During the Warring States Period, a hundred schools of thought contended and hundred schools of thought rose together. As the successor of Confucian orthodoxy, Mencius took it as his duty to protect the world and benefit the people, and traveled among countries, outstanding in the world with his eloquence and rhetoric. His words are magnificent and speculative, and many of them are eloquent and sharp-edged, which is really amazing. Su Xun's evaluation of his ci, "Words are vividly left, not for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, but not for the front" [1], is really ingenious because it is concise without losing vitality and vigor. Scholars of past dynasties have done a lot of research on Mencius, mainly focusing on philosophy, politics and exegetics, while the research on his debating art and language skills is slightly weak. Among them, most of the comments on Mencius' debating art before modern times are scattered in the works of Su Xun, Zhao Qi and Han Yu. Among them, Niu Yunzhen, a scholar in Qing Dynasty, discussed Mencius' language rhetoric and argumentation skills earlier, but his papers mostly focused on the micro and lacked macro comments [2]. Since modern times, the study of Mencius has been carried out gradually, and the study of Mencius' debating art has also been further developed. Qian Jibo, in his book The History of China Literature [3], commented that Mencius' words were extensive and full of integrity, and were more eloquent than eloquent. Duan classifies the techniques used in Mencius' argument one by one in the article Argument of Truth [4], which is very clear and coherent. Tan Jiajian starts with the structure of Mencius and analyzes its artistic features. He believes that the primary feature of Mencius' argument is clarity and fluency [5]. Shengliang Liu analyzed Mencius' argument from the logical level, and divided it into avoidance, seeking common ground, backchat and other skills [6]. Mencius skillfully used all kinds of argumentation methods, often achieving his argumentation purpose. His argumentation skills are mainly reflected in the following aspects: First, Mencius is good at metaphor in argumentation, and Zhao Qi once said: "Mencius is good at metaphor, and his words are not urgent, but his meaning is unique." [7] Mencius is good at revealing abstract truth with concrete examples, making invisible and incomprehensible abstract concepts concrete and sensible, so that if the listener sees it with his own eyes, he can expand the effect of "realizing him". For example, in Liang Pian, Liang asked Mencius why he devoted himself to the people's livelihood, but "there are not many people in neighboring countries, and there are not many people in our country" [8]. Mencius knew that he was belligerent and ignorant, so he replied by implication of war: "When it is full, the weapons will be picked up and the armor will be left. Or stop after a hundred steps, or stop after fifty steps. What if the pot is too black? " [9] Here, Mencius uses the political metaphor of neighboring countries to escape after a hundred steps, and uses Liang's political metaphor to escape after fifty steps. Although the number of steps is different, there is no essential difference. Just like Liang Huiwang's administration, although it can be merciful for the people, it is no different from neighboring countries' unkindness to their own people in the final analysis, and it is "unable to be king and support the people" [10]. Mencius answered this question, which made Liang deeply aware of his political mistakes and was speechless; Second, I am not good at benevolent politics. Although there is no distinction between praise and criticism in the whole article, the meaning of praise and criticism lies in it, which is the profound meaning of Mencius' use. Mencius often used metaphors in his argument, which enabled him to use the skills of confusing the audience and stealing concepts in his argument, thus achieving "hiding people's eyes and ears" and being in a favorable position in his argument. Meaning is abstract and general, while examples are concrete and individual. Therefore, the theory of justice can often cover a wider range and its content is more concise. On the contrary, the coverage of examples is very limited, but because of its individuality, examples often contain features that are not necessarily included in the meaning, so the coverage of examples is greater than the meaning. In this way, there is an opportunity to use metaphors to illustrate meaning, confuse thinking and steal concepts. For example, when arguing with Mencius about the good and evil of sex in a sentence, he said, "The way of life is called sex." [1 1] It is proposed that the innate nature of individuals is sex, which is intended to prove that human nature is neither good nor evil. Mencius replied: "Is life natural or white?" [12] Here, Mencius has begun to confuse the audience. First, he confused "life" with "sex" and equated individual existence with sex; Moreover, the universal "essence of life" mentioned by Gao Zi is confused with the very limited "white is white", which undoubtedly sets a trap for Gao Zi, but Gao Zi is unaware of it. In this way, there was a later article, and Mencius continued to ask his son if white, white snow and white jade were the same. Because the whiteness of the three has been stipulated by feather, snow and jade, although all three are white, they are sparse. Mencius obviously knew that there was a difference between the three and asked this question on purpose, but Gao Zi still didn't feel it. Therefore, Mencius further confused the dog nature, cattle nature and human nature, which made Gao Made Zi fall into an embarrassing situation. In this debate, Mencius cited many examples in succession, using special cases to refer to universal principles and skillfully changing concepts, leaving opponents confused. I really can't praise his intelligence. From the example of Mencius' anti-humanity argument, we can see that Mencius is also good at setting traps in his speech, speculating on the other person's heart, and deepening step by step, making the other person fall into the embarrassing situation of self-denial and being speechless in ignorance. In Mencius' argument, the tactics of luring the enemy deeper and inviting you into the urn abound. For example, in Liang Xiazhang, Mencius stabbed the throne without making a plan, which inspired him to reflect on himself and make a difference. He asked three questions, first how to deal with treacherous and irresponsible friends, and then how to deal with dereliction of duty officials. Xuan Wang didn't realize Mencius' intention to ask questions, and answered them with "give it up" and "have it" respectively. Therefore, when Mencius asked the third question, that is, how to deal with the hopeless king, Xuan Wang had completely fallen into the trap. At this point, Xuan Wang's thousands of answers are to refute himself, on the contrary, it is immoral. I really can't answer, so I have to "talk about him from left to right." It can be seen that Mencius laid a trap in his speech, which was really speechless and convincing, and its advantages were evident. On the other hand, Mencius was outspoken and dared to stab the monarch with his words, demanding that the monarch govern the country and the people govern the world, which is worthy of his image as a "scholar" who took the world as his responsibility and pleaded for the people all his life, which is also a major feature of Mencius' argument. Mencius' argumentation skills include "positive" and "negative". If you encounter a problem that Mencius doesn't want to talk about, Mencius will take a "negative" approach, cleverly avoid it, and take the opportunity to change the subject. For example, in Liang's Zhang Sentence, Mencius was asked about his deeds, and Mencius said, "Zhong Ni's followers have no way of knowing Huan Wen's works, and those who don't know it in the future will also" [13], in response to the question of not knowing it. But did Confucius really have no way to do this? Meng Zicheng doesn't know about this? Of course not. According to the Analects of Confucius, Confucius talked about Qi Huan and Jin Wen many times. For example, "Xian Wen" mentioned: "Huan Gong and nine princes, not chariots, Guan Zhong's power" [14] and "Guan Zhong controls Huan Gong Ba and conquers the world" [15], which is obviously not what Mencius said. Mencius himself highly praised Confucius and praised him for being "born without being superior to Confucius" [16]. Naturally, he should know what he said in detail, which shows that Mencius is very familiar with this matter, but he just realized that Qi Xuanwang's hegemonism, following the example of Qi Huan and Jinwen, would run counter to the benevolent policies he advocated, so he pretended not to know about Qi Xuanwang. Not only that, Mencius went on to say, "If there is nothing, what is king?" [17] quickly shifted the topic to how to govern the country with benevolence, and publicized his ideas to Qi Xuanwang. It can be said that this move skillfully solved the dilemma faced by Mencius, turned defensive into offensive, and made Mencius regain the dominant position in the debate. Source: Western Prose