Debate is not only a way to pursue truth, but also an art of verbal expression in our work. If you don't argue, you can't make it clear, and if you don't argue, you don't know the reason. People who make subjective assumptions and do not allow a little disagreement will inevitably not be convincing, and there will inevitably be deviations in their work. Therefore, a person with a scientific mind and good qualities will inevitably be inseparable from the form of debate.

●-for-tat, expose the key points

In the debate, we should be good at grasping the key points of the other party and refuting them-for-tat. The first is to refute their erroneous arguments and use factual analysis to directly prove the falsehood and absurdity of the other party's arguments; the second is to refute his arguments and directly expose the hypocrisy of his arguments, and the incorrectness of his arguments will be exposed; The third is to refute the argument, and finally overturn the argument by exposing the errors in the logical relationship between the opponent's argument and the argument.

Qin Xiaogong remembered to use Shang Yang to change the law, so he held a special meeting to discuss the plan to change the law. At the meeting, Xiaogong said to his ministers: "To inherit the throne, we must not forget to consolidate the political power, which is the principle that the monarch should abide by; The implementation of the rule of law must clarify the strengths of the king, which is the proper conduct of a courtier. I now want to govern the country by changing the law and educating the people by changing the etiquette system. But I'm afraid that the world will criticize it. Therefore, I want everyone to express their opinions and think of a way together. ”

Shang Ying took the lead in showing his own views and put forward the proposition that "if the world is not governed together, the country will be lawless". He said: "The law was formulated to love the people and was formed for the purpose of doing things. Therefore, as long as the wise man makes the country rich and strong, he will not stick to the old law; As long as it is beneficial to the people, it is not necessary to follow the old rites. ”

Shang's proposition was endorsed by Qin Xiaogong, but was opposed by Gan Long, Du Zhi and others. Gan Long said, "No. I have heard that the wise man does not change the customs of the people to educate, and the wise man governs the country without changing the old law. In this way, it will be successful without much effort, and the government and the people will be safe. Now if you don't act according to the old system of the Qin State and change the etiquette system to educate the people, I am afraid that the whole world will criticize the king. ”

Shang Ying immediately refuted Gan Long and said: "What Gan Long said is just worldly words. Ordinary people are always content with old habits, and pedantic scholars tend to indulge in what they have learned. Therefore, these two kinds of officials are clinging to the old law, and they cannot discuss things outside the old law with them. The Xia, Shang, and Wednesday dynasties have different ritual systems, but they are all called kings in the world; The five overlords such as Duke Huan of Qi and Duke Wen of Jin also had different decrees, but they all dominated the princes. Therefore, the wise people make the law, and the stupid people can only be subject to the law; The virtuous change the etiquette system, and the incompetent will only be bound by the etiquette system. Those who stick to the old rites are not enough to talk about state affairs with them; There are objectively people who are subject to the old law, and it is not enough to discuss change with them. The king need not be doubtful any longer. ”

At this time, Du Zhi stood up and gave Gan Long a help, saying: "I heard that if there is no 10,000-fold benefit, the law will not be changed; Without a tenfold effect, the appliance cannot be renewed. I have also heard that there is a saying: 'There is nothing wrong with following the ancient system, and there is no deviation from following the ritual system.' Please think about it! ”

Shang Ying immediately retorted: "The methods of educating the people in the previous generations were different, so how can there be any ancient methods to emulate?" The etiquette of the emperors of the past dynasties is not repeated, so what etiquette can be followed? In the ancient Fuxi and Shennong eras, education was not punished, and later the Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun implemented punishment, but did not punish indiscriminately, and the King Wen and King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty were each legislated according to the situation at the time, and the rites were made according to the specific circumstances of the matter. Obviously, etiquette and law were formulated in response to the needs of the times, and the system and laws should be compatible with the situation, and all kinds of weapons, armor, and equipment should be easy to use. That's why I say: there is not only one way to govern the country, and it is not necessary to follow the example of antiquity as long as it is beneficial to the country. King Shang Tang and King Wu of Zhou did not follow the ancient law, and they prospered in the same way; Although King Xia Wei and King Yin did not change the old ritual system, they also perished. It can be seen from this that those who do not imitate the ancient rites are not necessarily reprehensible, and those who observe the old rites are not enough to be recognized. Wonder no more, monarch! ”

Shang Ying's eloquence made Gan Long and Du Zhi's conservative arguments seem so pale and weak, Qin Xiaogong's doubts were dispelled, and he said: "Okay, even if everyone in the world comes to talk about me, I will no longer hesitate!" So far, there has been a far-reaching "Shang Yang Reform".

The Shang Dynasty reform of the law was based on the view that "if the world is not governed together, the country will be lawless", and the ministers confronted it with "the law of the ancestors is immutable" and "the gifts of the ancestors cannot be violated". In this war of words, the key to Shang Ying's victory was that he refuted everyone with a large number of facts such as "the ancient sage king law" and "etiquette can be changed", thus winning the trust of Qin Xiaogong, and it is really facts that speak louder than words.

● Anti-ridicule and rebuke, to overcome rigidity with softness

This method of debate is to grasp the opponent's ridicule and use the mockery to counter it, so that the opponent is in an embarrassing situation of being ridiculed.

During a foreign trade negotiation, the Chinese representative rejected the unreasonable demands of a red-haired Western foreign businessman. This guy was so angry that he actually hurt people: "Mr. Representative, I see that your skin is yellow, probably because of malnutrition causing your thinking disorder, right?" The Chinese representative immediately countered: "Mr. Manager, I will not say that you have lost serious blood and caused your thinking disorder because your skin is white, nor will I say that you have sucked up the blood of others and caused you to be dizzy because your hair is red." "The Chinese representative used the anti-mockery method to counter the ridicule of foreign businessmen, refuted the strong arguments of the other side, and safeguarded the dignity of the Chinese.

●Take the metaphor and reason, and the reason is in the metaphor

In the debate, the truth is contained in metaphors, and the use of metaphors to explain the truth can not only explain the truth concisely and concisely, but also be interesting and dazzling.

