For your question, I think it boils down to the starting point of an argument. Now I'll give you a hint.
You should have seen all the cases of the best nail house. How do you feel after reading them? Will it be particularly disgusted with corruption and particularly sympathetic to the sufferings of ordinary people? This is your chance to express your sincere heart to everyone. (This is your passion)
The idea of the debate is to tell the other party with sympathy and indignation that the nail house's persistence is not the embodiment of his personal problems, but the embodiment of social problems, and the nail house's rights protection is worth emulating.
1. The nail house's rights protection behavior is a pun. Serious social problems and obvious social contradictions can be better reflected through them. Their actions not only tell us that the law is for the people, but also for the people's rights. They also tell us that the law is not a plaything for powerful people. Resolutely fighting corruption and adultery is respect and trust for the law and the best exemplary means to safeguard rights.
2. In a perfect country with legal system, people should have a good system to feed back problems to their superiors, but we can know from nail households that the legal system in China needs to be improved, and it is difficult for people to petition. Only through the great persistence of nail households can people and the government pay attention to it, which is not only a reminder of the national management system, but also a valuable suggestion to improve the law.
3. Law is to protect people's vital interests and is the cornerstone of a country ruled by law. Therefore, no matter which citizen has the obligation to make valuable suggestions on the legal system. The nail house is using his behavior to contribute to the perfection of the law and defend his rights. It is a valuable way to protect rights. Avoid avoiding problems and hide the harm of problems.
There are many debating skills, mainly to make more preparations before the debate, instead of directly answering each other's questions. Traps are everywhere. If you are an oriental or a westerner, you can answer yes. This is logic. A direct answer is risky unless you know what he is going to say next. . . The topic should also be extracted step by step. Don't ask questions at once, because the other person will also avoid answering directly, so the topic should be set to yes or no, right or wrong. . Wait a minute. Double choice.
You must remember the function of four parameters. At the beginning of an argument, he should set the tone. If you take the passionate route, you should read the manuscript enthusiastically, mainly focusing on your hands. The second debate, the first attack debate, is the focus of the attack. He is like a stormtrooper who wants to start a storm. In the three debates, the offensive and defensive sides should not fight alone, but should be prepared to plug the loopholes after the attack in the two debates, and also draw conclusions from the four debates. The case is the main trend of the three debates. There seems to be no need to be flexible in four debates, but you should also have the ability to sum up at the last minute and make an impassioned summary. This is another wonderful thing.
I think I've said a lot. I'm not sure how much you know now If you don't know, you can ask me privately. . . I hope I can help you. Remember, passion and your true thoughts will give you a good debate experience.