Chapter 23 Chapter 21 How to Speak in a Debate

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, to clarify the connotation and extension of the concepts in the topic, and to understand the background of the topic, because the background of the topic is exactly the concept used. Context, which 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 backgrounds, it is impossible to accurately and comprehensively grasp " Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether to take a positive or negative attitude towards "can be restrained".Therefore, understanding the background helps to better 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 differences and form our own arguments.

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. Necessary: ​​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.

Truth: 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.

Novelty: Novel arguments are refreshing, attractive, 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. 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.

In a debate, the prerequisites for establishing an argument are pertinence, clarity, science, and originality. 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.Complicated propositions have various contradictions, and all aspects of contradictions are inextricably linked internally and externally, and have various attributes and laws.It is impossible and unnecessary for the debaters to put forward arguments that are comprehensive. They should grasp the main contradiction and the main aspects of the contradiction, and grasp the essence and core issues to establish the arguments.To be targeted, the arguments put forward must hit the key points of the opponent, so that we can concentrate our strength, refute the opponent, put our side in a favorable position, and finally win the crown of victory.

In daily life, we often encounter 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 discussion, they don't discuss anything clearly.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. 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.If it is a debate on professional debate topics, this point is even more prominent. Otherwise, if it is small, it will be ridiculous, and if it is large, it 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 arguments accurately and appropriately, so that the arguments are not ambiguous and clear at a glance.

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.

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 pick, the other party will follow, and the audience will lead the other party 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. In the 1992 match between the Nanjing University team and 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 there have been 12 wars going on every day, the Nanjing University team immediately quoted the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The authoritative survey report emphasizes that in 1988, the military expenditure of the world decreased by 2%, and that in the 1960s there were about 30 wars, but in the 1980s there were only less than 10 wars, which shows the trend of relaxation .

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.For example, when the Nanjing University team was debating with the Singapore Polytechnic team, on the one hand, the other party strictly defined "economic union" as the highest form of economic integration, that is, the mutual elimination of tariffs among member states, the free flow of various production factors, the unification of currency, and the coordination And unify foreign trade, fiscal, economic and social policies, so as not to recognize any economic union in the world; on the other hand, it comments on organizations such as the European Community 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. In 1990, at the 3rd Asian College Debate, there was a debate entitled "Confucianism is the main driving factor for the rapid economic growth of the Four Tigers".The Nanjing University team played against the East Asia University team in Macau.The South Team first analyzed the debate topic, focusing on the four phrases of "Confucianism", "rapid economic growth of the four Asian tigers", "main" and "driving factors", with the purpose of finding an entry point for argumentation.After careful analysis, it was found that the focus of both