In the Spring and Autumn Period, Mozi was not only a scholar of the university, but also an eloquent man who spoke very philosophically. One day, one of his students, Zi Yu, asked him, "Teacher, is it better to talk more or less?" ”

Mozi pondered for a moment and said, "You see, the frogs in the pond croaked day and night, and their voices were high and bright, but no one ever paid attention to them. And the rooster in the chicken shed usually does not crow easily, and only crows a few times at dawn every day. When people hear its cry, they know it's dawn and get up to do something. This shows that people pay attention to the crowing of the rooster. Zi Bird nodded knowingly.

●Induce rhetorical questions, self-defeating

This strategy is to affirm one's own point of view, induce questions, let the other party think closely around their own topic, and then affirm their own point of view in the form of rhetorical questions, forcing the other party to accept it.

Once, the Russian literary critic Herzen was invited to a banquet. Some deafening so-called pop music is constantly played at the banquet. Herzen couldn't take it anymore and ended up having to cover her ears. The owner was surprised and said, "This is the most popular music!" Herzen asked rhetorically: "Is what is popular necessarily noble?" Not to be outdone, the master retorted: "How can something that is not noble be popular? Herzen smiled and said, "So, is the flu also noble?" "The host was speechless.

When conducting a debate in detail, the scope of different objects and the methods adopted are often a combination of various characteristics of the debate, and it is necessary to adapt to the actual situation and give play on the spot, so as to defeat the opponent and win the debate.

●From the other to this, step by step

This method refers to approaching from afar, pressing step by step, until the other party surrenders and admits defeat.

A certain mayor received a report and learned that a department store manager had violated the law and discipline, and in order to save the manager and make him rein in the precipice and change his ways, he went to talk to him. During the conversation, the manager argued with the mayor in many ways. So, the mayor changed his approach and calmly asked: "What would you do if you feed a dog at home, only eat and sleep lazy, never care about guarding the house, and sometimes break the dishes?" The manager replied, "Kick it out of the house." The mayor said, "What would you do if you had a salesperson in your mall who was lazy and had a bad attitude, who raised prices indiscriminately and sometimes stole goods home?" The manager said, "Fire him!" The mayor said, "What do you think his manager would do if he didn't report it and secretly colluded with him to resell cigarettes and enrich his own pockets?" Manager: "This ......"

From the other to this method, it is often the desire to precede the other, the desire to be real before the virtual, the desire to be close and the far, step by step, and finally the other party has no way to escape, so he has to be captured.

● Answer tactfully, avoid its edge

The euphemism is a method of debating without giving a direct answer to the other party's question.

Someone asked the American astronomer Jones: "How old is the Earth, can you tell clearly?" Jones replied, "It's not hard. Imagine a towering mountain, such as Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus. Imagine a few little sparrows, which are jumping around carefree and pecking at the mountain. So how long it will take for these sparrows to peck at the mountain, how long will the earth exist. Jones's euphemistic and tortuous answer not only dissolves a controversial problem, but also reminds people of the unusually long age of the earth's existence.

The tactful answering method often has to avoid the edge and get rid of the predicament, so that the other party changes from active to passive, which is more vivid, vivid and powerful than direct answers, and often makes the other party irrefutable.

● Divert the topic and avoid answering

Because the king of Qi did not heed Mencius's advice, the Yan people rebelled against the Qi state. The king of Qi was ashamed, but a doctor named Chen Jia exonerated the king of Qi in front of Mencius.

Chen Jia said: "What kind of person is Zhou Gong? ”

Mencius said, "Ancient sages. ”

Chen Jia asked: "He sent his younger brother Uncle Guan to supervise the Yin State, but Uncle Guan led the Yin people to rebel, is it true!" ”

Mencius replied, "Yes." ”

Chen Jia asked again: "Did Duke Zhou send him when he knew that he was going to rebel?" ”

Mencius said, "Duke Zhou doesn't know. ”

Chen Jia immediately said, "In this way, saints sometimes have faults, right? ”

Mencius replied, "The gentlemen of ancient times changed their mistakes; Today's gentlemen will be wrong. The ancient gentleman made a mistake, just like the eclipse of the sun and the lack of the moon, everyone can see it. When he corrects, everyone can look up to him. Today's gentlemen not only make mistakes, but also find excuses to defend themselves. ”

Chen Jia had nothing to say.

The debate between Mencius and Chen Jia adopted the method of shifting the topic. Chen Jiaxu excused the king of Qi with the sage. Mencius does not dwell on issues that do not need to be discussed, but shifts the topic to how to deal with mistakes, and uses analogies to reach conclusions. "If a saint is wrong, change it", there is also a hypothetical judgment here: "Since the saint is wrong, he will correct it, and the king of Qi will be wrong, so the king of Qi is not a saint." This re-illuminates the questions that were avoided and unanswered from the side, which not only makes Chen Jia speechless, but also makes King Qi educated.

●Induce reason, targeted

The method of inducement is a method of debating against the wrong views of the other party, inducing the other party to make his remarks inconsistent and reasonable.

A young villager took his wife to have an abortion. His wife was unwilling, and he didn't listen to other people's persuasion, so he went directly to the doctor.

Villager: "Please give my wife an abortion." Although she was the first child, she was a girl, so I asked her to have an abortion. ”

Doctor: "Why don't you want a girl?" ”

Villager: "A couple can only have one child, and when a girl grows up, it will always be someone else's." ”

Doctor: "I have an 8-year-old boy, and when he turns 12, I will send him to Wutai Mountain to become a monk." ”

Villager: "Why did such a good son go to become a monk?" ”

Doctor: "Because he can't pass on the lineage!" ”

Villager: "Does this child have a physical defect?" ”

Doctor: "Not really. ”

Villager: "Then why can't he pass on the lineage?" ”

Doctor: "Because he grew up and couldn't find a partner." ”

Villager: "How could such a well-behaved boy not find a partner?" ”

Doctor: "At that time, there will be only men and no women in society!" ”

Villager: "How can there be such a thing?" ”

Doctor: "Girls are going to get married when they grow up, so they are forced to have an abortion by being a father." ”

Villager: "Ah! We ......"

The method of inducing reasoning does not first say that the other party's point of view is wrong, but deliberately induces the other party to move forward step by step, and finally makes him feel that "this way is not going through". This method educates in debate and makes it easy for the other party to accept.

● A tooth for a tooth, straight

The method of-for-tat is a method of refutating the absurdity of the opponent's argument by not denying the absurdity of the opponent's argument head-on, but using the same example to return the absurd argument to the opponent.

