Scene language skills that college students must know

Chapter 33 Scene 33 - Participating in the Debate Competition

Chapter 33 Scene 33 - Participating in the Debate Competition
Chapter 33 Scene 33 - Participating in the Debate Competition
Since Peking University won the laurels in the 1986 Asian College Debate in Singapore, especially Fudan University scored twice, consecutively

After winning the debate championship twice, debate competitions of all levels and scopes began to emerge in an endless stream in our country, especially in large

The school campus has sprung up like mushrooms after rain and developed rapidly.For everyone, even if you don't have the chance to compete in the debate

In order to show off his talents, at least he hopes that he can be eloquent and improve his eloquence.As a means of exchanging ideas, exercising thinking, enhancing

As an effective form of wisdom, maintaining dignity, and seeking truth, debate has been valued and loved by people more and more, and it has become a

an indispensable part of people's lives. ?
As a college student at school, whether in daily life or participating in debates, you need to use your eloquence to argue

Argument.When debating, mastering the proper methods and techniques will help you further succeed.The following introduces when participating in the debate

techniques and methods. ?
([-]) Positive and negative comparison?

In debates, in order to prove the correctness of their views, orators do not use confrontational confrontation, but use two or more examples.

To establish one's own correctness by making a stark comparison of any critical differences that appear. ?
The biggest feature of this approach is the two-case argument.The so-called two cases actually refer to two or more cases.Since it is compared, it is inseparable
case.However, it is really difficult to demonstrate a point of view with two or more related examples.Therefore, in the general debate it is not
more common.But once one of the parties grasps the essence of the debate topic and understands it clearly, the positive and negative comparison can have a very good effect.two cases

It is composed of "two sides" or "two points".Thus, the material for comparison is naturally formed.highlight by comparison

Facing the contrast between advantages and disadvantages, create momentum, make the opponent unconsciously inferior psychologically, or establish oneself in a positive and negative comparison.

The rationality of each side's point of view is to achieve the goal of defeating others without fighting. ?
On the topic of "Wang Hai Crackdown on Counterfeiting" in CCTV's "Tell the Truth" column, the famous economist Fan Gang and Mr. Gao Ming had an affair.
Had a great conversation.If you read carefully, you will find that Fan Gang's words use positive and negative comparison tactics in many places——?
Gao Ming: The issue of "Wang Hai's anti-counterfeiting" mentioned by Mr. Fan just now, can we use Wang Hai's anti-counterfeiting to discuss with government functional departments

Make a comparison of the anti-counterfeiting methods to find out which one is more effective in anti-counterfeiting. ?
Fan Gang: Of course, the anti-counterfeiting effect of government functional departments is better. No one denies that the government should play a major role. Consumers Association
It should play a major role, but the current situation is that the functional government departments and the Consumers Association have been fighting for a long time, and there are still many counterfeit
Inferior goods, do you want to add some social forces and supplementary forces to participate in the fight against counterfeiting... (interrupted).If you look at the government

The limited power of the department and the Consumers Association has dealt with a few cases, so should there be more people to deal with counterfeiting, and more
Make more use of less noble and less pure motives to crack down on counterfeiting. I think this should be what we need to think about now
. ?
Gao Ming: But why there are so many counterfeit and shoddy products, but complaints only account for 5% of the cases?
Can anti-counterfeiting activities solve it?Another question is whether Wang Hai's anti-counterfeiting will have any negative effects. First, it will affect the society
The other is the negative effect on the construction of the legal system. ?
If everyone cracks down on counterfeiting like Wang Hai, instead of finding a functional department to eliminate such fakes across the board when buying something,
Instead, one-to-one individual claims for a certain product will not be able to break the root cause of fake products. ?
Fan Gang: This is tantamount to asking Wang Hai to do more things. He not only wants to catch the counterfeit merchants, but also goes to the counterfeit factories

go home.So I think the problems exposed by consumers are exactly what our government functional departments and Consumers Association should continue to do.
For things, the manufacturer must be held accountable, and Wang Hai's behavior is a supplement to our government's functional departments and the Consumers Association.As for saying
When it comes to system building and what benefits it has for building a system, who is disrupting the social and economic order now?first those

Millions of counterfeit and shoddy products, and then our system is not perfect.Now there are some profit-oriented,
Some people say that we use the method of playing around the corner to crack down on counterfeiting. This just reveals that our system is still far from perfect and sound.

There are some loopholes that can be played around the edge.This way of cracking down on counterfeiting also shows that the improvement of our system requires a certain amount of time.
This process itself is also a kind of conflict between the two interests, a conflict of interest between those who sell counterfeit goods and those who oppose counterfeit goods.

It is just right to take advantage of this opportunity to be an arbitrator in this kind of conflict and to improve the legal system.any system

They are all gradually perfected in this kind of conflict. It doesn't mean that I can perfect them today if I enforce the law well. It must be

The system can be gradually improved in the conflict between the parties. I think our system must also be improved in this process.us

The discussion here today is because of this kind of conflict and the occurrence of such incidents, which will affect our future legal system.
The impetus and positive effect produced by the degree cannot be ignored. ?

In this debate, Fan Gang's words have already hidden the technique of comparison.On the one hand, he affirmed the advantages of the main channel to "crack down on counterfeiting".
On the other hand, it is very "official" to use "not so noble and not so pure motives" as a metaphor for the "second channel"
The comparison of "cracking down on counterfeiting" clearly shows Fan Gang's sympathy for the criticism of the phenomenon of "Wang Hai cracking down on counterfeiting".

Mr. Gao Ming pointed out that Wang Hai's crackdown on counterfeiting will bring negative effects to the society, which is indeed difficult to refute positively.And Fan Gang continued to use

Comparative law, I can't explain my reasons more fully. ?
Under his positive and negative comparison, people's psychological tendency will naturally lean towards the inclined side.After all, people are deeply attached to fake

It's disgusting, and the more and more crackdowns on counterfeiting are making people helpless.When people recognize Wang Hai from Fan Gang's two-faced reasoning
When it comes to the positive significance of cracking down on counterfeiting, who can't help applauding Fan Gang and even Wang Poster? ?
It can be seen that the reasonable use of the positive and negative comparison method in the debate, whether it is offensive or defensive, can show the connotation of the wisdom of the debater
. ?
([-]) Hit its vitals?

When debating, both sides of the debate cannot always be watertight, and there will always be their own weaknesses or defects.if you can catch the pair
If the weak link of the opponent immediately launches an attack, if it hits its vital point, the opponent will be powerless to fight back.This trick often works well in debates.

