Logical problem 1. Impose cause and effect
The literal meaning is easy to understand, but this kind of mistake is often very confusing, and many debaters can't react on the court.
A book that was very popular a few years ago was called Currency War, which contained such a description. On the surface, President Lincoln was assassinated by the South. In fact, he was killed x days after signing the XX financial agreement ... President Kennedy signed the XX financial agreement before his assassination, trying to hit the interests of big consortia ... President Reagan was assassinated immediately after signing the XX financial agreement ...? These inflammatory descriptions remind many readers of themselves so that their brains can make up for it? American financial groups control American politics. If the president tries to limit their interests, do they dare to kill the president? This conclusion.
Is this a crime? Steal the front and back connection into causal connection? This mistake.
For example, I always have breakfast before I fail the exam, but I can't say? I failed the exam because I had breakfast? . Similarly, the president of the United States signs countless documents every year. Can't it be concluded that all the assassinated presidents have signed financial documents? Assassination of the president and financial documents? Related. For example, Song Hongbing tried to prove this correlation by signing a financial agreement before the assassination of the president, but every president had breakfast on the day of the assassination. Can you prove that the president was assassinated because he had breakfast? Obviously not. Moreover, the assassinations of Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and others are obviously not directly related to the financial system.
Generally speaking, there is causality, but causality is not necessarily causality.
Logical problem 2, causal effect
Personally, if you want to choose one of the most important required books for debaters, it is the Statistical Trap. The logical explanation and case analysis in this book are both lively and interesting, and rigorous and scientific. I read it five times, and I can learn a lot every time.
There is a case mentioned in it: a state in the United States has the largest number of leprosy patients and the highest proportion in the country. So many people come to the conclusion? The climate in this state must be prone to leprosy. ?
But in fact, on the contrary, the climate in this state is the most conducive to the cure of leprosy patients in the country, so all leprosy patients in this state will come here for treatment, which is why the number of leprosy patients in this state is the highest and the proportion is the highest in the country.
The same is true of the hot state these days: during World War II, the Allies invited a scientist to study which fuselage of the plane should be strengthened. Scientists counted the distribution map of the plane's shot area and found that the wing was shot the most, while the cockpit and engine were shot the least. So should we strengthen the protection of the wings? In fact, the samples that can be counted are all planes that came back alive after being hit, and those that crashed after being hit are not included in the statistics. In other words, the shot in the wing is only a minor injury, and the cockpit and engine with the least shot are the fatal parts, and this is also the place where protection needs to be strengthened most. ?
In the debate, when the other party puts forward a data that makes you feel very sudden (for example, there are the most leprosy patients in X state), don't instinctively escape or be afraid, but think carefully about whether the other party's data can push out the corresponding argument.
Logical question three. Swap concepts/premises
Steal the premise and definition of the debate into one that is inconsistent with the definition recognized by the public.
It has the following situations:
1, secretly changing the connotation and extension of a concept and making it another concept. Like what? Love comes first/reason comes first? This topic was originally about the comparison between human feelings and truth in interpersonal relationships, but many opponents will put it? Why? Defined as? The law of existence of everything in the universe? Such a strange definition belongs to the concept of stealing
2. Confuse different concepts with polysemous words; Like 02 full debate? Chatting online? ,? Have a chat? Is there a context? Meaningful? The meaning, but the square electronic science and technology university stole it? Are there any activities for chatting? , is a typical steal.
3. Confuse the concepts of set and non-set. The concept of set reflects the whole attribute of a kind of things, while the concept of non-set reflects the attribute of each molecule that constitutes a kind of things.
4. Change the subject. In the process of argumentation, he deliberately violated the rule that the topic should be clear and consistent, and secretly changed the subject.
Off-topic, due to different contexts, it is normal to have different definitions. Generally speaking, the difference in definition must first face the definition. The general principle is that the definition of first common sense does not need much deduction, but the definition of anti-common sense must be demonstrated and deduced. For example, at the Nanjing 09 Star Show last Saturday, will the opposing team? Dream? Defined as? A vision that will never come true? This definition violates the first common sense, so the opposing party has a long deductive argument. Although this definition is difficult to be recognized by the judges, it has also successfully disrupted the deployment of the square, making the game always unfold in the rhythm of the opposite side.
Logical question four, attack debate
That is to say, it is often irrelevant and seriously violates the original intention of the questioner.
For example, there used to be a topic called? Can/can't production safety problems be avoided from happening again? . The positive argument is this:? People can't step into a river at the same time, and there are no two identical leaves in the world, so similar production safety problems can't be completely consistent, so we can naturally avoid repeating the same mistakes? . There is no logical problem with this argument, but it is a typical offensive debate.
What else is there? Do humans need/don't need a time machine? What are many arguments against this topic? A time machine can't be built, so what can't be built is naturally unnecessary? . This argument is also suspected of attacking the debate, because the discussion of this proposition is based on? Time machines can be made? The premise is.
The most serious consequence of attacking the debate is that it is impossible to confront each other. In the eyes of the argument judge, it will be judged directly, but in the eyes of the white paper judge, it depends on whether the other party responds. For example, this year's Chinese Debate Competition, Tianjin University and Malaysia Guoneng Competition? Is there a blessing for the popular screening of China films in Thailand? What is Ma Guoneng's argument against it? The popularity of any movie can't solve the problem of piracy, so the popularity of any movie is not the blessing of China movies? . This argument is obviously an attack on the debate, but the relevant rebuttal of the square Tianjin University is not enough, so it lost the competition.
Logical question 5. Inappropriate analogy
When analogical reasoning is used, it is inferred that the analogical object has another attribute that is not highly related to the known attribute only based on the rare and atypical * * * same attribute of two things. This false analogy is logically called improper analogy.