In a year of great drought, an old farmer who could speak well went to the county government to report the disaster and ask for a tax reduction. The county magistrate asked, "How much wheat has been harvested this year?" The old farmer replied, "Thirty percent." "Seventy percent of the year, dare to lie about the disaster, it's really bold!" The old farmer thought for a moment and said, "I have lived for 150 years, and I have never seen such a serious disaster!" The prefectural magistrate asked, "Are you 150 years old?" The old farmer said unhurriedly: "I am 70 years old, the eldest is 43 years old, and the youngest child is 37 years old, isn't it 150 years old?" The county magistrate shouted loudly: "How can you count your age like this!" The old peasant asked rhetorically: "How can you count your years like that!" The county order was speechless.

The-for-tat method is used in debates, often putting those who use strong words to "death". It is "to treat others as they would be", allowing their opponents to shoot themselves in the foot.

● Fallacy and surprise

The method of reducing the person is a method of first assuming that the opponent's proposition is true, and then making inferences based on this premise, pushing it to the extreme, and embarrassing it by introducing obvious absurd conclusions.

Once upon a time, a rich man died, and his wife discussed with the housekeeper that she would bury him with a live slave. The rich man's brother was a man of insight and opposed it. His sister-in-law insisted: "Your brother is dead, and there is no one to serve him in the underworld, so we decided to use live slaves to accompany the burial, and no one can stop it." His brother changed his words and said: "It is still the sister-in-law and the housekeeper who are thoughtful and well-intentioned, which shows that the sister-in-law has a deep relationship with her brother, and the housekeeper is loyal to the master." Since we want to use a living person to accompany the burial, we are not at ease to let others serve our brother, but it is better for my sister-in-law and housekeeper to accompany the funeral, and my brother will be very satisfied. His sister-in-law and the housekeeper had no choice but to give up.

In the application of the method of reducing fallacies, we should pay attention to the comparability of fallacies of the same nature, because if two unrelated things are brought together, the effect of using fallacies to control people will not be obtained.

●The metaphor is clever and ingenious

Clever metaphor is a method of skillful argument with vivid metaphors.

A young lady who loved literature wrote a thick novel and sent it to a famous editor, but the manuscript was quickly returned. The young lady was so angry that she called the editor and asked, "Mr. Editor, why did you shoot my manuscript without reading it?" To see if you've actually read it, I glued pages 105 and 106 together before sending them, and when I checked the rejection, they were still intact, how do you explain that? The editor replied, "Miss, let's say I eat a bottle of canned fruit and taste it and find that it is bad, do I have to eat it all before I come to conclusions?" ”

In debate, when encountering difficult questions or questions that are difficult to answer head-on, metaphorical arguments can be used. In order to use this method, it is necessary to pay attention to the appropriateness, understandability, ingenuity, and clarity of the meaning of the metaphor, so that the other party has nothing to say.

●Wit and convincing, neither humble nor arrogant

The method of witty persuasion is a method of improvising in the face of difficult problems, using wisdom, turning passivity into initiative, and challenging the other party to impress them.

There was a scholar named Xu Yun in the Jin Dynasty, who spent candles in the cave room and was very unhappy when he saw the bride's mediocre appearance. The bride asked him why? Xu Yun said quietly: "Do you know what a good wife looks like? The bride was neither humble nor arrogant: "Filial piety to the elderly, respect for the husband, speak kindly, do things neatly, and look good." I can do the first few things, but the appearance is God-generated, and I can't. Xu Yun was still not happy after hearing this. The bride asked, "Xianggong, you are a scholar." I ask you, how many good qualities do you have that a man should have? Xu Yun replied: "I have it all." The bride said: "The first rule of good morality is to value virtue in looking at people, but you only judge people by their appearance." Since the first one does not meet the requirements, how can it be said that it has all of them? Xu Yun was impressed by the bride's eloquence and finally changed her attitude towards her wife.

When using the method of witty convincing in debate, it is necessary to rely on knowledge and mind to wittily change from answering to asking questions and convincing opponents.

●Avoid the real and hit the virtual, and the results are immediate

Avoiding the real and attacking the false is a very practical debating technique. When you have already grasped part of the situation of the enemy and want to further expand the victory by attacking the opponent's weak points, you can use this method to make the opponent collapse at the touch of a button. This method is often used for more adversarial court arguments or interrogations of suspects. The preliminary trial of a criminal suspect by the criminal police is a psychological warfare, especially when the evidence is not fully grasped and the evidence is carried out in a surprise trial, which is both a struggle and a debate. If you are in a hurry and go straight, it is often difficult to achieve results; However, the method of avoiding the real and attacking the false is easy to knock open the suspect's mouth and urge him to confess the truth.

The captain of the criminal police of a certain city was ordered to crack a vicious homicide case, and after a thorough investigation, it was determined that the case was committed by two people, and then a major suspect was arrested in a suburban county. Who is the other person? He refused to confess. The interrogation began.

Policeman: "Do you know what we do?" ”

Suspect: "It's the police!" ”

Policeman: "Do you know where we came from?" ”

Suspect: "Then how do I know?" ”

Policeman: "Let me tell you, we came from the intersection of the two roads in ×× City, and you have been there at the intersection of the two roads, right?" ”

Suspect: "I haven't been." ”

Policeman: "That's not right, we checked a hotel there, you stayed there the other day. ”

Suspect: "What if you lived?" ”

Policeman: "It's not like I've lived. It's just that there was a murder there the day before yesterday, you don't know about it, do you? ”

Suspect: "I don't know, and it has nothing to do with me." ”

Policeman: "What a relationship with you!" ”

Suspect: "What's the relationship?" ”

Policeman: "We found the bloody clothes from the scene, and your family saw them and recognized them as wearing them." Would you like to take a look? ”

Suspect: "No, no, no, don't look at it." ”

Policeman: "Looks like you're a cheerful person." In that case, you should probably say something, right? ”

Suspect: "I was present when the driver was killed, you can't just say that I killed him!" Policeman: "There are your fingerprints on the car, can you push it?" ”

Suspect: "I didn't kill it with my own hands anyway." ”

Policeman: "We know that you didn't do it alone, and if you don't name your accomplices, you have to take the blame alone." ”

Suspect: "I said...... It's his hand, and I'm just helping. ”

Policeman: "Who's that guy?" ”

Suspect: "It's my cousin." ”

The captain of the criminal police is like this, true and false, false and real, knocking on the side, and having something to say, so that the criminal suspect's defense line completely collapsed, and he had to truthfully explain the course of this murder case.