Consider this example below: ?
In 1988, the 41st presidential election of the United States.Polls show: Democratic presidential nominee Dukakis ahead of August
More than ten percentage points more than the Republican presidential candidate Bush.For this reason, American political public relations expert Roger?ayers help boo

Bush defeated his opponent with ingenious arguments. When Bush and Dukakis had the last televised debate, Bush's advantage was greatly enhanced.
So that the final victory is guaranteed. ?
The strategy of Bush's ingenious argument is to seize the opponent's weakness, hit its vital point, and poke at the painful spot, so as to put the opponent in a difficult situation.Dukaki
Smith ridiculed that Bush was just a shadow of Reagan, without his own political opinions.The reason is that he followed the conservative Godward in the early 60s
In the early 80s, he followed the moderate Rockefeller, and later attached to Ji Ligan.As a politician, his own political
The markings are not obvious.When Dukakis mockingly asked, "Where is Bush?" Bush began to retort. ?
First, Bush answered his question with ease: "Oh, what's wrong with Bush being at home with Mrs. Barbara?"
? "A plain sentence, but with a double meaning, it not only shows Bush's moral character, but also satirizes Dukakis's love interest,
Put Dukakis in an extremely embarrassing situation. ?
Second, Bush showed a strong sense of self-awareness about his political following, criticizing Dukakis for
Billed as the liberal within the Democratic Party, his political pride is overshadowed by having to stick to what the Democrats have always said
, so Dukakis will leave voters with a bad image of a "speculative politician".Plus, catch Dukakis getting used to

Blinking weakness, the Republican Party used the television screen to create an image of diplomatic experience, toughness, and cannonballs.
Made a shot of Bush shaking hands with Gorbachev, the narrator said Bush could stand up to Gorbachev, staring, determined
Unwavering.At the same time, he sarcastically sarcastically blinked Du Shi, and asked, how can one believe that a person who always blinks can carry out firm diplomacy?At last

Bush's vote turned from a laggard to an advantage.Bush's "hit the nail on the neck" here has paid off. ?
([-]) Tell the truth?

The so-called irony is the meaning of irony.That is to say, when opposing the other party's point of view, use an extreme praise

Use the language of the other party to ridicule the other party, let the other party know that you are being ridiculed but can't answer the debate with you.When two sides have conflicting views

, the use of positive and negative statements will have a stronger appeal and irony than positive statements, and it will invisibly strengthen the power of the debate

and momentum. ?
Mr. Lu Xun is very good at using rhetorical rhetoric. In his "Letter to the Trotskyites", he once had a very wonderful narrative——

?
Your "theory" is indeed much more advanced than that of Mr. Mao Zedong, not only is it much more advanced, it is simply that one is in the sky and the other is on the ground.
Down.But superbness is of course admirable, but it is precisely this kind of excellence that was welcomed by the Japanese invaders, and this kind of excellence is still unavoidable.

Fall, fall to the dirtiest place on the ground. ?

Here, in just a few words, Mr. used "much higher", "one is in the sky, the other is underground", "respectful".
"Pe" and other three irony words, carried out an extremely bitter satire on the Trotskyists.?
In a debate in the Changhong Cup National TV Debate Contest "The Tobacco Industry Does More Benefits to Society than Harm", when the affirmative party mentioned that there are 8000 million peasants
While eating tobacco rice, the Nankai University team replied:?
Opponent, the tobacco industry has not only solved the food problem for 8000 million people, but what should we see more?The tobacco industry has driven
The development of hospitals has led to the development of fire trucks, and even led to the signs of wearing red sleeves on the road telling you not to throw cigarette butts anywhere.

Grandpa's development! ?
In the above debate, on the surface, it seems that the opposing side agrees with and supports the views of the affirmative, but in fact it is a satire and criticism of the affirmative’s views.

Mocking makes people feel that the tobacco industry is a serious harm to society. ?
The key to using the tactic of telling the truth is to let the audience understand without causing misunderstanding, which requires creating a specific premise
and "Context".For example, when one hears the eloquent praise the "extremely heroic spirit" of the Prussian army with beautiful irony

Eliminated the landlord's wine, meat and food, filled the "patriotic" stomach, and only missed the board and lodging expenses, otherwise, when the reputation will be better,

Who doesn't laugh dumbfounded, feeling contempt for this group of rich and poor? ?

([-]) Tit for tat?

When debating, it often happens that the other party proceeds from subjective needs and uses all kinds of specious sophistry to defend himself.

self-defense.In this regard, tit-for-tat methods can be used to refute them one by one.Please see the following example: ?

When the patriotic general Feng Yuxiang served as the governor of Shaanxi, two foreigners went hunting in Zhongnan Mountain privately and killed two precious bison
, So, Feng Yuxiang recruited them to Xi'an Xingshi to question the crime—?
Feng Yuxiang: "When you went hunting in Zhongnan Mountain, who did you greet and did you get a permit?"?
The other party: "We are fighting an unowned bison, so there is no need to inform anyone."?
Feng Yuxiang: "Mount Zhongnan is under the jurisdiction of Shaanxi, and the bison belongs to the territory of China. How could it be ownerless? You don't know

Approving hunting without permission is a crime, don't you know it's a crime? "?
The other party: "This time in Shaanxi, isn't the passport issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of your country allowed to carry shotguns? It can be seen that we have already hunted.
With the permission of your country's government, how can it be hunting without permission? "?
Feng Yuxiang: "If you are allowed to carry shotguns, does that mean you are allowed to hunt? If you are allowed to carry pistols, you can
Random killings in the territory? "?
The other party: "I have been in China for 15 years, and there has never been a place where hunting is prohibited. Besides, there is no law in China that prohibits hunting.
Provisions for foreigners hunting in the territory. "?
Feng Yuxiang: "There is no clause prohibiting foreigners from hunting, yes. But is there a clause allowing foreigners to hunt? Your 15 years

If they didn't encounter the government's prohibition, they fell asleep.Now that I am a magistrate in Shaanxi, I am not asleep.I owe
The responsibility of protecting the land and defending the rights entrusted by the people of the country must be prohibited. "?

In this debate, General Feng refuted the sophistry of the two foreigners one by one: the first one is "the unowned bison is being beaten.

No one shall be notified", rebutted by the theory of territory and sovereignty; the second passport "allows the carrying of shotguns", pointing out that the violation of "pushing

the logical error of "out", that is, there is no necessary relationship between the argument and the topic, and use reductio absurdum to refute the "permission to hunt" again.
topic; the third article is from the perspective of time and space ("There has never been a place where hunting in China has been banned for 15 years"), and from the legal perspective ("China
There is no provision in the laws of the country that prohibits foreigners from hunting in the country") looking for arguments again. General Feng used a surprise attack

strategy, to attack the opponent by surprise.The two foreigners who hunted without permission were dismissed so that they had no loopholes to take advantage of, and they had no power to argue.