Here's a digression. Wuhan University senior student and Dou once said? All analogies are improper analogies? All the analogies are different from what you wanted to discuss. At this time, you often need to tell the judges that your analogy does not directly support the proposition, but deduces an argument in your system.
Here is an example, which Zhou Shuai likes very much, from Anhui University.
? Excuse me, another debater, can summer insects speak ice?
? Insects in summer can't talk about ice, because they can't survive in winter at all, and naturally they don't know what winter is like. Similarly, college students have just graduated. If they don't exercise for two years, how can they know how to be provincial civil servants?
This analogy is not rigorous in the strict sense, but the field effect is excellent, and everyone understands the meaning at once.
Logical question six. double standard
Double standard is a kind of pragmatic sophistry, which refers to adopting different right and wrong standards and choices for different objects on the same issue in order to confuse right and wrong and achieve their own goals.
What needs to be clear here is that it is normal to adopt different standards if the nature is different. But if the nature of the two is exactly the same, it is nonsense to adopt the same standard. For example, the United States sometimes supports the same separatist movement, saying that this is? Democratic self-determination? Sometimes it is violently suppressed, which is a typical double standard.
Double standards are common in life and debate, but they are also hidden. I won't start here, so as not to be labeled as fifty cents or twenty cents, but you can look at the debates of those people online, and the double standards are extremely obvious.
Logical question seven. Inclusive argument
A special form of the concept of stealing, in which the other party's position is included in his own position for argument, is also called a package debate.
Like what? Why is management more important than service? Because service is also a kind of management. ? This theory is relatively rare now, and it used to be more common in the logical age. In the age of value, people prefer to play by their bodies.
Logical question eight. a vicious circle
The authenticity of the paper depends on the argument, and the authenticity of the argument depends on the paper. This is a circular argument.
This is also often said? Condom logic? For example:? I love you! Why do you love me? Because you deserve my love. Where is it worth loving? What I love about you. .
In the debate, circular argument is often hidden in the definition. Like what? Does the teacher put preaching first? What's the argument? Ordinary teachers put teaching first, but teachers are taller than ordinary teachers. They are specially used to teach the truth of heaven and earth, so naturally they put preaching first? . This is a typical circular argument, which will be difficult to find after packaging.
Here's a digression. In the 1990s, there were many theoretical articles on the Internet that emphasized circular argument, stole concepts and even fabricated arguments. The right technique? Promotion, everyone must keep their eyes open.
Logical question nine. Necessary and sufficient conditions
There is no need to say this thing separately, but I found that many debaters have mastered it to the extreme in actual combat, so I will briefly mention it.
The necessary condition is that you must have me, but you can't do it without me. For example, eating is a necessary condition for living, because you can't live without eating.
The so-called sufficient condition is that having you will bring me, but without you, hey hey, maybe I'm still here. For example, drinking milk can make you grow taller, but not drinking milk may not make you grow taller.
In the actual combat of the debate, it must be clearly defined. Like what? Where does the hero Mo Wen come from? In China, it is a sufficient condition for the positive party to prove the source, and it is a necessary condition for the negative party to prove the source. Based on this, we can discuss whether to ask.
Logic problem 10. Full name judgment
It is also a product of the logical era, when the debate was specific? I'm fine. Are you all wrong? Therefore, the establishment of any position must ensure that there are no counterexamples, so I will make a fuss about the premise. For example, the source of the hero Mo Wen mentioned above, if you have to prove every hero in the logical age, don't ask; And the Nanjing 09 star farewell match the day before yesterday. Is that what the other party said? Neither side can be established under the full name judgment, so other definitions must be used? .
It should be said that the concept of full name judgment has nothing to do with the technical level of debate, but with the conceptual level of debate, so I won't expand it here. However, when preparing the topic, the general debater needs to think about a question: if there is a counterexample, how can I solve it?
Logical problem XI. Logical self-consistency
In fact, it is a self-contradictory question, so I won't expand it here. Generally, hand-to-hand combat teams like to attack each other's logical contradictions, but pushing the battlefield has become so popular in recent years that everyone talks to themselves. One logical inconsistency rarely occurs, and the other is rarely attacked.
You can go to see Xia's debate novels "The Youth Life of Ares" and "The Mysterious Mail of Y", which are discussed in detail.
Logical question 12. syllogism
Syllogism includes three concepts: major premise, minor premise and conclusion. And it is required that in two premises, the item must be GAI once. The term "item" refers to the concept that appears repeatedly in the premise GAI, and refers to all judged extensions. Therefore, there are four kinds of errors in syllogism: pseudo-syllogism; Major premise error; Minor premise error; GAI made a mistake in the middle.
Thirteen logical problems: generalizing from the partial.
Generalization refers to a simplified inductive method, which draws general conclusions only from a few examples. Because any example is not difficult to find, in serious scientific thinking, only one example can put forward a preliminary hypothesis, but can not prove any proposition.
In the example of debate competition, there are generally two principles: 1, a good counterexample is more effective than ten good positive examples, especially in the discussion of comparative debate; 2. Positive examples must be non-extreme, typical and social examples, preferably familiar to everyone, so that they can have a good persuasion effect at once. For example, if I want to discuss the problem of luxury consumption, it is definitely unscientific to take myself as an example, and there must be social and typical data or examples.
The same is true in the selection of data. First of all, we must ensure that the data sources are true and extensive, secondly, we must ensure that the data caliber is scientific and effective, and finally, the bridge between data and arguments must be sufficiently relevant, otherwise the effectiveness will be difficult to guarantee.