●Cross-examination attack, surprise

Cross-examination is one of the basic linguistic techniques of debate, and it is the use of rhetorical rhetorical questions in debate. The so-called cross-examination is to ask a question from the opposite side, and use a negative question sentence to express a positive tone, or use an affirmative question sentence to express a positive tone. Cross-examination is often more powerful than asking questions, expressing love and hatred, and having a stronger critical and satirical effect. In many cases, it can also be used to turn defense into offense, resulting in psychological advantage and aggressive momentum, and putting the opponent in a passive position.

John Weeks was an English writer and political activist in the 18th century. One day, Senator Sandwich insulted him in public, saying, "You will either die of syphilis or die of gallows." ”

Wicks replied, "Then it depends on whether I am the mistress who embraces Your Excellency, or your Excellency's theory." ”

Wicks uses the method of "cross-examination", he does not directly deny Sandwich's vicious curse, and seems to establish a "fake" consensus with him, but immediately points out that the root cause of both evils comes from Sandwich himself, implying that he should die in the future because of his low character and thoughts. Although the calm answer is not sharp, the response is powerful and profound.

● Catch loopholes

Debate is an "elegant game" that combines knowledge, theoretical skills, logical ability, and language skills. During the debate, the two sides go back and forth, arguing with each other, and sometimes talking eloquently, like flowing water; Sometimes in a word, it is like a thunderbolt.

With superb debating skills, rich knowledge accumulation, profound theoretical foundation, and rigorous logical thinking, he continues to create one climax after another. Of course, in such a warm atmosphere, emotions are high and nerves are highly tense, and it is inevitable that some mistakes will be made and some mistakes will be made. "If you say too much, you will lose", no matter how good a debater is, even if he has the advantage, there will be loopholes.

In a debate on the theme of "In the course of modernization, the role of Eastern culture is greater than that of Western culture," the opposing side gave two examples one after another, both of which were extremely inappropriate: "Eastern culture is a bowl, and Western culture is rice. "Eastern culture is like words in a book, while Western civilization is spirit, which is more important, words or spirit?" These two examples may seem incredible, but they are in fact full of loopholes. There are many ways to fight back, such as: "Do I have to have your food in my bowl?" Can't you put on the grain that I have grown? "Without words, where can your spirit be seen?" And so on, and so on.

In the debate, on the one hand, we must hold our position, fight steadily, and not covet the momentary advantage without choosing words; Or they are lucky, trying to get through in vain, so as to create opportunities for the opponent to take advantage of. On the other hand, the opponent's mistakes are the best gift to us, we must be calm, listen carefully to every word of the opponent, as soon as there is an opportunity, immediately seize it, quickly launch a counterattack, when necessary, it should be stubborn, so that it can not parry, start from the opponent's subtle mistakes, chase and fight, and constantly expand the results, so that the opponent's "embankment" collapsed in the small anthill of mistakes. Here are a few tips for catching your opponent's vulnerabilities and then counterattacking aggressively. This kind of technique is a bit like the tactic of "waiting for work at ease" as the art of war inquires. That's why we named them "Catch the Loophole".

1. Amplification method

The amplification method is to take advantage of the implicit premise of the opposition's argument and expand it to come up with an obviously absurd conclusion, but it conforms to the logic of the other side, so that the opponent's argument is self-defeating. 

2. There is a way out of nothing

Generally speaking, this method is mainly to use the other party's point of view to develop in an absolute direction outside the conditions, to make the problem absolut, or to deliberately distort certain concepts in the other party's remarks, and to artificially "condense" obviously wrong truths or impossible cases to achieve the goal of refuting the other party. This technique is often to deliberately admit the opponent's point of view first when it is correct or basically correct, and it is unlikely that it will be refuted from it head-on, and then give a counterexample to "prove" it. This "counterexample" is the product of the absolutization of his viewpoint, and proves the "wrongness" of his viewpoint through an absolutizing error.

3. Approach to the future

When reality and history are indisputable, we can direct our thoughts to the future, and make arguments from the perspective of development to give-for-tat rebuttals. This refutation is based on scientific foresight, which is the product of new ideas and concepts. When foreseeing, the pattern of the development chain of things composed of causal connections appeared in the mind, and at the same time, from the phenomena that people had repeatedly appeared in the causal connection in the past, we found its regularity. You can use the patterned chain of one ring after another to predict the assertion that the last link will appear, and counter the enemy.

The physicist Faraday once gave an experimental demonstration of electromagnetism in public. At the end of the experiment, someone stood up and asked Faraday in a loud voice: "What's the use of this? ”

Without thinking, Faraday replied, "Excuse me, what's the use of a newborn baby?" ”

Here, Faraday compares science to a newborn baby, thus illustrating that science will play a great historical role just as a baby is bound to grow into an adult with a promising future, using the method of leading to the future.

4. Follow-up method

This is a very common way to deal with the mistakes of your opponents in debate. When the debater's mistakes are discovered by our side, we should fight back and chase all the way, on the one hand, the loopholes that have not attracted the wide attention of the audience are obvious, so that people will notice the opponent's mistakes; On the other hand, it is in a dilemma when it is unable to admit its mistakes and avoid the facts. The technique of this method is not very complicated, the main problem is to have an absolute grasp of the opponent's mistakes, be sure that it will not be a deliberately designed scam, and then confidently take out the momentum of "it is advisable to chase the poor", take advantage of the opportunity that has been taken, and go straight to the Yellow Dragon.

The above methods are just the general techniques of "waiting for work - catching loopholes", and you can summarize more and more powerful methods in actual combat.

● Borrow a knife to kill and fight back

During the Three Kingdoms, there was a famous man named You Heng. Cao Cao didn't like him very much, so he would get rid of him quickly, so he recommended him to the mediocre and violent Huang Zu. Sure enough, You Heng offended Huang Zu and was killed. In this way, Cao Cao skillfully borrowed the hand of Huang Zu, not only got rid of Youheng, but also did not bear the notoriety of "indiscriminate killing".

