Lead: How to give priority to opposing customers in the debate? Which means attacking each other. Here are three offensive skills I have compiled for you. I hope you will like them.

(1) Leverage

There is a trick in martial arts novels, which is called "using force to fight". It means that people with deep internal forces can use the strength of their opponents' attacks to fight back. This method is also suitable for argument.

For example, in the debate about "it's easy to do things despite difficulties", there was such a round:

Professor: Yes! Those people did not know the power of law until they went to the execution ground and died. The dignity of the law can be described as "retreat from difficulties", and the other side distinguishes friends! (warm applause)

When the other party used the example of "knowing the law is easy, but obeying the law is difficult" to demonstrate that knowing the law is easy and obeying the law is difficult, the positive party immediately turned to strengthen its point of view from the perspective of "knowing the law is not easy" and gave the other party a strong counterattack. Reversed the passive situation.

Here, Fang Zhengzhi was able to attack his body with the example of the opposing side because he had a series of theories that were not expressed in words and reinterpreted the discourse as a strong backing: the "knowledge" in the debate is not just the "knowledge" of "knowing". It should be based on human rational "knowledge"; It is not difficult to obey the law. As a course of action, it is not difficult to kill people, but it is very difficult to know how to keep people's rationality and restrain the vicious desire to kill people. In this way, the broad and high-level definitions of "knowing the difficulty" and "doing the easy" of the opposing side, and the attack of the narrow and low-level definitions of "knowing the easy" and "doing the difficult ..." effectively hit back at the opposing side, and the argumentation framework of the opposing side based on the superficial level of "knowing" and "doing" collapsed.

(2) grafting

Removing the defective part of the other party's argument and replacing it with our favorable views or materials can often receive the miraculous effect of "four or two". We call this technique "grafting" For example. In the debate about overcoming difficulties, there have been the following examples:

Counterparty: The ancients said that "it is difficult to get through the road, but it is difficult to go to heaven", which means that it is difficult to get through the road, and "doing" means "going"! If it's not difficult, why doesn't the monkey call him Sun Zhiren?

Founder: Sun's nickname is Monkey Sun, but does his opponent know that his legal name is the Monkey King, which is the "knowledge" of "enlightenment"?

This is a very beautiful argument of "replacing trees with flowers". The example of the opposing side seems to be well-founded, but it is far-fetched: it is difficult to refute "why Sun Walker is not called Sun Zhiren". Although it is almost unreasonable, it has the upper hand in momentum. The positive side keenly discovered the one-sidedness of the other side's argument, and started with the "the Monkey King" side decisively, and retorted the other side by "knowing" or "knowing", which turned the other side's quotation about "Sun" into carrying firewood to put out the fire, which backfired.

The technique of replacing flowers with wood is a strong attack in argument theory, which requires debaters to be brave in making moves and fighting back, so it is also a kind of difficulty and high antagonism. Persuasive argument skills. It is necessary for debaters to accurately summarize or deduce each other's views and our position at that time.

For example, in the debate about "it is more important to cure poverty than stupidity", one sentence is affirmative: "... the debater of the other side measures the importance by urgency, so I want to tell you that I am hungry now and need food badly, but I still want to debate because I realize that debate is more important than hunger." As soon as the voice fell, there was applause. At this time, the opposing side calmly argued: "My opponent, I think that' not eating with food' and' not eating with food' are two different things ..." The other side's answer caused more warm applause. On the positive side, poverty is not enough to fear, and the relative importance of treating stupidity with "no food", while on the negative side, the essence of "no food" is immediately summarized from one's own point of view, and the essential difference between the two is clearly compared, effectively curbing the tendency of the other party to steal concepts.

(3) Go with the flow

On the surface, we agree with the other party's point of view, follow the other party's logic, and set some reasonable obstacles according to our own needs in the derivation, so that the other party's point of view can not be established under additional conditions, or draw a conclusion completely opposite to the other party's point of view.