It's good to plead guilty. ?
([-]) Inherit first and transfer later?

The so-called "inheritance first and then transfer" means to take over the other party's topic first, expressing a certain degree of agreement, so as to ease the other party's tough attitude

degree, and then make a turning point to point out the fallacy of the other party. ?
As long as the dialogue is premised on debate, it can be applied whether the superior is to the subordinate or the subordinate is to the superior.if you
If you are a subordinate or junior, when you face stubborn and conservative superiors and elders, this method must be more useful than anything else.Reasonable

Using the method of inheritance and transfer not only respects the other party, makes the other party feel calm, but also makes the other party accept your opinions happily. ?
In the debate arena, when the two sides collide and create room for reconciliation that is difficult to reconcile, in order to avoid sharpness, it is just a way to pretend to admit the other party.
A show of wit.This kind of false inheritance can be understood as "a strategy to delay the army" in the sense of the art of war.That is to slow down the opponent's firepower, so that
The other party relaxes the attack on you consciously or unconsciously. When you think that the time is ripe and the situation has a self-interested turning point, suddenly change the word

The front, pointing directly at the opponent's vital points, will surely get miraculous results.So far, when it is inherited first and then used in debates, it can also be called Fuzhong Zangthorn. ?
The key word of inheriting first and then transferring is the word "zhuan".With its turn, it can change from passive to active, catching opponents by surprise.exist
Seeing wisdom in a turn, and winning from a turn, this is a speculative technique used by eloquents to defeat the enemy.Let's give one of the following
An example of actual combat like a debate field. In October 1931, Wang Ruofei, an underground member of the Communist Party of China, was arrested and imprisoned. The warden Han Jiankui thought he was smart

Clearly handed Wang Ruofei a book of "Buddhist Scriptures", and afterward, the two had the following conversation——?
Han Jiankui: Have you read the Buddhist scriptures I gave you? ?

Wang Ruofei: I have read it, and I have read it a long time ago. ?
Han Jiankui: What do you think? ?

Wang Ruofei: Very rewarding. ?
Han Jiankui: That's right, the sea of ​​suffering is boundless, if you look back, you will jump out of the sea of ​​suffering, right? ?

Wang Ruofei: Not only do I want to jump out of the sea of ​​suffering, but I also want to guide everyone to jump out of the sea of ​​suffering!Are you okay? ?
Han Jiankui: That's great, that's great!Truly, the Dharma is boundless, gold and stone are the same, Amitabha! ?

Wang Ruofei: But, warden, do you know where the sea of ​​suffering is? ?

Han Jiankui: This...?
Wang Ruofei: The sea of ​​suffering is under your feet. The sea of ​​suffering is endless exploitation, the reactionary rule of the Kuomintang, and you
The prisons, execution grounds, courts and all your crimes, we must fill up the sea of ​​bitterness you have dug for the common people, and make the poor
Bring the people of happiness to the world! ?
Han Jiankui: (Knowing that he has been fooled, he blushes with shame) You insult the Holy Spirit, misinterpret Buddhist scriptures, you are not allowed to speak nonsense!
In the dialogue in the above example, Wang Ruofei cleverly used the eloquent skills of first inheriting and then turning, which made the warden Han Jiankui obediently go to the prison.
Drilling in the "set", when drilling to "that's great", it means the moment when the opponent mistakenly thinks that he has really "accepted", but Wang Ruofei
With a sudden turning point and eloquent speeches, the opponent is pushed into a state of utter embarrassment.Wang Ruofei looked at the enemy
Ugly, he let out a "haha" laugh in the attitude of a winner. ?
Although Wang Ruofei's argument against the reactionary warden did not take place in today's debate stage, the rationality of his inheritance does.
Those who engage in debate are worthy of imitation.Let me give another example from CCTV's "Tell the Truth" column, please

Let’s have a taste, is this similar to the former’s speculation——?
Host: Where should Mr. Zhou hide to smoke? ?
Zhou Xiaozheng: I never smoke. ?
Moderator: Don't smoke at all? ?

Zhou Xiaozheng: Yes, I don’t smoke at all. ?
Host: You see, the three of you talked about smoking just now. You can smoke when you are hungry, but you can’t resist the temptation to smoke.look, i

Think you are the same age as them, why can you get out of "smoke mud" without getting stained? ?

Zhou Xiaozheng: I go against the trend. ?
Moderator: Because it is against the trend, so you don't smoke? ?
Zhou Xiaozheng: Yes.The students around me were all smoking, I thought I should go against the trend, I said, if you all smoke, I will not.and

And I look down on smokers, they are all assimilated and have no personality. ?
Moderator: You mean that smoking has no personality. ?
Zhou Xiaozheng: Yes, smoking has no personality.If no one else smokes, he is the only one who smokes. I think he has the spirit of invention;
Everyone smokes, and he smokes again. This is a kind of copycat, with no personality.And knowing it's bad, but still smoking, this

It was intolerable. ?
Moderator: Is it because you don't smoke in order to maintain your personality? ?

Zhou Xiaozheng: Yes, it was like this at the very beginning. ?
Moderator: Well, do you drink alcohol? ?

Zhou Xiaozheng: At first I didn’t drink alcohol. (laughter)?

Moderator: So now I'm still drinking a lot. ?
Zhou Xiaozheng: Drink now, sometimes drink a little, but never drink too much. ?
Moderator: Others drink, and I drink too. This is also a kind of damage to personality. ?

Mr. Zhou Xiaozheng in the previous conversation is a well-known sociology scholar, and he has an "unforgettable" attitude towards smokers.

hate", so some more extreme emotions were revealed in the words. The host Cui Yongyuan caught him saying that the smoker "has no
The theory of "personality" is first inherited and then transferred, and then transferred to the topic of drinking, and then we will see whether "assimilation" and "personality" are logical

contact. ?
It is conceivable that if Mr. Zhou is really "against the trend", he thinks that everyone smokes and he does not smoke to show his personality, then everyone
He should not drink at home, but he was told by Cui Yongyuan that he "drinks sometimes" under Cui Yongyuan's "inheritance".
It provided Cui Yongyuan with a wonderful opportunity to "turn back", so the sentence "Others drink, I also drink, this is also a kind of damage to personality."
Bad" made Mr. Zhou speechless. ?
From this point of view, using the method of inheritance and transfer to debate with others, as long as the opportunity is grasped, excellent eloquent results can be achieved. ?
([-]) Play hard to get?