Cao Cao's plan of "borrowing a knife to kill" is not clever. Killing with a knife is also often used in debates. Of course, the person we are talking about using a knife to kill people is not a conspirator who sows discord and plays with right and wrong, but a person who can use the "borrowed knife" to criticize the other party and achieve a surprising winning effect. The key point of "borrowing a knife to kill and striking back" also lies in how to skillfully use the opponent's arguments, arguments and assertion process to counterattack the opponent. Regardless of whether his views, arguments, and judgment processes are correct or not, we will take them all and "draw a gourd in the same way" to refute the other side's remarks through our reorganization to make them impossible or absurd.

The application of the "borrowing a knife to kill" strategy in the debate is somewhat different from that of Huang Zu killing Youheng. Cao Cao borrowed the hand of Huang Zu to get rid of the hatred in his heart, and we have to skillfully use the opponent's own "knife", which is the key to victory. There are many different methods, but in general they can be broadly divided into two types:

1. Imitation

The basic method of imitation is to extract the basic structure and expression of the opponent's language, and then apply it to the inferences of another kind of thing, to arrive at a conclusion that will leave the sophist speechless, and thus produce a surprising and winning effect. It's roughly similar to the amplification and counter-arguments we talked about earlier, but there are still many differences. There are three types of imitations commonly used:

The first type is the suspicious type.

The main points of this technique are: to identify cases that are relevant to the interests of the sophist; Interpret the case in the same way as the sophist and imitate the other party's expression; Add a questioning tone to the discourse to show reasonableness, favorability, and moderation.

A: "You're a little bit unfriendly. ”

B: "Why?" ”

A: "You work in a theater and can afford to get me some free tickets, but you've never done it. ”

B: "You're a little bit unfriendly, aren't you?" ”

A: "What's wrong with me?" ”

B: "You work in a bank and are perfectly capable of getting me some free bills, but have you ever done it?" ”

In this example, B uses the questioning imitation technique, which points out the fallacy of the other party, but leaves some room for error. Use a questioning tone that doesn't make the other person unduly embarrassed. This technique is best suited for situations where you need to be careful about your balance.

The second type is the reversive type.

The main points of this technique are: choosing cases in which the other party has an interest; Interpret the case in the same way as the opponent and imitate the form of sophistry; Reinforce the affirmative tone in the discourse.

A: "Don't wear high heels, girls in high heels are frivolous." ”

B: "Why?" ”

A: "Of course, your toes tremble in high heels, how can you stand firmly?" As soon as you stumble on a stone, you will naturally fall, isn't this frivolous? ”

B: "Then you are not allowed to wipe the oil on your hair in the future, and the boy who wipes the oil will slip his head." ”

A: "Nonsense! ”

B: "Of course, the black hair is slippery when you rub your hair oil, how can you not be oily?" Flies will naturally slip when they fall, and this is the ironclad proof of the slippery head! ”

This kind of debating technique is characterized by using the logic set by the opponent to limit the opponent, and the effect is stronger than that of the questioning style, and it is generally used in situations where there is no need to leave too much measure.

The third type is the anti-blame type.

The main points are: to select cases that have a strong interest in the sophist and are performable; embarrass the sophist with unexpected sensibility; The activity is explained using the methods used in sophistry and in the form of expressions.

A: "Wash your hands before eating." ”

B: "I won't wash it!" ”

A: "Why?" ”

B: "If it's washed, it'll still be dirty, so why bother?" So, I don't do such stupid things...... Hey, what are you doing with my food? ”

A: "If you're full, you'll still be hungry, so why bother?" So, don't do such stupid things. ”

The outstanding feature of this technique is that it is both performative and gives the other person a kind of mockery in his actions, so as to induce him to ask a rhetorical question. Once the other party asks back, they will find that they have been deceived. Generally speaking, this practice has the connotation of punishment, anger and seduction, and only in this way will the other person be unable to suppress his anger, jump up and scold, and thus get into the designed trap.

The three methods of imitation debating techniques, from soft to hard in tone and from weak to strong in rhetorical cross-examination, are suitable for different occasions. Therefore, in actual combat, we should use different things for different people and use them differently.

2. Scenario construction

This is the second case of murder with a knife, which is characterized by not having a direct debate with the other party, but using a realistic or imaginary scenario to make him face objective contradictions and realize the mistakes that exist. This is the construction scenario method, and it also has three basic cases.

The first is a dilemma construction scenario.

If you look at many things on their own, they are likely to reach an impasse, and if you can grasp the main mistake of the other party and construct a special situation, it will not be able to justify the answer no matter how you answer it.

B is looking for a job at A, and A seems nonchalant: "What can you find in nature for people to eat in the winter when food is scarce?" ”

"As long as it's something that the human body can bear!"

A picks up a magazine: "Cut this magazine into shredded paper, the human body can bear it, but will you eat it?" ”

"I'm talking about something that hasn't been dealt with humanly."

A picks up another walnut.

"Without human handling, would you swallow it with your leather shell in it?"

B was frustrated in two places and had to leave.

This is an example of a concrete application of a dilemma construction scenario.

The second is the analogical construction scenario.

The writer Ma Tieding once criticized a proud and complacent person. This man is detached from the masses, but he thinks to himself: "Only sheep and pigs are herds, and lions and tigers are always loners." Ma Tieding asked rhetorically: "Although lions and tigers are loners, how can hedgehogs, toads, and spiders not be loners?" ”

Here the analogy of "solitude" is used to construct a situation that is homomorphic and heterogeneous with the other person's point of view, so that his own point of view is added to himself, and the sharp analogy makes him speechless.

The third is the explicit construction scenario.

That is, to show the content of the argument as a contrasting specific situation, so that the listener can enter the scene and experience it for himself, will receive unexpected results.

"Now everything is looking at money, and no one does anything that doesn't give money!"

"If you're walking with your girlfriend and a guy from outside the city has a bleeding nose and asks you where you're going to the hospital, will you reach out and say, 'How much are you going to pay?' ”

Showing "looking at the money" as an image that the listener can feel, so that he can naturally participate in situational thinking, not only achieves the purpose of guidance, but also can give people a sense of intimacy and reality.