For example, in the argument that "Yu Gong should move mountains or houses":

Each other: ... We should ask each other to identify friends. Gong Yu solved the difficulties, protected resources and saved manpower.

Financial resources, what's going on?

Positive: Gong Yu's moving is a good way to solve the problem, but it is difficult for Gong Yu to go out where he is. How can he move home? ..... Obviously, we can consider moving, and we have to move after moving the mountain!

Myths and stories are only meaningful if they are exaggerated, and their essence lies not in themselves but in their meanings. Therefore, we must not let the opposing side tell the truth, otherwise, the "methodology" of the opposing side that conforms to the modern value orientation will certainly stand. Judging from the above argument, the other party's argument on this matter is well-founded and solid. On the positive side, it is affirmed that "moving is a good way to solve the problem", and then everyone "can hardly get out of the place where Yu Gong is", which naturally leads to the question of "how to move home", and finally comes to a series of theories such as "moving mountains first, then moving". It runs through one after another, and it beats the other side's matter-of-fact with an overwhelming attack. It's really wonderful!

(d) root causes.

The so-called radical, for example, this paper points out that the other party's argument is not closely related to the topic or runs counter to it, and fundamentally corrects the standpoint of the other party's argument and pulls it into our "sphere of influence" to make it just serve our point of view.

Compared with the method of "pushing the boat with the current" of forward reasoning, this skill is just the opposite of its thinking.

For example, in the debate about whether job-hopping is conducive to the role of talents, there is such a defense:

Pro: Zhang Yong, the champion of the national table tennis championship, just jumped from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The debater of the other side also said that he didn't contribute to the people of Shaanxi, which was really chilling! (Applause)

Counterparty: May I ask if the sports team may have jumped ship? This is the reasonable flow direction that we advocate here! (Applause) The opponent wears job-hopping glasses to see the problem. Of course, the world is as black as a crow, and all actions are job-hopping. (Applause)

Take Zhang Yong as an example. It is a fact that he has gained better space to develop himself after he moved from Jiangsu to Shaanxi. The opponent immediately pointed out that the specific example cited by the other side was wrong: Zhang Yong could not go to the sports team through the irregular talent flow mode of "job-hopping", but only "reasonable flow" under the principle of "fairness, equality, competition and merit", which was highly credible, convincing and shocking, and received obvious anti-customer effect.

(5) cut the bottom wages.

Clever and selective questioning is one of the offensive means used by many debaters. Usually this kind of question is premeditated, which will make people fall into a "dilemma". No matter which choice the other party makes, it is not good for them. The correct way is to take a preset option from the other party's multiple-choice questions and carry out a strong backchat to fundamentally frustrate the other party's spirit. This skill is to grasp the root cause of the problem.

For example, in the argument that "ideology and morality should adapt to (surpass) the market economy", there is the following round of confrontation:

Counterparty: ... I asked whether Lei Feng's spirit was selfless dedication or equivalent exchange.

Advantages: ... the opponents here misunderstand the exchange of equivalence, which means that all exchanges should be equivalent, but it doesn't mean that everything is exchange. Lei Feng hasn't thought of exchange yet. Of course, Lei Feng's spirit is not the same. (Applause)

Counterparty: Then I want to ask another debater, is the core of our ideology and morality the spirit of serving the people or the spirit of seeking profits?

Professor: Isn't serving the people the requirement of market economy? (Applause)

In the first round, the other side had the intention of "inviting you to wait for the urn" and came prepared. Obviously, if the mindset passively answers questions, it will be difficult to deal with the "dilemma" of the cube presupposition: choosing the former just proves the view that the cube should "surpass the market economy"; Choosing the latter is contrary to the facts and even more absurd. The debater for the positive side jumped out of the box of "either-or" for the negative side, went straight to the subject, drew "equivalent exchange" from two preset options, and completely overturned its correctness as a preset option with a calm tone, sharp words, flexible response and clever techniques, which was amazing!

