asian tigers, so that the Macau East Asia University team’s rebuttal There is no place to stand. In addition, the Nanjing University team also set up the following questions for the opponent to answer in this competition, and used them to refute, such as "Singapore vigorously developed labor-intensive industries in the 1960s, and promoted the development of high-tech industries in the 1970s and 1980s. May I ask what kind of industry Confucianism advocates to develop?" "Some of the Four Tigers emphasize government intervention in economic life, such as South Korea and Singapore; Government intervention?" Then, after the Nanjing University team talked about the "economic countermeasures seminar" that more than a thousand scholars participated in after Singapore's economic recession in 1985, they immediately retorted humorously: "If Confucianism really has the effect that the other party said, then they held Shouldn’t it be a seminar on Confucianism?” When pointing out that the four tigers are pursuing an “export-oriented strategy,” he retorted: “If Confucianism can promote rapid economic growth, then other countries only need to import more A few books, "Mencius", guaranteeing that everyone has a copy, won't the rapid economic growth be sure and everything will be fine?" And when the other party pointed out that "Confucianism proposes'cultivation, family regulation, state governance, and world peace', although self-cultivation and family regulation cannot promote Economic growth, but it also has the idea of ​​governing the country and pacifying the world!" The Nanjing University team retorted: "Let's take a look at what Confucianism calls the great governance of the world. According to Confucius, it is nothing more than practicing the rituals of the Zhou Dynasty. Riding in a car from the Shang Dynasty, wearing a hat from the Xia Dynasty, and singing and dancing during the Yao and Shun eras, how can this bring about rapid economic growth?" After a round of applause, the Nanjing University team said: "As far as we know, Singapore uses the Gregorian calendar, loves to ride Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi cars, and does not have the habit of wearing hats. How can this be called Confucianism? ?” His words won applause and laughter from the audience.The rebuttals formed by the Nanjing University team's questioning, rhetorical questioning, and probing are like "cannonball attacks". It can be said that at the end of each small level, a rebuttal "cannonball" is issued.Therefore, the judges praised the "overwhelming momentum". Questioning directly constitutes the process of debate, no matter whether you have doubts, ask without doubt, or ask knowingly.They are all for the purpose of debate through "asking".This purpose or "asking" itself is to refute the other party, or to remove obstacles for further refute the other party.Therefore, "asking" itself is an important way of debate. The purpose is to make the other party fall into the trap designed by oneself, thereby forcing the other party to admit or deny a certain point of view.In addition to the questioning method that uses unclear concepts to trap the other party, there are two other methods. One is the "complex question" method.It is a question that cannot be answered in the affirmative or in the negative. The "complex question" presupposes a premise that the respondent cannot accept, and no matter whether it is answered affirmatively or negatively, it means that the respondent has admitted the premise presupposed in the question. The second is to ask questions step by step from far to near.That is, when asking questions, do not immediately say what you really want to ask, but start from the content that is far away from the essence, start from those trivial things that seem to have nothing to do with the content of the question, and advance layer by layer from far to near, Asking questions step by step, thus leading the opponent by the nose into his own ambush circle. Whether the other party answers the question in the affirmative or in the negative, he feels embarrassed and deviates from his wishes and requirements.The ingenuity of asking the other party in a dilemma is to use the contradictions of the other party's views or behaviors to make them fall into a dilemma and unable to extricate themselves by asking questions, and force the other party to deny their own views or behaviors. Sometimes it is more powerful to ask questions before starting to refute, let the other party say what you want him to say, and then use this as a topic to find loopholes to refute the other party.When using the method of eliciting rebuttal topic questions, you should pay attention to: not only make the question you raise directly connected with the following rebuttal, but also make the other party answer according to your requirements.In this way, the following rebuttal can be carried out. Ask directly.The so-called "direct questioning" refers to rebuttal questions that cut straight to the point, go straight to the point, and directly grasp the key points. Qu asked.That is to beat around the bush and ask questions in a roundabout way to induce the other party to say contradictory words, thereby forcing him to admit the absurdity of his point of view. asked rhetorically.Rhetorical questioning can be said to be asking knowingly.It has two characteristics: one is to use questions to express one's certain thoughts; the other is to ask rhetorical questions without asking for an answer. In the debate, if you can flexibly use the above questioning skills to refute the opponent, it will be more powerful than declarative rebuttals, and