The above three situations are the basic forms of scenario construction, and the use of scenario construction will not only simplify the problem, but also achieve good results in a short time. But it is by no means a panacea, and it should be used with caution: the situational construction method is aimed at those who are aware of their mistakes and still prefer to sophistry or strong arguments with others; The constructed scene must have a certain degree of authenticity, although it is not necessarily what has happened in life, but it must be something that may happen.

● If you want to capture the old and indulge, lure the enemy deep

Socrates, the famous philosopher of ancient Greece, was good at eloquence, he often asked others for advice, and when others answered, he took advantage of the situation to refute the answer, forcing the other party into a contradictory corner, unable to turn back and fight again.

One day, Socrates walked to the market, and suddenly, he pulled a passer-by 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 faithful and honest, and do not deceive anyone." This is what is accepted as ethical behavior. ”

Socrates asked, "You say that morality means that you cannot deceive people, but when you are at war with the enemy, our generals do everything possible to deceive the enemy, can this be said to be immoral?" ”

"It is moral to deceive the enemy, but it is immoral to deceive one's own people." The man said.

"When fighting with the enemy, our army was surrounded and in a difficult situation, and in order to boost morale, the general deceived the soldiers and said that our reinforcements had arrived, and everyone fought to break through, and the result was successful. Can this deception be said to be immoral? Socrates then asked rhetorically.

The man replied, "It was done out of necessity in war, and we can't do it in our daily lives." ”

"We often have this problem," asked Socrates after a pause, "when the son is sick and refuses to take medicine, the father lies to the son that it is not medicine, but a delicious thing." Isn't that immoral? ”

The man had no choice but to admit: "This deception is ethical." ”

Socrates asked, "It is moral not to deceive people, and it is also moral to deceive people." That is to say, morality cannot be illustrated by whether it deceives or not. So what exactly is used to illustrate this? Could 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." This is exactly what Socrates was saying. Here Socrates uses the technique of trying to get away with it, so that passers-by can tell what Socrates wants to say.

Theoretically, the straight line between two points is the shortest, but usually the most direct way of debating does not yield the best results. In debates, it is often necessary to adopt some "roundabout" tactics, "in order to lure the enemy so that he will always be tempted to him, and I can capture and kill the enemy even if I am thousands of miles away." "In speech and debate, if it is difficult to achieve the goal directly and there is a stalemate, we should adopt the method of taking a step back, changing the battlefield, and luring the enemy into a deep and detour attack. This method is intended to lure the enemy into destroying it, and it is of great significance in actual combat. On the one hand, it is prepared and confident, and it is applied calmly, and it can generally receive good results; On the other hand, because the opponent is taking risks in the case of self-righteousness, has a chance of winning, and often has no scruples, once he is hit head-on, he is likely to be in chaos and defeated.

● Listen to what they say and reveal contradictions

In the course of a debate, there are often inconsistencies in the statements of the other side. At this time, if the contradiction can be grasped and exposed, it will often make the other party speechless and difficult to argue. This method is the method of revealing contradictions. Let's take a look at an example.

In one homicide case, the suspect poisoned her husband with poison, falsely claiming that her husband had a stroke and died in the emergency department of the hospital. As the public suspected the cause of his death, the public security organs conducted an autopsy and proved that he died of sodium cyanide poisoning.

The policeman asked, "Why did your husband die suddenly?" ”

He replied, "He died of a cerebral hemorrhage." The police told her the results of the forensic examination of her husband's death by poisoning and asked her what she thought. She pretended to be very sad and cried loudly, claiming that she wanted the government to avenge her husband and find out the suspects who poisoned and murder and severely punish them.

After a while, the police continued to interrogate:

Q: "How many people do you have in your family?" ”

Answer: "Two." ”

Ask: "Who do you think can be poisoned, and who has been to your house?" ”

Answer: "On the first day of my husband's death, a man named Wang Xiao came to my house, and I think this person poisoned me. ”

Asked: "Why did he poison?" ”

Answer: "He has a relationship with me, poison my husband, he can marry me." ”

Ask: "Do you know how he poisoned himself?" ”

Answer: "I don't know. ”

Q: "Have you consulted it?" ”

Answer: "Yes, it has been discussed. ”

Ask: "Why did you not know after consulting with you?" ”

At this time, the interrogator could not explain, bowed his head and remained silent, and after a moment of silence, he replied: "I only saw the poison in a small bottle, but I don't know how it was poisoned." ”

The policeman asked again: "Where does this man live?" ”

Answer: "I don't know. ”

Asked: "You are so close and you are about to get married, why don't you know his address?" ”

Answer: "The man didn't give me the address. ”

When the police told her that more than a dozen people with the same name in the city were not qualified to commit crimes, she was speechless, and finally had to confess her crime of poisoning her husband with ***.

In this case, the suspect repeatedly violated the law of contradiction and revealed his true feelings. First, she must have died of a cerebral hemorrhage, and then she cried and screamed for the government to punish the murderer; Second, during the interrogation, the suspect not only said that Wang had poisoned and had discussed it with her, but also said that he did not know how Wang applied the poison; Third, the situation reported by the criminal suspect is inconsistent with the objective facts investigated by the investigators, because all the people named Wang Xiao are not qualified to commit crimes, and according to the law of contradiction, the criminal suspect must be committing fraud and providing false confessions.

In the above two cases, the reason why the criminal suspects were dumbfounded when questioned was because they were thieves and their confessions were full of loopholes, and the police were good at grasping the contradictions and exposing them in a timely manner, so that they had to bow their heads and confess. The key to using the method of revealing contradictions is to listen carefully to what the other person has to say. Only by listening carefully can we hear everything, and only by listening to everything can we discover the contradictions exposed in the whole process, and only then can we have something to reveal. At the same time, if you want to learn some logical knowledge, you must at least understand the three laws of formal logic, otherwise, if the contradictions are placed in front of you, you will not be able to see or see through them, let alone reveal them. The method of revealing contradictions is widely used, not only in reconnaissance and interrogation, but also in all debating activities. If you can study it carefully and apply it flexibly, it will definitely improve your level of debate and persuasion.