Desire to be captured has always been regarded as one of the strategies of military strategists.In today's battles in many fields, this method is also widely used

, The verbal wrestling in the debate field is nothing more than the same.Playing hard to get is a "roundabout" strategy. "To lure the enemy

, so that I always tend to it, even though I am thousands of miles away, I can still capture and kill the enemy general. "If the purpose is difficult to achieve directly during the debate, use this
This method is to give the opponent a kind of "possible victory" bait, so that it can relax its vigilance and get carried away. At this time, the opponent will often
No scruples, flaws exposed.Once you are hit head-on, you may be in chaos and suffer a crushing defeat. ?
A cadre A from Anhui went to a township to inspect the work.During his inspection, he found that there were many problems in this township, so he asked the head of the township to

Come on, here's their conversation: ?
Officer A: If a staff member under your command dereliction of duty three times a day, will you punish him? ?

Township head: I don't have to wait until three times, I will punish him. ?
Cadre A: Well, you also have a lot of negligence in your own duties. ?
Township head: This...?
Officer A: When the famine comes, the people in your area have been scattered to other places. There are already more than a hundred people. ?
Township head: Natural disasters are beyond my power. ?
Officer A: For example, if a person accepts other people’s cattle and sheep and grazes them for others, he must find pastures and grass for the cattle and sheep.

It's over.If you can't find any pasture or fodder, should you return it to its owner, or stand there and watch it die one by one?
Township head: This is my fault. ?

In this dialogue, Cadre A, as a superior cadre, obviously held opinions on the leadership of the township head and intended to criticize it.he
Maybe he once knew a certain stubborn disease of the township chief and it is not good to blame him directly.
The expectation of letting the opponent reveal himself, so he uses false appearances to confuse the opponent and induce the opponent to obey his will and bow to the truth.this is mining
The strategy of playing hard to get is used to make the opponent take the bait unconsciously, thus achieving the purpose of education. ?
The famous ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was eloquent throughout his life. He often took out questions to ask others for advice.

Refutation based on the answer, forcing the other party into a self-contradictory corner, unable to turn around and fight again, at this moment, it will come to fruition

If you speak out your own truth, it will not only win the mouth, but also convince the hearts of the people, reaching the highest level of debate.one day suge
When Rathi walked to the market, he suddenly pulled a passerby and said, "I have a question that I don't understand, and I ask you for advice."
.Everyone says to be a moral person, but what exactly is morality? "?
The man replied: "Be loyal and honest, don't deceive people. This is the generally accepted moral behavior."?
Socrates asked: "You said that morality is not to deceive people, but when fighting the enemy, our generals do everything possible to deceive people."

Is it immoral to deceive the enemy? "?
"It is moral to deceive one's enemies, but it is immoral to deceive one's own," said the man. ?
"When fighting the enemy, our army was surrounded and in a difficult situation. In order to boost morale, the general deceived the soldiers and said that our reinforcements
When the army arrived, everyone tried their best to break out and succeeded.Can such deception be called immoral? ’ Socrates continued
asked rhetorically. ?
The man replied: "That's because of helplessness in the war, we can't do this in our daily life."?
"We often encounter such a problem," Socrates asked after a pause, "the son is sick, but refuses to take medicine.

, The father lied to his son that this is not a medicine, but a delicious food.Is this also unethical? "?
The man had to admit: "This kind of deception is ethical."?
Socrates asked again: "It is moral not to deceive others, and it can also be said to be moral to deceive others. That is to say, morality cannot be deceived by non-deception.
to illustrate.So what is used to explain it?Or would you please tell me? "?
The man was so helpless that he had no choice but to say: "If you don't know morality, you can't be moral, but if you know morality, you can be moral.

’ And that’s exactly what Socrates was saying.?
Here Socrates used the technique of playing hard to get, making passers-by say what Socrates wanted to say. ?
The rational use of playing hard to get in the debate reflects the strategic intention and tactical accomplishment of an excellent orator to lure the enemy into depth.

In actual debates, it often allows opponents to get caught without knowing it.Therefore, this tactic has high application value

. ?
([-]) Miaoyu reasoning?

The tactic of clever reasoning is one of the most commonly used strategic weapons of rhetoricians.In order to refute a certain fallacy of the other party or to guide the other party
It is a wonderful metaphor to know a certain truth and use a similar thing to illustrate and describe it in a debating way.

reasoning. ?
Generally speaking, a good orator will not repeat his point of view over and over again in the course of the debate to force the other party to accept it.
Nor will they "beat up" or "step on" the other party like a shrew.There are many secrets to their success.Clueless

There are many benefits to their thinking.According to their own imagination, from all kinds of knowledge they usually master, they randomly pick

Extract the essence and use vivid examples to make ingenious and metaphors to increase the demeanor and strength of the debate. ?
Macau University of East Asia debate team (opposite side) and Peking University debate team (front side) are discussing the topic of "trade protectionism can be suppressed"

During the wrestling, Lin Qiaofeng once gave a wonderful speech——?
Let's look at the Jenkins Act example!Although President Reagan vetoed the Jenkins Act on the one hand, but,

At the same time, the U.S. government proposes to modify the provisions of the new multi-fiber textiles to be more rigid, and even silk and hemp non-woven fabrics

A variety of fiber textiles should also be included within the scope of the quota, which does not prove trade protectionism.A form of trade protection

Protectionism was suppressed, but another form of trade protectionism was on the rise.It's like a pimple on a person's face

It disappeared, but the acne on the other side of the face came back, and when people saw the acne on your face, they said, "ah
ah!It's a pity, you are so beautiful, but you still have acne on your face! "Is it right? ?

What a "acne" theory!This is where the power of the whole argument lies.As mentioned earlier, the U.S. government is suppressing while still panning out
The indiscriminate trade protection policy may not be vivid enough, it is precisely because of the wonderful metaphor of "acne" on the face that "one loses the other",

It illustrates the view that trade protectionism is hard to suppress.This metaphor can be described as the crowning point of this paragraph.Metaphor is vivid,

It was just right, which greatly enhanced the debate, and the audience suddenly cheered for it. ?
A multi-functional debater will often blurt out the metaphors naturally when using metaphors, making people sound not only not awkward, but also
Also humorous.For example, Li Mei, a student from Peking University's debate team, was demonstrating the debate topic "The advantages of developing tourism outweigh the disadvantages".

When opposing the viewpoint, he once talked about the relationship between tourism and the development of the world economy, and made the following metaphor at his fingertips——?
The rise and fall of the tourism industry depends entirely on the development of the world economy. For example, if the world economy sneezes, then
The tourism industry can catch a cold, even pneumonia...?
The wonderful metaphor in this paragraph is used very naturally, not only without a sense of abruptness, but also a wonderful metaphor makes people laugh and makes people laugh.
People have thought of the crisis of tourism development in chains.It should be said that the effect of such a clever metaphor is far greater than that of a straight-forward novel.