sides of the debate must be on the connection point between the two phrases "main" and "driving factor", that is, how to understand the concept of "main driving factor". The NTU team guessed that the thinking of the Zhengfang Macau East Asia University team is very likely to be like this: downplay the concept of "main driving factors" and propose that there are multiple main driving factors, and Confucianism is one of them.In response to this idea of ​​the opponent, the NTU team decided to start with the key concept of "main driving factor", confront the opponent tit-for-tat, and clearly define its concept, that is, it must have the role of overall control and outline.It must be able to organize and effectively coordinate all the favorable conditions and driving factors for the rapid economic growth of the four tigers.At the same time, the South Division strictly distinguishes between "main driving factors" and general "driving factors", pointing out that general driving factors refer to some specific strategies and policies, such as trade to build a country, foreign trade policies, industrial structure policies, and so on. "Don't get entangled with each other on the ideological level, don't use Western personal utilitarianism to fight against Confucianism, recognize the positive role of Confucianism in contemporary society, but it has no economic function; as for the main driving factors, it can only be correct strategy and policy.” This is the general idea of ​​the South University Team. This way of thinking is very strange.Because thought can indeed affect human behavior, but it is difficult to say how far and to what extent it exerts this effect.On the contrary, "Facts speak louder than words." In the actual debate, the South Team cited a large number of examples to explain to the judges and the audience that the series of strategies and policies established during the economic development of the Four Tigers did not reflect any Confucianism. These "truths" attack the opponent's "fictitious" reasoning, and the result is very powerful.Since the idea of ​​the NTU team was completely beyond the opponent's expectation, the initiative on the court has always been firmly grasped by the NTU team. There is no shortage of such classic examples in ancient my country.According to records: In the early years of the Tang Dynasty, Emperor Taizong Li Shimin appointed Wei Zheng as an admonishing doctor.Because of his integrity, Wei Zheng offended some people and was criticized.Li Shimin sent Wen Yanbo to blame Wei Zheng.Therefore, Wei Zheng went to Tang Taizong and said, "I hope Your Majesty will let me be a good minister, not a loyal minister." Li Shimin was surprised when he heard this, and quickly asked, "Aren't good ministers and loyal ministers the same?" Wei Zheng replied, "It's not the same." Like Gu Zhiji and Jiu Tao, they are good ministers; like Longfeng and Bigan, they are loyal ministers. Good ministers "focus on state affairs, public affairs and forget personal interests", and enjoy a good reputation. If it goes on, the fortune of the country will be endless. Loyal ministers are not the same. They only use excuses and think for themselves. The monarch will get a fatuous reputation because of him, and even the country will perish. This is the difference between loyal ministers and good ministers." Wei Zheng used here Defining the method of rectifying names indirectly and euphemistically criticizes that the emperor only likes yesmen, and hints at the bad consequences of doing so.Because Wei Zheng firmly grasped the initiative, he led Li Shimin into the trap he set step by step. The profound and powerful arguments moved Li Shimin greatly, and achieved the effect of asking for advice. I believe that the 1993 International College Debate Competition has left a very deep impression on many people's minds.The brilliant debating of the four debaters from the Fudan University team and their natural and generous demeanor became the most dazzling scenery in that debate.And their multi-angle thinking is even more difficult for opponents to guard against. Here is just one example for everyone to appreciate and ponder. In Fudan University's debate against the Sydney University team, "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem", it is very difficult to argue.In reviewing the questions, Fudan University, as the