●Weigh the benefits and disadvantages, and distinguish the gains and losses

In debates, sometimes the core issue of the debate is often about the benefits and harms, gains and losses of a certain thing, and it is human nature to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages. According to this characteristic, in the debate involving this type of debate, we can focus on the different views of the other side, and make the other side give up its erroneous proposition after weighing the benefits and disadvantages, so that it tends to the same point of view as the debater, so as to suspend the other party's behavior. This is the debate technique of "knowing what is at stake".

In applying the "know the benefits and harms" method in debates, we should pay attention to the following three points:

1. Insight into the benefits and disadvantages, and have a plan in mind

In order to smoothly apply the technique of "knowing the benefits and disadvantages" in the debate, the debater himself is first required to have a deep understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the issues being debated. Only by truly understanding the stakes can we be confident and "know the benefits" to the other party in a targeted manner, so as to impress the other party and gain a common understanding.

2. Weigh the benefits and disadvantages, and identify with the role

The use of the technique of "knowing the interests and harms" in the debate is to put the interests of things in front of the other party, make a trade-off, inspire and induce the other party, overcome short-term behavior, give up immediate interests, and consciously obey the overall interests and long-term interests. At the same time, "knowing the benefits and harms" should also pay attention to the role of speech. Everyone speaks in a certain role, and if they stand on opposing positions, even if they try to analyze their stakes, it will be useless. On the contrary, it is easy to convince the other party by changing roles in time, appearing in the role of "one's own person", and then stating the stakes.

3. Turn harm into benefit and think dialectically

Dialectical materialism believes that the "benefit" and "harm" of things are both opposed to each other and interdependent, and that they may be transformed into each other under certain conditions. Based on this understanding, we should use the technique of "knowing the benefits and harms" in the debate, and we should also think more dialectically and conduct a dialectical analysis of the interests and stakes of things, so that we can speak about the harm, think about the benefits when the harms are harmful, seek the advantages and avoid the disadvantages, and turn the disadvantages into benefits. In the debate, we will certainly be able to come up with a commanding height, make a lot of strange moves, grasp the initiative in the debate, and win the debate.

In short, seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages is the psychological manifestation of human needs, which is the theoretical basis of the debate technique of "knowing the benefits and disadvantages". In the debate, if we can gain insight into the interests and stakes of the things involved in the debate, conduct thorough dialectical thinking and analysis of this relationship, and help the other party weigh the interests and disadvantages, and distinguish the advantages and losses, we will definitely enable the other party to give up the wrong viewpoint and make the right choice. Of course, the use of the technique of "knowing the benefits and harms" also needs to mobilize the emotional factors, which not only "know the benefits", but also move them with affection and reason, so as to influence people's behavior more.

●Opposites are extended, and the clever wins

Debate is a confrontation between different ideas and concepts, which is extremely confrontational, and a clever debater can often draw completely different conclusions from the premises provided by the other party, making the debate full of more fascinating confrontational colors. This article presents a number of ways to derive sharply opposing conclusions from a premise.

1. Derivation from the opposition of positions

If each person has a different position or view on the same matter, it is possible to reach sharply opposing conclusions about the matter. For example, the bus number of Xiao Wang's bus is "16444", and a friend saw it and said to him: "Your license plate number reads as 'all the way to death', which is too unlucky, you should change the license plate number!" Xiao Wang immediately retorted: "No! My license plate should read 'Dora Fa Fa'! Isn't that auspicious? "From the perspective of natural numbers, to understand this license plate number, its homonym is "all the way to death"; From the perspective of music score, the conclusion is "Dora Fa Fa Fa"!

2. Derived from the opposition of nothingness

Some agreements, treaties, and even laws do not deal with a certain issue, and when the opponent does not negate a certain issue on the basis of the legal treaty and derives a feasible conclusion, we can likewise draw an infeasible conclusion based on the fact that the legal treaty does not affirm the matter, thus constituting a sharp contradiction with the enemy.

Consider a court argument about a housing dispute.

Plaintiff's lawyer: "The monthly rent of 800 yuan for a 30-square-meter ordinary house is unfair, and I ask the court to make a judgment to reduce the rent." ”

Defendant: "There is no explicit provision in the law prohibiting the agreement on high rents, which is consensual. ”

Plaintiff's lawyer: "So, why did the defendant, as the lessor, get rid of the mother that the plaintiff had invited to stay there for a few months?" ”

Defendant: "There is no such provision in the contract, and the law does not expressly allow a second person other than the tenant to live in the rented house. ”

Plaintiff's lawyer: "Let me summarize the defendant's point of view: Regarding rent, according to you, everything that is not prohibited by law is permissible; With regard to the plaintiff's mother living in a rented house, anything that is not expressly permitted by law is prohibited, right? ”

Defendant: "So to speak. ”

Plaintiff's lawyer: "Then, if the law does not explicitly allow you to rent out your house at a high price, it is prohibited; The law does not prohibit a person other than the tenant from staying with him temporarily, and such temporary accompaniment is permitted. Well, your own point of view is fighting with your own point of view. In fact, the crux of this case is that the excessively high housing prices are unfair and are prohibited by the principle of fairness of the law. ”

Here, the plaintiff's lawyer uses the method of nihilistic opposition to form a sharp confrontation with the defendant.

3. Derivation from the transformation word order

By changing the word order of a sentence, the conclusion is drawn that is opposite to the counterparty.

Two children debate in a park with roses.

A: "Look, all the beautiful flowers here grow on the thorn bushes, and it's not fun at all!" ”

B: "That's not right! You see, even all the thorn bushes are full of beautiful flowers, what a great place! ”

The word order is different, and the conclusions are sharply opposed.

4. Derive from the opposition of possibilities

There are often different possibilities for the future development of something, so we can oppose the argument that the other side is likely to have in the future, and choose diametrically opposed possibilities.

When George Bernard Shaw became famous, a famous dancer proposed to him, saying, "How beautiful it would be if you married me, and we would have children as smart as you and as beautiful as me!" ”

George Bernard Shaw rejected her with his characteristic humor: "How terrible it would be if I married you and gave birth to a child as ugly as I am, and as stupid as you!" ”

There is a possibility of different combinations of children born of the union of men and women, and George Bernard Shaw chose the opposite possibility of the other party, and came to a sharply opposing conclusion.