On much stronger.The main one is that time is saved, and the second is that the viewpoints and positions are refined.From this argument, people also naturally feel that

I felt Li Mei's critical thinking ability and imagination in using metaphors. ?
When debating, using the method of metaphorical reasoning can make the language vivid, vivid, logical and rational, and can impress people.
The next ileum is full of breath and endless aftertaste.It is one of the magic weapons of the rhetorician. ?
([-]) Proper questioning?

A senior rhetorician should have a variety of techniques, among which asking questions is a good way to control the enemy.Asking questions has three

The advantages are: first, it can weaken the opponent's spirit; second, it can free up time for yourself to think about more problems;

Look for a breakthrough in the reductive answer in the opponent's answer, in order to allow yourself to organize a more effective and combative attack. ?
Many facts show that asking questions in the debate field is indeed a relatively high level of knowledge.A rhetorician whose victories are the least

One-third of the proportion is benefited from asking questions.Questions in the debate field usually include questioning, chain questioning and rhetorical questioning.
Wait. ?
1?To put it mildly?
Asking questions to refute contradictions is a rhetorical language attack.Its ingenuity lies in using words such as "could it be" as a prelude, and asking questions instead of answers.

That is to say, the question itself has the meaning of refuting and contradicting, making the other party answer is also contradicting, and not answering is also contradicting.Therefore, some people say that setting up questions to refute
Paradox is a soft language offense. ?
During the Anti-Japanese War, Shen Junru and other "Seven Gentlemen" advocated anti-Japanese ideas and were regarded as "thorns in the eyes" by the Kuomintang authorities.Later, the national
The party government arrested the "Seven Gentlemen" and tried them in several court sessions in Suzhou High Court. ?
Prosecutor: The "Seven Gentlemen" promoted doctrines that were incompatible with the Three People's Principles. ?
Shen Junru: If we promote anti-Japanese and national salvation, we are promoting doctrines that are incompatible with the Three People's Principles.
Should the doctrine of inclusiveness be treason and surrender? ?

Mr. Shen associates the prosecutor's "doctrine incompatible with the Three People's Principles" with "the doctrine that is compatible with the Three People's Principles".

The extension is associated with traitorous surrender, and the Kuomintang judges have fallen into self-contradiction through sentence-by-sentence questioning and refuting paradoxical questions and answers.
, It also exposed its traitorous face. ?
Putting the question back to the absurd often means that there is something in the words, there are traps in the question, and there are layers of temptation to catch the opponent by surprise, so as to subdue the opponent.so

, is often used by debaters in debates. ?
2?A series of questions?
Serial questioning is an eloquent means for eloquent speakers to use questions instead of attacks.The purpose of this questioning method is to confuse the opponent's thinking,

The opponent is busy parrying but unable to parry in a long list of questions, making him lose confidence in his own point of view, and he will collapse without a fight. ?
Asking questions in a row cannot give the opponent a chance to breathe, each question must have something new, try to make the opponent answer the questions until they are out of breath

After taking a breath, I just answered one question but was troubled by the latter question.In this way, the questioner can win without fighting

It's cheaper.Please enjoy the following example -?
Zhengfang: I would like to ask the other party's friends, is there any company that is playing such a sign: only women and no men? ?
Opponent: Well—let me tell you, according to a one-month investigation by the Beijing Evening News, 1/6 of the advertisements on it said
"As long as women don't want men"! ?

Zhengfang: Excuse me, when you hear gender discrimination, do you think it is men who are being discriminated against?Or female? (applause)
In the above debate, the affirmative asked questions twice.The first question is to let the opposing side follow the affirmative side's thinking, so that it can make it easier to answer in the defense.
Inadvertently lose their strengths and fall into the strengths of the positive side, which will naturally lead to passivity, and when the negative side is passive,

The positive side asked the second question in a row, and the negative side would naturally be trapped. ?
In the debate field, once the chain of questions is preemptively used by one party and the use is tight and compact, the other party will not be able to calm down
. ?
3?Continuous rhetorical questions?
Rhetorical questions have great offensive power.In the debate, the form of rhetorical questions or a series of rhetorical questions is used, which is full of momentum and can put the other party in a position of being held back.
dynamic state.Please see the following example: ?

During the Beijing-Hanzhou Railway strike in the 20s, Wei Xueqing, chief of police of the Beijing-Hanzhou Railway General Administration, falsely accused worker Huang Defa of murdering

His own father, Old Man Wei.Moreover, they also colluded with the reactionary authorities. After some conspiracy, they decided to execute Huang Defa to achieve the purpose of suppressing work.
purpose of resistance.At this moment, barrister Shi Yang stepped forward and published the defense of "Who is the Real Murderer" in a dignified manner?
resignation.Among them are the following passages: ?
Don't you understand?Who is the real murderer?Could it be Huang Defa?of course not!The real murderer is the one
Director Wei's father is dead!Brother workers, what father does not love his son?What son does not love his father?father was murdered

Killed, can a son bow his head and stick to his ear without protesting?cannot! . . . Brethren workers!Brethren workers!which wife did not
If there is a husband, which husband does not have a wife?She has no husband, and her husband, Jiang Youcai, was murdered by Director Wei's father.she is difficult

Was Dao willing to bow his head and not protest?Can't...is this fair?Is this fair?Shouldn't this be

Will the dead be avenged?Don't we ask Director Wei, the son of Director Wei's father, to be responsible for compensating all the losses of the families of the victims?return
One day, worker Huang Defa had to jump off the car and was injured because he was entangled by Director Wei's father.Please see: the blood on his left forehead is still wet
, with bruises on his right foot and elbow.Is he also responsible for this?Shouldn't this be done by Director Wei's father's son?
Director Wei—are you responsible for compensating the worker Huang Defa for all his losses? ?

This defense used thirteen rhetorical questions and nine "could it be", like a waterfall cascading down in one go, making it indisputable.Such as
If all the rhetorical questions in this defense are changed to declarative sentences, then the majestic momentum and strong sense of justice in the original text will disappear.
without a trace. ?
([-]) Drain from the bottom of the pot?

The method of drawing salary from the bottom of the pot refers to "extracting" the powerful pillars used by the opponent to support the argument during the debate, in a direction that is beneficial to the opponent.