opposing side, considered: AIDS can spread through homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, and blood infection, which are all beneficial to the affirmative.But there is also a big loophole here, which pits the two issues against each other.In fact, AIDS is not only a medical problem, but also a social problem. Now if you say it is a medical problem, you cannot say it is a social problem, and vice versa.In this context, it would be counterintuitive to deny that AIDS is a medical problem outright.Therefore, the Fudan team boldly put forward the concept of "social system engineering"; there are three criteria for judging the nature of a problem, that is, how the problem was generated, how it was spread, and how to solve the problem fundamentally. way.According to these three articles, it can be considered that AIDS is a social problem rather than a medical problem.In the whole process of social system engineering to solve AIDS, the approach of medicine is included, but this does not mean that it is a medical problem.This is tantamount to talking about medical approaches on the premise that AIDS is a social problem. The Fudan team condescendingly tolerated the opponent's position and expanded the room for maneuver, while the opponent had to spend a lot of effort to entangle themselves in the new concept proposed by the Fudan team. , its attack power is greatly weakened. Please see the wonderful defense of the Fudan team: The second argument of the opposing side: ... First, AIDS is derived from a syndrome of the social organism.With the enrichment of material life, many people's world view is gradually depressed and degenerate.While enjoying material life and wealth, people are harassed by homosexuality, drug abuse, and sexual promiscuity, which provides a hotbed for the spread of AIDS.In a survey of 25,000 HIV carriers in New York, USA, it was found that 94% of them were infected because of homosexuality and drug use.If drug abuse is not a social problem but a medical problem, then the Central Narcotics Bureau of Singapore will be changed to the Central Disinfection Bureau... ... On August 26, "Lianhe Zaobao" reported that 13% of young people in northern Thailand had been infected with HIV, while in Australia, not only people were sick, but even 1/4 of cats were HIV carriers.As for such a large social tumor, can it be eradicated with a doctor's scalpel? ... Third, to solve the problem of AIDS, we can only rely on social system engineering.In Uganda, due to AIDS, the population of 37 million will drop to 20 million by 2020. "Up to the poor and down to the underworld, the two places are gone." If you wait for the doctor to invent a panacea, then Uganda may have become a void by then... Three arguments for the opposite side: ...And Gallup polls clearly show that among the social problems that Americans worried about most in the 1990s, AIDS was second only to the number one—violence, and ranked second in the list.AIDS in Africa runs amok like dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.The society has encountered such a huge threat, does the opposing debater still think that AIDS does not constitute a social problem? Second, AIDS has caused serious psychological panic to all social strata.If a person is unfortunately "loved" by AIDS, "the hatred will last forever".Therefore, it is not uncommon for people to lose face when they talk about "love" and become frightened when they hear "love".After the fifth anti-AIDS parade in Manhattan, New York, a large number of mentally ill patients who identified themselves as AIDS suddenly appeared in the hospital... Quoted from many sources, humorous, it is this kind of multi-angle thinking that pushed them to the podium of the champion. Questioning directly constitutes the process of debate. Whether you ask questions when you have doubts, ask questions without doubt, or ask questions knowingly, it is all to achieve 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 in the affirmative or negative, it means that the respondent has admitted the presupposition 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 questions 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. Direct questioning: 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. Straight questioning: that is, turning around and asking questions in a roundabout way to induce the other