it will help break the enemy. In the debate, some viewpoints do not appear to be self-contradictory on the surface, but by asking a question, the inner contradiction can be fully exposed and provide us with a favorable basis to refute the opponent. In debates, sophistry is the most difficult kind of debate to deal with, but as long as you carefully examine and scrutinize it, you will find that its premises, reasoning, and conclusions are all false.At this time, if you can present the facts in time, the sophistry will naturally be defeated. The author of "Nuremberg: The Trial of Major Nazi War Criminals in 1945" was written by Irene Neve, who worked at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.He vividly and vividly recorded the fact that the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal tried more than 20 living Nazi leaders of Hitler's Third Reich as war criminals. Among them, the trial of the German Field Marshal and Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief Goering has the following record: Goering had been on the witness stand for a week when prosecutors began interrogating him.The first prosecutor was Robert Jackson on the American side.Less than ten minutes into the interrogation, Jackson was in trouble.He was quickly bewildered by the documents.Goering, on the other hand, saw the intention behind every question, and he even expressed his willingness to help Jackson with a loud voice.Throughout the interrogation, Goering became more and more active, while Jackson became more and more passive.He has repeatedly made gaffes in court, throwing his earphones angrily.Almost cried at one point.Göring, on the other hand, still seemed to be the Marshal of the Third Reich.In this fight round, Goering won.He first stayed on the witness stand for a week to understand and prepare for the characteristics of the interrogation procedure.At the same time, he was familiar with all the documents seized by the allies and knew where his weaknesses lay.In contrast, Jackson did not have an accurate grasp of the documents, and at the same time, he did not have a good grasp of the initiative. Not only did he fail to use his ability to lure the witness into a pre-set trap, but instead allowed him to talk for a long time.As a result, Jackson, who should have won with eloquence, was defeated by Goering's sophistry. On the following Sunday, Goering repeated his trick.In his testimony, Goering insisted that he was on leave when fifty RAF POW officers were shot dead in the spring of 1944.The matter is one of the clearest war crimes allegations against the former Reichsmarshal.He claimed, however, that he knew nothing of the matter before they were executed. However, Sir David Maxwell Fife, the British prosecutor, was so familiar with the material that he extracted a "confession" from Goering like a thief.Goering claimed that he reached base camp on March 29, five days after the escape.Fife immediately pointed out that the shooting of the pilots was carried out in batches and continued until April 13 (tit for tat, debunking lies with facts), and then he showed Goering the documents.Documents prove that the German Air Force Operations Department informed their Commander-in-Chief Goering about this matter (to further expose the lies with physical evidence and facts).At this point, Goering's position was in disarray, while Fife took his time and fought steadily, pushing him into a dead end step by step. A veteran of sophistry, Göring was intimately familiar with the material at the hands of the Allies.It is not difficult to imagine that it is difficult to subdue him only by general interrogation.Relying on his high familiarity with the materials, Fife finally defeated Goering's sophistry with facts, based on the contradictions between Goering's undeniable documents and his own confession. The characteristics of the debate determine the training content of the debate.As long as the debaters work hard on the aspects of fluency in expression, pure language, quick thinking, and impromptu performance, the debate ability will naturally be greatly improved. The reading training method is mainly to train the basic skills of the debater's language, intonation, tone, etc.The selected reading materials are generally mainly argumentative essays, and prose, poetry and other materials that are easier to express emotions can also be used. Let the two debaters ask and answer each other. The question can only be one sentence, and the answer can only be one sentence.Question and answer each other can not exceed a certain period of time.In fact, this is also a simulation training of free debate, but the statements of both parties are omitted.Once the debater fails to express himself completely within the specified time, he can immediately realize his own language defects, and at the same time give him a positive exercise. Debate requires the debater to have an unusual understanding, that is, to summarize and judge the opponent's language in a very short period of time, and at the same time organize a counterattack.This series of processes certainly involves logic and responsiveness, but it is undeniable that how to get rid of the other party's themes and correctly express one's own point of view is also the task of expression.The Distilled Topic Method is designed for this purpose. Impromptu speaking is undoubtedly the most challenging of all debate exercises.It can exercise the ability of the debater in various aspects such as language organization, expression and manners in a short period of time.The main force of the debate team, the fourth debate team, needs this training in particular.