Play in your own direction. ?
Debate is a process of combining "breaking" and "establishing". While constantly attacking the other party and "breaking" its views, it also

One must do everything possible to maintain one's own point of view and build a magnificent building of one's own side. This is the process of "establishing".in order to enable

The point of view "establishes", "stands" and "stands" firmly, of course, it must be proved and supported by a large number of arguments (instances or theories)

.In these debates, many parts are "neutral", that is to say, multi-faceted, viewed from one perspective
Observing from another angle, one may draw a conclusion to serve one side; observe from another angle, and may draw another conclusion, thus serving
Other services. The method of "drawing from the bottom" is applied to the countermeasures taken when the opponent uses this type of argument. - learn from
In short, reverse play, for my use. ?
In 1990, the Third Asian College Debate Competition between National Taiwan University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong discussed that "the examination system is the best way to measure individual intelligence".
In the debate on "the best way", Zhengfang Chinese University of Hong Kong opened the debate with the fairy tale "Cinderella": the fairy gave Cinderella

A pair of glass shoes, let her go to the ball in the palace to dance, so that Cinderella has a chance to show her beauty and talent
meeting.Then he changed the subject and pointed out that the examination system is like these glass slippers, which provide an opportunity to express individual talents; and call

Call for a pair of glass slippers to be sent to countless "Cinderellas" in the world, so that they have the opportunity to stand out.This hilarious opening

There was applause from the audience.The affirmative party takes this as the beginning of the argument, trying to create an advantage in the first place, and grasp the main force at the beginning of the game.
Action.However, Wang Wenhua, a student from the National Taiwan University team, was calm and unhurried, and even continued the fairy tale that the other party hadn't finished telling:

The ball ended, Cinderella left, and the prince also left the palace, holding this pair of glass slippers, he went everywhere to find his sweetheart, Cinderella.

mother.Speaking of this, Wang Wenhua suddenly launched an attack, and asked Zhengfang: If an ugly monster's feet are the same size as this pair of boobs?
The size of the glass shoes, isn't the prince looking for the wrong person?The examination system looks fair, but in fact it is just as unfair as these glass shoes.
reliable.Wang Wenhua's sharp response and quick-witted tactics received excellent results on the field.It turns out that adding

Many imposing "Cinderellas", after Wang Wenhua's impromptu performance, have completely become examples of meritorious service for the opposition.Opposition

Grasp the basis of the affirmative and use it for me, firmly grasp the initiative, and lay the foundation for the final victory. ?
The example of "Cinderella" listed here comes from "Grimm's Fairy Tales".

When Green wrote this fairy tale, it is impossible to think of explaining the advantages and disadvantages of "Cinderella", "glass slipper" and the examination system.

What is the relationship between them, and the reason he wants to tell people is definitely not to regard the "glass slipper" as a standard for measuring things.Square

It should be said that it is relatively clever to use this "Chinese" fairy tale, make use of it, and make it serve our own side.opposite
Fang was even more skilled, and continued to tell the story that Fang had not finished, which was both unexpected and reasonable.

The same example is used to serve two diametrically opposed points of view, showing the respective debate skills of both sides. ?
The above describes the general characteristics of "neutral" arguments.The following question is how to use it in actual combat. ?
In 1983, US Secretary of State Shultz visited China, and Comrade Deng Xiaoping met with him.When the two parties talked about the "Huguang Railway Bond Case",

Deng Xiaoping sternly pointed out that the so-called Huguang railway bond case is just something in someone's pocket, which can be taken out at any time
Create trouble in Sino-US relations, the US government should stop this behavior. ?
Schultz defended: "The judicial system in the United States is independent, and the government has no right to intervene. The few Americans who sued are nothing more than to claim
Taking some compensation is not creating trouble. "?
Deng Xiaoping immediately refuted it: "In this way, the United States actually has three governments-the Congress, the Cabinet, and the courts. Call others
Which government should you deal with?If it is said that the Americans have the right to claim compensation from us, then the Chinese people
I have suffered imperialist aggression and oppression for more than a hundred years. Can I ask you all to pay compensation?If you bring this up when you meet

The question is, what kind of relationship can we talk about? "?
Schultz's defense is based on the fact that the American judicial system is independent and the government cannot interfere.Therefore, a few

It is their own business for individual Americans to seek compensation, and the government has neither the right nor the ability to intervene.In fact, for this reason,

Cover up the essence of the US government deliberately creating troubles in Sino-US relations. ?
Deng Xiaoping took advantage of the trend and used Schultz's argument: the United States has an independent judicial system.This fact exists, and
Just quoted by Schultz.Furthermore, he made another counterattack, pointing out sharply: "In this way, the United States has three
Government, which of your governments do you want people to deal with? "Here Deng Xiaoping did not directly point out the essence of the problem, but

It is to use Schultz's own arguments to counterattack and establish a proposition that Schultz cannot refute but cannot admit.

Schultz's main pillar was gone, leaving him speechless.Make Schultz lift a rock but hit his own foot, "drawing from the bottom of the pot"

The law took effect. ?
"Drawing from the bottom of the pot" is widely used in actual combat, because the content extracted by this technique comes from the opponent's speech and
Can attack the other party in turn, so that they can neither admit our point of view, but also cannot deny their own views, and fall into self-contradiction
situation. ?
Aiming at the key point of the opponent, exposing the essence of his remarks, using the method of "drawing salary from the bottom of the pot" can play a critical role in the frontal attack.

Empty, destructive fighting power. ?
In addition, because of the self-confidence of the other party, relying on the well-designed argument, the opponent thinks he has a plan, and the momentum is often very strong. At this time, if you use this

A skill that counterpresses the past with a thunderous force can disrupt its psychology and make it chaotic, so this skill is widely used in debates.
can often exert great power. ?
([-]) To challenge the enemy?

The method of challenging the enemy is to present the truth or examples that are exactly opposite to what the other party said.For example, using the opponent's logic
It is a coup to ask the other party rhetorically and ask the other party to explain the problem.The point to be made is that the challenge question must be to estimate the energy
Those who cause serious illness to the opponent and make repeated mistakes.The purpose of cross-examination is to find ways to put the other party in a difficult situation, so as to make oneself
Earn the initiative and pave the way for the victorious goal. ?
Nothing anyone says can be impeccable.The key is that you, as the "intentional" person, find out the paradox of the other party.
After all, you must select the deadly point as your attack point. Once you find the attack point, you must hold on to it and press it layer by layer.