party to say contradictory words, thereby forcing them to admit the absurdity of their own views. Rhetorical question: Rhetorical question 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. Sophistry is the hardest thing to deal with in debate, but if you examine it carefully, you will find that its premises, reasoning, and conclusion are all false.At this time, if you can present the facts in time, the sophistry will naturally be defeated. The author of the book "Nuremberg: The Trial of Major Nazi War Criminals in 1945" was written by Irene Neve, who once participated in the work of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. The fact that the leader was tried as a war criminal. Among them, the trial of the German Field Marshal and Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief Goering has the following record: When Allied prosecutors began interrogating Goering, he had been on the witness stand for a week.The first prosecutor was Robert Jackson on the American side. Within ten minutes of the interrogation, Jackson was in trouble. He was quickly confused by the documents, and Goering saw the attempt behind each question. He even expressed his willingness to help Jackson with a loud voice.Throughout the interrogation, Göring became more and more active, while Jackson became more and more passive. 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 50 RAF POW officers were shot dead in the spring of 1944.It was one of the clearest war crimes charges against the former Reichsmarshal, but he claimed he knew nothing of it before they were executed. However, Sir David Maxwell Fife, the British prosecutor, was familiar with the material, and 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.The two confronted each other until Fife proved the lie with the facts, and he then showed Goering the documents.The document proves that the German Air Force Operations Department informed their commander-in-chief Goering about this matter, and further exposed the lies with physical evidence and facts. Backed into a dead end. As a veteran of sophistry, Göring is very familiar with the materials held by the allies. It is not difficult to imagine that it would be difficult to subdue him with general interrogation. The contradiction between the documents and his own confession finally defeated Goering's sophistry with the facts. Paying attention to the details in the debate and being familiar with the details can often quickly grasp the situation and defeat the enemy.The following details are worth noting during the debate. Be wary of deadpan opponents, who tend to be strong. Go around the corner before a debate and ask endless questions about your private life.You should pay attention, the other party has an attempt to grasp your weakness, this may be that the other party is looking for a breakthrough. If the other party says "Got it" at every turn, you have to be careful that the other party may not intend to listen to you.The countermeasure is that you regard the other party as someone who "knows little" and make your argument more detailed and eloquent. This is called "overcoming rigidity with softness". If the other party's attitude is not respectful and the behavior is rough when you first meet, it means that the other party may feel uneasy, or have some wrongdoing, or they may deliberately do this kind of behavior to disturb your mood.Therefore, you must be calm and deal with it, and don't get angry and fall for the other party's tricks. The other party's arrogant words, even words that hurt your self-esteem, are intended to irritate you and make you lose your ability to argue rationally.You might as well "detach" some, such as secretly counting how many irritating words the other party has shared, and when it is your turn to speak, you can reveal it, and don't be impulsive for those words. If the other party suddenly diverts the argument, you have to analyze the situation immediately: first, it was careless; second, it suddenly reminded of another thing; third, it intentionally twisted the argument to another direction. In either case, as long as the other person's attention is focused on the divergent topic at the time, he can continue to talk.After a period of time, you can determine his intentions according to the following method.If it is the first case, the other party will find out and show