Of course, the actual situation on the debate field is very complicated. To turn passivity into initiative in debate, it is only one factor to master some anti-customer skills. On the other hand, it is necessary to improvise, which is quite in place, but there is no rule to follow.

(6) attack its key points.

In debates, it often happens that the two sides are entangled in some trivial issues, examples or expressions, and the result seems to be a lively debate, but in fact it is irrelevant to Wan Li. This is a taboo in argument. An important skill is to quickly identify the key issue in the opponent's argument after the first debate and the second debate, seize this issue and attack it to the end, so as to completely defeat the opponent in theory. For example, the key to the debate that "food and clothing is a necessary condition for talking about morality" is: Can we talk about morality without food and clothing? Only by always grasping this key issue in the debate can we give the other side a fatal blow. In the debate, people often have the saying that "avoiding the truth is empty", and it is necessary to use this technique occasionally. For example, if the other party asks a question that we can't answer, if we don't know, we will not only lose points, but even make jokes. In this case, we should tactfully avoid each other's problems and look for other weaknesses to attack. But in more cases, what we need is to "avoid the reality and be empty" and "avoid the importance and be light", that is, to be good at fighting hard on basic and key issues. If the other party asks questions, we will immediately avoid them, which will inevitably leave a bad impression on the judges and the audience, thinking that we dare not face up to the other party's questions. In addition, if the attack on the basic arguments and concepts put forward by the other party fails, it is also a loss of points. Being good at grasping the opponent's key points and attacking can win, which is an important skill in the debate.

(7) Using contradictions

Because the two sides of the debate are composed of four players, these four players often have contradictions during the debate. Even the same player may have conflicts in the free debate because of his fast speech. Once this happens, we should seize it immediately and try our best to expand the contradiction between the other side so that it can't take care of itself and attack us. For example, in the debate with the Cambridge team, the Cambridge team's three arguments think that law is not morality, while the second argument thinks that law is basic morality. These two views are obviously contradictory, and we took the opportunity to widen the gap between the two debaters of the other side and push the other side into a dilemma. For another example, the other party initially argued that "food and clothing" is the basic state of human existence, and later, under our fierce offensive, it talked about "hunger and cold".

Expanding reading: a white lie debate. If a person often lies to deceive others, he will lose people's trust over time. Just like the children in "Lying Children", they cry "Wolf" every day, seeking excitement and happiness. When the wolf does come, he has to face it alone and bear it alone. No matter how much he shouts, it won't help, and no one will come to help him again. Because people who might come to help him are used to his yelling and think that he is "teasing you" again. It can be seen that lies hinder honesty. But today we say "lies", and there is another attribute-goodwill. After adding this qualifier, the nature of lies has changed fundamentally. "White lies" are people's good wishes for things, a dialogue between people's kind hearts, the warmth of people comforting each other, and the tenderness revealed in people's hearts ... No one will investigate its credibility. People who hear a white lie will try to believe it even if they know it is a lie, and will not feel the hypocrisy of the liar, and sometimes they will be grateful from the heart.

Speaking of lies, I dare say that all of us have never lied since childhood. Yes, everyone has lied, but some lies are white and some lies are malicious! A white lie, with good intentions, is a lie that you have to make up when you lie and cheat in good faith.

The starting point of white lies:

First: White lies are out of goodwill, with the purpose and starting point of safeguarding the interests of others.

As we all know, contradictions can be divided into universality and particularity, and particularity is contained in particularity and different from universality. The essence of a white lie determines that it is not a bad benefit, but is based on sincerity and kindness in the heart, while a malicious lie is an act of seeking benefits for the liar, which only regards others as a means and does not hesitate to hurt others, with a strong desire for profit and weak rationality. The lies that people who are kind in themselves are "forced" to tell in a certain state are well-intentioned and a kind of friendliness and concern for the subject. However, unscrupulous people, no matter how to disguise, how to rhetoric, how to rack their brains to crown their malicious lies with malicious purposes. Obviously, a white lie does not hinder honesty.

Second: White lies are a way of life and a reflection of considerate quality.