, Go straight to the opponent's psychological defense line, while advancing, it also effectively avoids the opponent's fire attack.to do this
The point is that the method of challenging the enemy is really one of the rare good methods. ?
The distinctive feature of the method of interrogating the enemy is to refute the opponent with examples that are completely opposite to the opponent, to question and interrogate the opponent, and to make the opponent
Fang is powerless to refute and enable you to achieve the goal of defeating the enemy. ?
The second feature of the tactic of challenging the enemy is that it can make the eloquent switch from defense to offense, and at the same time switch defense and offense, causing psychological

The superiority and aggressive momentum put the opponent in a passive situation busy parrying and answering questions. ?
Let's take an example of an argument in the '93 International Collegiate Debate "Food and Clothing Is a Necessary Condition for Talking about Morality"——?
Pros and Cons Three Debates: The other party has admitted that super-moral behavior is not moral, and all the arguments and moral arguments of the other party have been proven wrong

.There is food and clothing in the weight loss center, but the other party misunderstood.thanks. (laughter)?

The opposing side argues: what the other side is talking about is that food and clothing can also talk about morality.When did we object to this?The problem is
What we want to demonstrate is that without food and clothing, we can never talk about morality.Ask the other person to give an example, even if it is an individual.When did human society,

There is no morality at all in any place or under any circumstances. ?
The second debate of the affirmative: Please the other party not to make a mistake.We said at the beginning that food and clothing are a necessary condition for talking about morality, which means that when we talk about morality
If virtue cannot be separated from food and clothing, can the other party criticize this issue? ?

Three arguments against and against: Applying any theory to any historical period is easier than solving a linear equation.Please don't avoid
Our problem, cite your example. ?

In the above example, the affirmative Cambridge University team took the three arguments out of context and attacked the opposing Fudan University team, making the Fudan University team seem to be forced into a predicament
At this time, if the Fudan University team does not respond accordingly, I am afraid it will be in trouble.Fortunately: Fudan University team debater

After all, the skill is superior, while avoiding his sharp edge, he also concocted a cross-examination that made the opponent at a loss, so that the affirmative had to fight back.

into a passive state.From this point of view, it is reasonable for the opposing side to win. ?
In addition, the use of interrogation tactics can easily cause the opponent to panic for a while and make a slip of the tongue. Once the opponent makes a slip of the tongue, wouldn't it give you another

Offer a rare opportunity?And appreciate the following defense——?
Pros: Economic development will inevitably lead to the improvement of moral standards. There is a factual basis. The economic development speed of Guangzhou and Shenzhen is high.

In other parts of the country, the social security there is particularly good. ?
Opposition: The economic development of Guangzhou and Shenzhen is indeed very fast, but friends who have been to Guangzhou and Shenzhen know that the residents there use
Reinforced iron bars are welded from the first floor to the fourth floor, and the balcony has become a place for people to "breeze", which is not available in places with slow economic development.
, how does the other party explain? ?

Zhengfang: Excuse me, what does it mean to prevent problems before they happen?There are reinforced iron bars to prevent theft crime, the crime rate of theft is low, and social governance
Doesn't An Hao mean that the moral standard has improved? ?
Opposition: Then there are more thefts in places where steel bars are not used as guardrails? ?

Zhengfang: Of course, it is better to be prepared than to be unprepared. If the economy does not develop, how can we use steel bars as guardrails? ?

Opposition: According to the opponent’s logic, if the residents of a place use tanks and cannons for defense, the moral level of this place

So tall? ?

Zhengfang: Of course not.Economic development does not necessarily lead to the improvement of moral standards, but economic development is conducive to the construction of the legal system, and the improvement of the legal system
Well, the moral standard has also improved. ?
Opponent: It seems that the other party is a little confused. What is the difference between law and morality?a rule of law

A society that maintains law and order through morality, which society has a higher moral standard? ?

Pros: Morality has social reproduction, economic development provides certain material guarantee for moral education, and economic development will of course lead to

To raise the moral standard. ?
Opposition: Economic development should follow the logic of minimum input and maximum output, while morality emphasizes selfless dedication, the logic of economic development
Instilled in the field of morality, is it the improvement of moral standards? ?

In the defense in the above example, the opposing side continued to attack the affirmative, which caused the affirmative to make an obvious slip of the tongue, which was obviously rejected by the opposing side.
Grasping the first battle—"It seems that the opponent is a little confused" made the affirmative lose a lot of arguments at once.this has to

It is said to be a successful example of the application of the counter-examination method. ?
When using the method of interrogation to control the enemy, it should be noted that the purpose of interrogation is to make the opponent either speechless or make a mistake in his busy schedule.So, in

When using this method, special emphasis should be placed on "dilemma".That is to say, all kinds of openings are blocked, so that the opponent has no way to parry.Also, hey

When embarrassing others, beware of being cross-examined by others at any time. Both parties are stumped, and the debate will be cold.

([-]) Dilemma?

In the course of the debate, only two possible situations are listed, so that the opponent voluntarily chooses from them, but regardless of the opponent's choice
Either way, the result is not good for him, and he has no other choice.This will inevitably make the opponent fall into a dilemma.
The right-right dilemma is completely under the control of the "I" side. This kind of argumentation method is called dilemma reasoning. ?
The key to the dilemma reasoning is to make the opponent feel embarrassed no matter how you choose in the defense;

If you can't choose to embarrass him, the opponent will take the opportunity to escape your attack.Therefore, before formulating the dilemma reasoning, it is necessary to underline the word "difficult".
Kung Fu means that we should try our best to set up obstacles in the speculation of the opponent's argument, so that the opponent can be caught in desperation. ?
This kind of situation is not difficult to encounter in and out of the debate arena.Washington, the first president of the United States, encountered such an interesting incident when he was young.have
Once, a horse was lost in Washington's home. He learned that a neighbor had stolen it, so he and a police officer went to the neighbor's farm to claim it.

But the neighbor refused to return it, claiming it was his family's horse.With an idea, Washington stepped forward and covered the horse with his hands.
Eyes, use the dilemma to talk to the neighbor—?
Washington: If the horse is yours, please tell us in which eye the horse is blind. ?
Neighbor: right eye. ?
Washington: (let go of the hand covering the right eye) The horse's right eye is not blind. ?
Neighbor: I was wrong, the horse is blind in the left eye. ?
Washington: (Releases the hand covering the left eye again) The horse's left eye is not blind either. ?
Neighbor: I was wrong again...?
Officer: Yes, you are wrong.The mistake is that you fell into the trap.Now it can be proven that the horse is not yours and must be returned to
washington. ?