embarrassment after a short time; if it is the second case, the other party will just leave the original point for a while, and will automatically return to the original point soon; It is the third situation, the other party will continue to talk in the divergent direction, without any sign of "changing their minds".From this, you can infer that the divergent argument is in his favor and the original argument is not in his favor, so you can respond accordingly. If the opponent appears to be "thoughtful" during the debate, you may wish to ask him "what is he thinking" to find out his psychology at that time. If the other party says something with ambiguous meaning, you should catch it keenly and investigate it repeatedly to find out its true meaning. The other party speaks like a cannonball, without stopping for a while, the intention may be to keep you from talking too much, and they want to take advantage of it all at once.In particular, some people who "the villain sues first" are the best at using this hand to make a head start.You might as well listen to him calmly, and after he finishes speaking, you can ask again: "Are you finished? It's my turn to speak when it's finished. I hope you don't interrupt me in the middle." During the debate, if you sometimes don't know the intention of the other party, you can adopt the "projection method", that is, stop your words suddenly, and then let the other party continue to speak.For example, "In this way, this argument is..." "According to your statement, it means..." Use this incomplete sentence to induce the other party, let the other party finish speaking, and you can further understand the other party's thoughts. Master the opponent's "hole cards". For a long time, people have always held this point of view on debate: no matter how fierce the debate is, there is only one truth.Therefore, when a debate occurs, people are always used to finding out whether A is wrong against B or B is wrong against A, but they seldom pay attention to the way of thinking of both sides during the debate and look at the issues in the debate dialectically. For example, in a debate on Mr. Bo Yang: "ugly" and "beautiful", it is not difficult for ordinary people to see from the words that these are a pair of antonyms with opposite connotations. The problem is that when this pair of "antonyms" When introduced into a big debate on the theme of "Chinese", has this tit-for-tat "confrontation" relationship been maintained?The correct answer is: no, they did not have a real confrontation of ideas! Mr. Bo Yang's words in the article are not without extremes, but what he reveals are the "false, ugly, and evil" that exist in reality after all. What is important is that he does not "take beauty as ugliness". The good morals of the Chinese nation are also criticized as "ugly".After this book aroused repercussions in China, many people expressed different views on topics such as "Are Chinese people ugly?" and "Beautiful Chinese people".After reading these articles, we can find that these authors are talking about the traditional virtues of the Chinese nation and their achievements that have made them famous all over the world. Moreover, what is important is that they also did not "take ugliness as beauty", Some outdated customs and backward and conservative psychology of the Chinese nation were not praised as "beautiful". It illuminates the "bad" psychological and customary side of the Chinese nation, eager to get rid of it as soon as possible; the critics use strong light to illuminate the "good" moral character of the Chinese nation, eager to carry it forward.What the two parties are discussing seems to be the same proposition Chinese, but in fact they are two sub-propositions under the same proposition, the advantages and disadvantages of Chinese people.Mr. Bo Yang denied the "bad" side, but did not denigrate the "good" side. The critics praised the "good" side, but did not praise the "bad" side. There is actually a clear "good" side between the two. dividing line". Analyzing this "controversy", it should be said that the "ugly Chinese" - the point of view is not bad; the "handsome Chinese" - the understanding is also correct.And the "debate" happened because Mr. Bo Yang added "ugly" to "Chinese", which aroused some people's unhappiness in terms of national feelings.Of course, emotional unhappiness should not have led to "rational" judgment errors, but the low level of debate thinking sparked this debate.As a result, this seemingly lively debate was like two opposite trains meeting on a railway bridge, but there was no "collision" in fact. It proceeded along two parallel tracks of "criticizing shortcomings" and "praising virtues". 