Relatives and friends of terminally ill patients always tell their illness lightly with white lies and encourage him to cooperate with doctors. I'm sure none of you here will accuse them of dishonesty, will you? ! On the contrary, it is malicious and true. A prisoner was lured by the enemy to tell the deployment of his troops. Does anyone think he is honest? Sincerity to the enemy is betrayal to the country!

The director of the judicial expertise department of Guangzhou Brain Hospital said: "Lying is a human instinct. As for honesty, the key is what kind of lies to use. "

A lie that rejects love without directly hurting the suitor; An expressive lie that is unwilling to disappoint the inviter under the attentions of men is indispensable in interpersonal communication. It makes us more handy when dealing with the world, instead of cutting off other people's heads and scratching ourselves like a hard stone with many edges.

It can be seen that people need a layer of protective color and lubrication. Since being expelled from the Garden of Eden, people are not naked but surrounded by bark and grass leaves, aren't they?

Third: white lies are a kind of lies, but not telling lies will definitely hinder honesty. It is necessary to analyze specific problems.

Honesty is respected by everyone because it is kind and does not cheat. On the surface, white lies seem to hinder the principle of honesty, but in essence, they exist because telling the truth hinders the principle of good faith.

White lies and honesty are actually the relationship of unity of opposites, and the so-called violation only provides a useful supplement to honesty, not an obstacle. For example, it is stipulated that pedestrians in the same direction can only occupy half of the road, which does not hinder everyone's passage!

Fourth: A world without lies is like a dust-free earth. We agree that white lies do not hinder honesty, but this does not mean that we advocate honesty. The key is the degree.

Statement:

What is lying? If it is indiscriminate, it is defined as: not seeking truth from facts, telling lies, exaggerating, covering up and distorting the truth. Then our life is full of lies, big and small, from inflammatory advertisements to sweet words between lovers, full of exaggerated words, and even Lian Wenxue's works have become lies. Everyone has a standard of lying in his heart. How to grasp this degree is our first consideration. Compared with lies with bad motives, white lies will make people's feelings more harmonious and harmonious, and life more interesting. It can skillfully avoid conflicts, realize emotional communication and communicate smoothly. How can it interfere with honesty?

So learn to distinguish malicious lies and protect yourself from harm; At the same time, improve your self-cultivation and think about the best way to solve the problem. "The way of a university lies in virtue, being close to the people and stopping at perfection". As for those that are warm and make life full of interest; As for those lies full of kindness and compassion, let them bloom!

I believe that under the sky of goodwill, our world will be better! !

We teach our children not to lie, but many people forget to tell them that there is another kind of white lie in the world. Good people think about how many times we have told white lies in order not to embarrass others, to make others uncomfortable and to make ourselves feel ashamed. We lied, but we are kind people!

The world is not so pure. Innocence is scarce. Everything needs to be innocent. People are naive. The pursuit of innocence is mostly deceptive. Too many naked truths are just white lies of shameless people. The focus is on goodwill, which will be valuable.

But you can't deny the fact.

If you are ashamed and angry after being told, you will lose your goodwill and leak it out. . . .

Example:

When a terminally ill patient is sentenced to death by a doctor, his parents, lover, children and all relatives will not directly tell him, "Life is hopeless" and "How long can I live in this world at most". Although all this is true, who will tell the truth to their already miserable relatives as cruelly as a judge sentenced a prisoner to death? At this time, everyone will form a United front, keep silent about the truth, and use white lies to make patients full of hope for treatment and let patients spend the rest of their lives with peace of mind. Does this hinder honesty?

When a dead child suddenly encounters misfortune and loses his loved ones, how can he explain to him where his loved ones have gone? We think the best way is: don't tell him the real situation for the time being, just say to go on a business trip in a distant place or study abroad. When the child is sensible and has a certain tolerance, he will tell the truth, and the child will understand the practices of his loved ones and will not be angry because he did not know the truth earlier. Don't such words also hinder the integrity!

;