The wonderful thing about the eloquent's use of the dilemma to control the enemy is that it is obviously difficult, but it can make the other party think that not only is it not difficult, but also that it is difficult for him.
I also have some "gambling" colors. In fact, no matter how you gamble, you will also become a loser in the trap?Washington's "Hideaway"

It fully illustrates this point. ?
Sometimes, both debaters want to use dilemmas to overpower their opponents.In this case, the first player gets the initiative, but the second player

It may not be incurable, as long as you can support it with confidence, then when the opponent uses the dilemma first, you may not be able to pass the construction

It becomes an opposite dilemma, "attacking the difficult with the difficult", refuting the opponent tit for tat. ?
Here is a very classic ancient Greek legend.It is said that there was a man named Eutylus who asked the famous debater

普罗
Tagolas learned legal knowledge.There was a contract between the two parties, and Otilus paid the tuition fee in two installments, half of which was paid at the beginning of the study.
The other half will pay after Otilus wins his first court case after graduation.After graduating, Otellus did not practice law for a long time.

division business.Protagoras waited impatiently, and prepared to sue the court.As everyone knows, the generation of dignified teachers was actually
The student's "anti-dilemma" tactic went back.Please enjoy the following dialogue between the two of them——?
P: I'm going to sue you in court.If I win the lawsuit, then according to the court judgment, you should pay me the other half of the tuition, such as

If you win the lawsuit, then according to our contract, you should also pay me the other half of the tuition.Whether I win or lose this lawsuit

It's a loss. Anyway, you can't change the other half of the tuition you pay me, so you should pay it as soon as possible! ?
Ou: As long as you sue me in court, I don't have to give you tuition fees.Because, if I win my case, then according to the law

If the court judges, I should not pay you the other half of the tuition; if I lose the lawsuit, then according to our contract, I should not
Pay the other half of your tuition.Whether you win or lose this lawsuit, I don't have to pay you the other half of your tuition. ?

In the above debate, both Protagoras and Otilus master and apprentice used the technique of dilemma reasoning to create difficulties for the other party.

Set a trap to intimidate your opponent into one of them.The defense seems to be the same, but it is called upside down - the teacher's dilemma

, The students listed the more difficult "dilemmas" and used their own methods to deal with their own bodies. As a result, the teacher did not take advantage of the slightest advantage. ?
On the one hand, the dilemma technique can make the confused person fall into a certain trap, and on the other hand, it can make even the sober person fall into the trap.
Difficult, difficult situation.Once the method of using the dilemma trap is successful, it can show the witty offensive edge of the orator
and strength, so it can be said that this technique is a very good way to defeat the enemy. ?
([-]) Interpretation of semantics cleverly?

Clever interpretation of semantics means that there are many words in daily life that are interpreted in one way and have another meaning in that way.

Choose the meaning that is beneficial to you according to the situation.In debates, interpretation of semantics should be based on eloquence.That is to say

,巧
Interpretation serves eloquence.Therefore, clever explanations cannot be overstated.If it is too much, it is not called eloquence, but it should be called out of context or sophistry
.In the process of eloquence, skillful interpretation of semantics can clear language barriers and understanding barriers in time, and make speculation unimpeded. ?
When some key words appear paradoxical in the defense of the opposing debater, if you interpret the semantics skillfully, you can take this opportunity to explain the meaning of the semantics.
There are ways to debunk the opponent's arguments and refute the opponent's fallacies.This method can strip off the fake coat of the opponent's thesis,

expose its

The absurdity. ?
On New Year's Day in 1949, Chiang Kai-shek issued a peace statement amidst the besieged singing: "As long as the peace agreement is not harmful to the independence and integrity of the country, and

Conducive to the recuperation of the people; as long as the sacred constitution is not violated, the constitutional democracy is not destroyed, the Republic of China
The national system can ensure that the legal system of the Republic of China will not be interrupted, the army will have a solid guarantee, and the people will be able to maintain their freedom.
The way of life and the current minimum standard of living, I personally have nothing else to ask for. "?
At first glance, these remarks sounded as if Chiang Kai-shek was completely concerned about the country and the people, disregarding the interests of himself and the party;
The party did not agree with him to seek peace, because the Communist Party violated the interests of the country and the nation.This method of framing is very cunning.In this regard, Mao

Chairman Mao Zedong used the eloquent tactics of cleverly interpreting semantics to make such a statement on Chiang Kai-shek's summation statement in "Comment on War Criminals' Summation" on January 1.

The next criticism:?
"No harm to the independence and integrity of the country" - this is the first important thing. "Peace" is fine, but "peace" is harmful to the four major families

The "independence and integrity" of the state of the ethnic and comprador landlord classes is impossible. "Peace" is detrimental to Sino-US friendship, commerce and navigation
Treaties such as the China-U.S. Air Transport Agreement, Sino-U.S.

The privileges of bases, mining, and exclusive trade are detrimental to the status of China as a colony of the United States. In a word, "and
If it is harmful to all these measures to protect the "independence and integrity" of Chiang Kai-shek's reactionary country, then it is totally unacceptable.
In this article, Mao Zedong used clever semantic tactics to satirize Chiang Kai-shek's so-called "peace" and "independence".

Complete" air-conditioning style, revealing its stubborn reactionary nature. ?
Interpretation semantics in the debate must be based on one's own point of view. For example, some words with bidirectionality should be used first.

Based on your own interpretation, you can gain the initiative. ?
For example, in the 99 International College Debate, National Taiwan University (against) and Yale University (positive) were discussing "should a successful film and television work be

In the debate on the topic of "making a sequel", the opposing party's third debate gave a very clever explanation of the word "sequel"——?
A sequel, as the name suggests, is a continuation of the film and television works filmed in the previous episode, in other words, it is a sequel in terms of content, style, plot
Emotionally, they will definitely be bound and stereotyped by the previous episode.For example, if in the first episode, the male lead is a posthumous
, how do you want to portray the fatherly love he once had in your sequel?On the contrary, if the actor in the first episode is disabled, then the second

You can only describe his mental journey after his physical disability, how do you innovate?If today is as the opposing debater said
There are really so many good directors, so many good scripts, and so many good stories in the world, so why do we have to bear the burden?
What about so many sequels?Wouldn't it be better if it jumped out and played to their strengths again? ?

Interpreting meanings with ingenuity, convincing people with ingenuity, and defeating the enemy with ingenuity are exactly the connotation of wit.There is no truth in the world that can be spread everywhere

One size fits all.There are many things that can be recognized here, but rejected there.Clever interpretation of semantics should also follow this principle.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as "clever". ?
When using clever interpretation semantics to serve your own debates, you should make a fuss about "clever".
If the "interpretation" of the meaning is not coincidental, it will be difficult for yourself.If it is too far-fetched, but self-defeating, it really cannot be called a "clever explanation"

, It should be called "foolish interpretation".

(End of this chapter)

Tap the screen to use advanced tools Tip: You can use left and right keyboard keys to browse between chapters.

You'll Also Like