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, impromptu performance, etc., 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. You can only use one sentence for the question and one sentence for the answer. The question and answer should 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 speech is undoubtedly the most challenging in all kinds of debate training. 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 attacker of the debate team - the fourth debate team, especially needs to carry out this training. Please enjoy the following speech of the Fudan team, which is the opposing team in the final of China's first famous college student debate invitational competition: Chairman, everyone, hello.The other party told us that there are good and bad foreign cultures.Then I ask, how do you judge?Southern Europeans think it's good to exercise naked, do you think it's good?Of course not acceptable.So what is good for foreigners may not be good for you.The other party's second argument told us that the promotion of culture can be divided into civilization and barbarism, and barbarism is of course cannons and long guns. We will talk about this later.Let’s just look at that part of his civilization. Let’s talk about the missionaries of Western Europe. They brought Western European religions to China, and the “Siku Quanshu” astronomical summary says that he has been able to speculate on those missionaries. The cloth house of heaven has an extremely sinister intention! (Applause) So this is not good either!The other side’s debate, and then look at the other side’s three debates, he told us that the development of a culture cannot be developed independently, but depends on the needs of the outside world. We also agree with this point, we absorb foreign civilizations rather than foreign cultures.Ok, let me review the history first: Facing the cultural colonization of advanced nations, where did African culture go?People in Guinea can only speak French, and the ancient country of Songhai in Benin has disappeared. "The old country cannot bear to look back in the moonlight." In the face of the cultural destruction of ancient nations, where did the culture of ancient Greece and Rome go?The German cavalry wiped out the centuries-old culture overnight, leaving only "white clouds and empty clouds for thousands of years", what is the benefit? In the face of cultural transplantation among the same ethnic groups, where did the traditional culture go?After Buddhism was introduced, it called itself the moon.And compare the two schools of Confucianism and Taoism to the supporting stars, "in the four hundred and eighty temples in the Southern Dynasty, how many towers were in the mist and rain".Let me ask again, where is the benefit? (Applause) Let me look around in history, why did the Arabs go to war?Explain that ethnicity goes beyond racial origin.Why are Britain and the United States at odds?It shows that nationality transcends regional and national boundaries.Now many scholars emphasize that the conflict in today's world is no longer political economy, no longer ideology, but culture.Any nation with a clear consciousness realizes that culture is the foundation for its own survival.I would like to ask a nation that has lost its cultural support, is it still a nation?Finally, let me look at China, I would like to ask, what is the purpose of reform and opening up?Of course it is for the Chinese nation to become stronger, but do foreign countries want to see China become stronger?Won't.A scholar in the United States blatantly said: One Japan is enough to disturb people, and China must never be allowed to develop again.Let me ask again, what is the ultimate goal of reform and opening up?If it is based on the foundation of national culture, then foreign culture, backed by strong transnational capital, invades national culture forcefully, trying in vain to unify the world with one culture, one concept, and one system.If Chinese stores must be named Lufthansa and Scitech, and if Chinese cinemas must be changed from Taipingmen to Weikou, is this still our country?Is this still the hometown where I was born and raised? "Tian Xingjian, a gentleman strives constantly." As long as we are based on the cultural spirit of our nation, we will surely be able to walk out of the road to prosperity of the Chinese nation.Thanks! (applause) There are seven commonly used rhetoric methods in life and work that we should master: Masujiro Omura, a military strategist during the Meiji period in Japan, was a very eloquent person, and 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 the self-defensive posture that 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 suitcase company, but when he picked up the goods, he said that the inner layer of the suitcase was wood, so it could not be regarded as a suitcase, and sued the court, demanding 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?" "It's a London gold watch. However, it has nothing to do with this case," the judge said. Luo Wenjin insisted that it was related to this case, and continued to ask: "It's a gold watch. In fact, no one doubts it. But, are all the internal parts made of 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. Nixon visited the Soviet Union in 1959, after the U.S. Congress passed a resolution on enslaved countries, attacking the former Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe.When Nixon and Khrushchev met, Khrushchev said to Nixon: "This resolution stinks like freshly pulled horse manure. There is nothing more stinky than horse manure!" Khrushchev出言粗俗，欲使尼克松难堪。谁知尼克松回敬道：“我想主席先生大概搞错了，比马粪还要臭的东西是有的，那就是猪粪。” 古人说：“扬汤止沸，沸乃不止；诚知其本，则去火而已。”锅里的水沸腾，是靠火的力量，而柴草则是产生火的原料。釜即锅，薪即柴草。止沸的办法有两种：一是扬汤止沸，二是釜底抽薪。论辩时，论辩双方所持的论题，都是由一定的论据支持的，如果将论题的根据——论据抽掉，那么，论题这座大厦就会像釜底抽薪，其论点必然不攻自破。 在论辩中，有时不急于以眼还眼，针锋相对地直言对抗，而是先承认对方的分析和指责是对的，让对方认为自己似乎同意了他论据的合理性，然后出其不意，或指出对方的矛盾，或说出事实的真相，或作出另外的分析，最终达到证明自己论点正确性的目的。 顺水推舟即顺着对方的思维逻辑推下去，最后得出一个荒谬的结论，以证明对方的观点站不住脚。 在论辩中，你可想办法逼对方把你想了解的东西尽快说出来，以便早点对付之。其办法之一是把话说到一半就故意停下来，然后让对方接下去说，如：“这么说，你的意思是……”“照您的说法，它的意思是……”。当你用这些半截子话去诱发对方时，对方十有八九会不假思索地把这句话按意思说完，这时，你就轻而易举地又多了一张“底牌”。 论辩法包括了很多辩论的方式。它原来是为强化弱的逻辑而出现的说服术。黑格尔以前的论辩法盛行“使虚伪变成真理”的诡辩术。那一段时间诡辩可真是盛行不衰。譬如，古希腊哲学家、教学家、宗教家毕达哥拉斯发明“毕氏定理”，对柏拉图影响颇大，曾经如是说：“时间是每一个瞬间的连续和延长而已，基于这个道理，飞驰的箭，应该是静止的。”这种明知其非的诡辩学说，以那个时代的物理学，虽然知道这是欺诈奇诡的辩理，偏就是找不出推翻此说的论据。因为，即使有人对这个诡论加以驳斥，势必遭到诡辩家的另一套理论摧毁之。那个理论就是：“假设飞箭是飞驰的，世界上就没有一样物体是静止的。这个大地不也跟着地球不断地旋转吗？所以说，为要研究事物的本质，从瞬间来说，大地也好，岩石也好，山岭也好，跟飞箭一样，必须是恒保静止的。”这种“是非而是”的理论，在现代生活中也仍然存在。一言以蔽之，它不仅是诡辩，还是物理学上的一种常识呢。连物理学最权威的理论相对论都证实了这个诡论的存在性。 对付上述诡论，一般人想到的驳词可能是这样的：“地球上的万物，每天跟地球一起在旋转，飞箭岂能惟我独静？”这句话必然中毕氏之怀，他会喊一声“好极！”毫不迟疑地回答说：“如果飞箭朝着跟地球相反的旋转方向，以同样的旋转速度而飞，飞箭不就等于静止了吗？”这么一驳，你不就哑口无言，只有干瞪眼的份了？使用这一招的人，总是胸有成竹地准备了一套说词，把对方搬出的正面说法，驳个体无完肤。算计得如此周全，虽然不至于摧垮对方，到底还得费一番功夫。对付这个异论，只有一个办法就是反其道而行——以反对论对付反对论，也就是传统的正面攻击法。你绝对不要仿效对方的战术，那么做，你只有弃甲而逃，必败无疑。诡辩术的陷阱就是要仿效它的战术，所以，只要自始至终，以正统的正面攻击，直攻不歇，就奏凯有期。首先，你必须思考对方理论（逻辑）上的弱点究竟在哪里。当然，它可不是一想即通的。不过，寻出对方理论上的要害，不至于太难，对方理论上的要害（要点），便是对方理论上的弱点。所以，寻其要害就成了首要之务。以“飞箭是静止的”这个理论来说，它的要害到底是在哪里？“飞箭是静止的”，支撑这个理论（惟一的支撑物）的是“瞬间”这两个字。此词一出，对方的理论就无由产生。这个世界并没有瞬间这个玩意。任你把时间细加割碎，只能变成无限度的小，绝不可能有所谓“绝对的瞬间”。绝对的瞬间既无存在的可能，飞箭只能在那小到无限的时间内，移动于小到无限的距离之中。所以，飞箭绝不是静止的。对于这个理论，想必没有任何反驳之词存在的可能。 辩论场如同战场，辩论双方均按事先的谋划，拼心力、斗智、比勇气；充分调动起每根神经，较量知识、运用技巧，设伏兵、出奇兵、遣勇兵；而用兵之道，又以攻心为上。苏轼曾言：“臣问用兵者，先服其心，次用其力。则兵易解而攻易成。”这就是说，优秀的军事家首先不是用武力征服对方，而是先动摇对方的军心，瓦解对方的士气，这样就容易获取战争的胜利。 辩论之道亦然，正所谓“攻心为上”，即抓住对方的心理情感进行攻击，或使对方心有好感，受到感动；或使对方的思想发生动摇，转变，或使对方的心中羞愧，自行退却。 攻心之术实际讲的就是一个“情”字，使情感在论辩中同样发生作用。理性的光辉或许可以令对手屈服，但要让对方心服口服，还须动之以情。 英国前首相丘吉尔在演讲、辩论中就很善于以情动人。他对此的认识也是十分精辟的。他认为，说服人重在以情激情，把自己的情感传给别人，情通自能理达。请看二战中，他为了说服美国参加对德作战，对美国人发表的讲话，其间情感技巧的运用娴熟老道，也值得我们深以为鉴的。 “我远离祖国，远离我的家庭，在这里欢度这一年一度的佳节。但确切地说，我并不觉得寂寞和孤独。或者是因为我母亲的血缘关系，或许是因为在过去许多年的充满活力的生活中，我在这里得到的友谊，或许是因为我们伟大的人民在共同事业中，所表现出来的那种压倒一切的友谊的情感，在美国的中心和最高权力的所在地，我根本不觉得自己是个外来者。我们的人民讲着同样的语言，有着同样的宗教信仰，还在很大程度上，追求着同样的理想。我所能感到的是一种和谐的和兄弟间亲密无间的气氛。 "... “此时此刻，在一片战争的混乱中，今晚，在所有的郊外别墅里，在每一颗宽容无私的心灵中，我们得到了灵魂的平安。因此，我们至少可以在今天晚上，把那些困扰我们的各种担心和危险搁置一边，并在这个充满风景的世界里，为我们的孩子准备一个幸福的夜晚。那么，此时此刻，在今天这个夜晚，讲英语的世界中的每个家庭都应该是一个亮光普照，幸福与和平的小岛……” 丘吉尔找到了一条说服对方的捷径：共同的语言、共同的宗教信仰、共同的理想及两国长期的友好关系，这些都成为美英之间相互信任和理解的桥梁与纽带，有了这样牢固的基础，那么一切敌对情绪都是可以减弱的、消除的。当他深情地祈愿每个讲英语的家庭都应过一个和平安详的圣诞节时，冰山开始融化，美国人民心中善良、正义的本性开始苏醒。最终他们被打动了，被丘吉尔的言语，更为他的情感感动了。 丘吉尔的成功之道，在于他以辩论双方共通的情感为先导，叩开对方的心扉，再晓之以理，以情达理。 以感情动人，这种情感不是盲目的，也不是一时的冲动而起，这种情感是发自辩论者内心的。正所谓：“言为心之声。”这个“情”，也不是矫情，如果是连自己都不相信不感动的主张，感动别人则是难上加难。因此对辩论者就有了相应的要求：自己要有对真理执著追求的精神，对论辩问题有切肤之感，也就是说自己的主张首先要感动自己。 辩论讲究一个“巧”字。巧用策略，善用技巧，以智取胜。俗话说：“欲速则不达。”急于说服对方，往往招致对方拉开阵势，任凭你嘴皮磨破也不为所动，使本方预先的战略不能很快奏效。那就不妨退一步，“以退为进”，“避实就虚”，绕开双方争执上的是非对立之处，从更易攻破对方之处入手，这种策略在辩论场上常常用到。比如，南京大学队在为迎战第三届亚洲大专辩论赛所进行的训练中，曾与河海大学作了一场热身赛，辩题是“实施环境保护会降低经济增长速度”。持正方立场者在辩论中很容易被对方逼到不要搞环境保护的困境中去，从而失去评委和观众的支持与同情。为了防止陷入这种窘境，正方的队员一上场就声明：“我们是环境保护的坚定拥护者，我们希望既保护了环境，又增长了经济。但是鱼和熊掌两者不可兼得，为了人类的生存和发展，为了子孙后代的幸福，我们主张宁可适当降低经济增长速度，也要保护好环境！”环境要不要保护？正方若从这一点上入手，显然违背常理，其观点就根本站不住脚。既然已成定论的问题，就加以肯定。 这个辩题对反方并不容易。他们要阐明实施环境保护不会降低经济增长速度，这也同人们的感情直观相违背，搞不好，会有强词夺理之嫌。反方巧妙地采用了“将欲取之，必先与之”策略，指出“从现象上看，太阳绕地球转，从本质上看，地球绕太阳转；从局部上看大地是平面，从总体上看大地是球面。同样，从现象、局部、暂时上看，实施环境保护似乎会降低经济增长速度；但是从本质、总体、长远上看，实施环境保护不仅不会降低，反而会提高经济增长速度。”这里的退一步，照顾了人们的感觉直观，但实际上是为了更好地进一步算大账，算总账。因此，“这一退”合情合理，效果显著。 又如，在第三届亚洲大专辩论赛南京大学队对澳门东亚大学队的正式比赛中，南大队持“儒家思想是亚洲四小龙经济快速增长的主要推动因素”这一辩题的反方立场，这一立场与新加坡崇尚儒家思想的心理气氛格格不入，曾有人预测南大队将会在新加坡上演批儒批孔的拿手好戏。结果南大队巧妙地运用先发制人的战术，在辩论中不厌其烦地申明自己尊重儒家思想，并且倒打一耙，指责对方将孔夫子与“孔方兄”联系在一起才是对儒家思想的大不恭，从而赢得了人心。 辩论并不是要把没理说成有理，它是一种集知识、思辨、技巧于一体的带有对抗色彩的智能性活动。辩论比的是双方的脑力、智力，是在辩论方法和技巧上分出高下。因此对于那些约定俗成、人所共知的常识、认识、立场、观点，要勇敢地加以肯定。对真理的肯定，绝不会令你在对手面前稍逊一筹，相反，这会使你的立论更加有理有据，无可挑剔。 辩论中，双方你来我往，互不相让，僵持局面时有发生。在这种情况下，如果双方还是寸利必争，逞口舌之利，其结果往往是两败俱伤。此时就看哪一方能审时度势，避实就虚，把对方凌厉的攻势一一化解，创造辩论的更高境界。 许多领袖人物都称得上是打破僵局的大师。他们几句轻松的调侃，就可以解除紧张气氛，并令对手折服。 1984年里根为了竞选总统，与对手蒙代尔进行电视辩论。蒙代尔自恃年轻力壮，抓里根年龄大的弱点不放，竭力攻击，想以此激怒里根。如果里根一时激愤，破口大骂，以牙还牙，那么他沉稳持重、老谋深算的长者形象就会彻底败坏。他必将在全国观众面前颜面全无。里根不愧是久经沙场的政坛老手，面对蒙代尔的挑衅他没有勃然大怒，也没有逆来顺受。而是以他独有的幽默语言，用不屑一顾的口气回击道：“蒙代尔说我年龄大而精力不充沛，我想我是不会把对手年轻、不成熟这类问题在竞选中加以利用的。”正所谓“以子之矛攻子之盾”，里根将计就计，以守为攻，在不动声色之中，把自己年龄大却宽宏大度、深谋远虑的优点和对方年纪轻却浅薄而狭隘的缺点显示给观众。因势利导，巧妙地扭转了双方的局面，有力地还击了对方，又尽显自己的成熟姿态，可称得上“一箭双雕”。 针对对手提出的不便正面辩驳的问题，风趣幽默的回答往往可以使自己摆脱尴尬局面，并给对手猛力一击。 著名女作家谌容访美期间，应邀到某大学演讲，美国朋友向她提出各种各样的问题，她都给予坦率的答复。当有人问道：“听说您至今还不是共产党员，你同中共的感情不怎么样吧？”这样极为敏感的问题显示出来者不善。 谌容从容不迫地说：“你的情报很准确，我确实不是中国共产党员。但是，我的丈夫是个老共产党党员，而我们共同生活了几十年，尚无离婚的迹象，可见，我同中国共产党的感情有多深。” 这风趣的回答大大出乎提问者的意料，却又无懈可击。谌容作答分寸得当，并没有反唇相讥让对方下不了台，却又在谈笑间令对手无言以对，实际上已稳居上风。 《自相矛盾》的故事我们都非常熟悉，“如果以你的矛刺你的盾呢？”在这个问题面前，卖矛盾的人哑口无言不知所措。这其中的要害就在于针对这个问题进行逻辑推理，会得出两种可能的选择，而无论肯定或否定其中的任何一种可能，都将置自己于进退两难的困境之中。这种逼迫对方就范的方法在论辩实践中并不鲜见，我们姑且称它为“两难设问”，意在使对方左右为难，最终钻进己方设下的圈套。 我们先来看一个日常生活中的例子，对这种方法加以理解： 甲：庄子说得对，辩论分不出胜负的。 乙：辩论可以分出胜负。 甲：谁来评判胜负呢？你评判我不同意，我评判你不同意，那么让第三者来评判吗？怎么知道他的评判是对是错呢？可见他的评判还需要别人评判。这样一来，实质上是找不到最终的评判标准的。所以，辩论是分不出胜负的。 乙：我看辩论可以分出胜负。 甲：你只讲空话，说不出道理，可见已经理屈辞穷了，还是服输吧！ 乙：你不是说辩论分不出胜负吗？怎么又说我们俩的辩论是你胜我负了呢？ 这个例子中乙用矛盾联结，将甲推到自相矛盾的境地。 这种方法看似简单，实际上要求提问一方须有敏锐的洞察力，找准矛盾所在，否则就不能收到预想的效果。 普罗塔哥拉是古希腊一位著名的诡辩家，他有位弟子叫爱特瓦尔。收徒之初，师徒二人谈好条件：爱特瓦尔先支付一半学费，另一半待学成再付。是否学成的标准以爱特瓦尔结业后赢得第一场官司为准。 可爱特瓦尔结业后想赖那一半学费，于是便迟迟不打官司，普罗塔哥拉催促不过，就向法庭起诉，请求公断，可这一来就难坏了法官，因为这桩诉讼中暗含了两个二难推理。普罗塔哥拉的想法是：如果我胜诉，则依裁决，你应付另一半学费；如果我败诉，说明你已学成，则也应付另一半学费。总之，你应支付另一半学费。 可爱特瓦尔的想法则与此相反，他认为：如果我胜诉，则依裁决，可以不支付另一半学费；如果我败诉，则说明没有学成，自然也不应支付另一半学费。总之，我不必支付另一半学费。 面对这样的推理，即便绞尽脑汁，恐怕也很难求得一个两全其美的解决办法，聪明的读者，如果你是法官，会如何断案呢？ 这样一来，两难问题似乎难以作答了。其实未必，所谓“道高一尺，魔高一丈。”机智应答巧解难题的例子古已有之，并非什么凤毛麟角。 据《左传》记载：吴玉派他的弟弟蹶由去犒问楚军，楚军却把他抓起来，还准备杀了他来祭鼓。楚王想让蹶由在临死前遭到嘲笑，就问他：“你来的时候占卜，吉利不吉利？” 蹶由说：“吉利。”楚王一阵奸笑，问道：“吉利？今天你要死无葬身之地了！”蹶由从容地说：“预兆预示吉利。如果你特别高兴，又友好地接待我，毫无敌意，就会滋长我们吴国的自满情绪，因而忽视了安全，我国的灭亡就没有多久了。如今你动怒了，大发雷霆，杀我祭鼓，那么我们吴国就会加强守备。吴国虽然弱小，但只要提高警惕，事先治好兵甲，就可以抵御你们的军队。这不是'吉利'吗？况且我们吴国只占卜国家的吉凶，不是占卜我个人。假如小臣我被杀死祭鼓，因而使我们国家知道戒备，这种吉祥，还有比它大的吗？” 蹶由这一番话把残暴的楚王说得哑口无言，并终于不得不放了蹶由。 蹶由一番话，胜在大智大勇，因而出奇制胜，化险为夷。勇者，是他只身独胆，直面残暴的楚王，非但面无惧色，而且应付自如，矢志为国，视死如归。智者，则在于他巧妙地击破了楚王的“二难推理”的嘲弄。楚王一心要在处死他之前嘲笑他，所以故意问及来前的占卜吉利与否。如果蹶由答“吉利”，楚王会以马上处死他来羞辱嘲弄他；如果蹶由答“不吉利”，楚王同样可以“秉承天意”来嘲弄并处死他。他面临的困境，堪称进退维谷。然而蹶由机智地借用了“吉利”的歧义，避开个人吉凶的概念，而从国家安危的概念，鞭辟入里地阐述了“楚王动怒，杀我祭鼓——吴国警惕，加强守备——治好兵甲，抵御楚军——国家吉利”的辩证关系。这就不但以自己为了国家的“吉利”义无反顾、凛然赴死的大无畏气概压倒了楚王，而且以一人之死换全局之利的利害关系吓住了对方。所以，楚王最后不得不放了蹶由。 论辩中出现的问题千奇百怪，无所不包，时常碰到一些不能直接回答但又不能不回答，一时无法回答但又必须回答的问题，这似乎是另一种类型的“两难”困境。面对辩敌的步步紧逼，你若总是避而不答，就会助长对方气焰又会显得己方畏首畏尾，无招架之力。这时候，论辩者不妨巧妙地使用模糊应对的方法进行答对。 模糊应对的关键之处就在于“模糊”似是而非，令人捉摸不透辩者的真实涵义。同时，由于模糊，因而就具有一定的伸缩性，变通性，给己留有周旋的余地，当遇到在一定条件下很难解决的问题时，变不可能为可能，使不相容的问题，变得相容和一致。 模糊应对在各种场合的妙用，屡见不鲜，有许多精典实例人们提起来还津津乐道。它以伸缩性大，变通性大，语义不甚明确的话来回答那些不能直接回答而又必须回答的问题。妙在借题发挥，避重就轻，巧妙应付对方刁难，使己方摆脱不利的窘境。 据说，有人问美国天文学家琼斯：“地球有多大年龄，你能说清楚吗？”琼斯回答：“这也不难。请你想象一下，有一座巍峨的高山，比如说高加索的厄尔布鲁士山吧，再设想有几只小麻雀，它们无忧无虑地跳来跳去，啄着这座山。那么这几只麻雀把山啄完大约需要多少时间，地球就存在了多少时间。”琼斯这种模糊的回答，不仅把一个容易引起争议的难题化解了，而且使人意识到地球存在的岁月异常悠久。 模糊应对，往往体现了辩者的机智，情急生智，应变自如，令人回味。 周恩来总理访问印度时，在一次印度总统招待会上，有一位女记者问周总理：“你已是62岁的人，看上去气色异常好，你如何注意自己的身体健康？是否经常运动，或者有特别好的饮食？”周总理回答说：“谢谢你，我是东方人，我是按东方人生活方式而生活的。” 显然，周总理必须回答这个记者的刁难提问，但又不可能也没有必要将自己的饮食起居情况告诉对方。于是总理用含蓄而模糊的语言进行了婉转的回答，不给对方以可乘之机，收到了令人叫绝的效果。 模糊应对是应付刁难的极有效的方法。 1982年秋，我国作家蒋子龙到美国洛杉矶参加一个中美作家会议。在宴会上，美国诗人艾伦·金斯伯格请蒋子龙解个怪题：把一只2.5公斤重的鸡装进一个只能装0.5公斤水的瓶子里，用什么方法能把它拿出来。 蒋子龙略加思索，答道：“你用什么方法放进去，我就用什么办法拿出来。”