5. Derive from vague opposites

Natural language is often ambiguous and ambiguous in many situations, and different people can make different interpretations, so we may draw-for-tat conclusions from some vague sentences and confront the debater. Consider a debate contained in Lü's Spring and Autumn Period: Obscenity.

Qin and Zhao concluded a mutual assistance treaty, which stipulated: "From now on, what Qin wants to do, Zhao will help; What Zhao wants to do, Qin will help. Soon after, Qin sent troops to attack Wei, and Zhao wanted to save Wei. The king of Qin was very unhappy and sent an envoy to rebuke the king of Zhao, saying: "The treaty stipulates, 'Whatever Qin wants, Zhao will help; What Zhao wants to do, Qin will help', now Qin wants to attack Wei, and Zhao wants to save Wei, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. The king of Zhao called Pingyuan Jun to ask for advice, and Pingyuan Jun turned to Gongsun Long, and Gongsun Long said: "You can also send an envoy to rebuke the king of Qin and say to the king of Qin: 'Zhao wants to save Wei, and now the king of Qin does not come to help Zhao to save Wei, which is also not in accordance with the provisions of the treaty.'" ’”

The treaty between Qin and Zhao was vague and ambiguous, and Gongsun Long drew a-for-tat conclusion with the king of Qin to contend with it.

6. Derivation from the dilemma

That is, from the dilemma provided by the opponent, a conclusion diametrically opposed to the opponent is deduced to confront it. The specific method is to swap the positions of the posterior parts of the two conditional propositions in the premise and negate them separately.

A tourist was staying in a hotel, and suddenly it was raining heavily, and he found that there was a bad leak in the room, so he called the manager and asked someone to send someone to repair it, but the manager said in a hearty manner: "I'm sorry, sir." It's raining and you can't make repairs; And if the weather is fine, then there is no need to repair it. The traveler immediately retorted: "No! If it rains, it will be repaired; If the weather is fine, there is a possibility of repair! ”

7. Derivation from analogy

The conclusions of analogical arguments are probable, and sometimes analogy can be used to draw opposing conclusions from a common premise.

Somebody was so drunk all day that one day he boasted, "If you drink more, you will live longer, but don't you see that meat can be kept longer if you put it in alcohol?" Someone retorted: "I said that you will have a short life if you drink like this, don't you see that the cloth that covers the wine jar will soon rot after a long time?" ”

The same premise is that "drink more", but because of the different things used for analogy, the conclusion is diametrically opposed.

8. Derivation from the opposition of cause and effect

Causal connection is one of the forms of universal connection in the objective world, and it is complex and diverse. Sometimes one cause can lead to multiple effects, i.e., one cause has many effects; Sometimes a single outcome can be caused by multiple causes, i.e., multiple causes. Causal opposition is to derive the conclusion that things are opposed to each other based on the causal connection between them. Causal opposition can be inferred from a certain outcome to cause the opposite.

One day, the head of the thousand households came to Avanti's house, and Avanti's dog slipped into the den without a sound. Then the chief of the thousand households said, "You see, your dog is so afraid of me that when he saw me, he did not dare to bark and slipped into the den. ”

Avanti retorted: "Master, you are not right, this dog is not afraid of you, but because he hates you!" ”

Why doesn't the dog bark and slip into the den? The Thousand Household Chief came to the conclusion that he was afraid of him, while Avanti came to the conclusion that he was not afraid of him but because he hated him, which powerfully satirized the hateful and hateful of the Thousand Household Chief.

Causal opposition can also lead to opposing effects from the same cause.

Once, George Bernard Shaw had a problem with his spine and needed to take a bone from his foot to replace the spine defect. After the operation, the doctor wanted to get paid more: "Mr. George Bernard Shaw, this is a new operation that we have never done before!" George Bernard Shaw smiled: "That's great, how much are you going to give me for the trial?" ”

Because of the same kind of surgery that has never been done before, the doctor should pay more because of the difficulty; George Bernard Shaw used his body as a test subject to arrive at the results of the test fee, which was in opposition to each other and fascinating.

There are many ways to derive opposing conclusions from the same premise. However, in the end, the conclusion of these opposing conclusions must be analyzed in detail and tested through practice.

Take a look at a debate recorded in "Han Feizi and the Foreign Prince's Upper Left".

There was a man named Yu Qing who was about to build a new house. The craftsman said, "Not yet, because the wood is raw and the soil is too wet." The raw wood is easy to bend, and the wet soil is too heavy. The heavy earth is added to the bendable wood, which is fine when it is first made, and it will soon collapse. ”

Yu Qing retorted: "You're not right! The wood is now raw, and it gets straighter and straighter as it dries; The soil is wet, it gets lighter and lighter as it gets drier, and the house will definitely not collapse if the wood gets straighter and straighter, and the house will definitely not collapse! ”

The craftsman couldn't argue with Yu Qing, so he had to follow the order. The house was fine when it was first completed, but it collapsed soon after. Although Yu Qing is right, practice has ruthlessly proved that his assertion is absurd.

● Referring to Sang scolding Huai, pun rebuttal

In the course of communication or debate, especially in the case of-for-tat, warm atmosphere or even a slight smell of gunpowder, in the face of the opponent's fierce language offensive, you can adopt the method of "saying one in the open and saying two in secret", and put the profound truth in thought-provoking metaphors and endless aftertaste humor. This is the method of "pointing at Sang and scolding Huai, pun rebuttal" that we want to introduce to you. This method can not only maintain grace, but also put the other party in an irretrievable defeat.

Once upon a time, there was a county magistrate who rode a horse with his attaché to Wangzhuang to handle official business. When I came to a fork in the road, I didn't know which way to go. It happened that an old farmer came with a hoe, and the county official immediately asked the old farmer loudly: "Hey, old man, how do you get to Wangzhuang?" The old peasant didn't look back, but hurried away. The county magistrate shouted, "Hey! The old farmer stopped and said, "I don't have time to answer you, I'm going to Lizhuang to see something strange!" "What's the odd thing?" The county magistrate asked. "There is a horse in Li Zhuang that has a cow." The old farmer said word by word.

"Really? How can a horse get out of a cow? The county magistrate was puzzled. The old peasant replied earnestly, "There are many strange things in the world, how do I know that the beast will not get off the horse?" ”

The old peasant borrowed the literal word "beast" to reprimand the county officials who didn't even know how to behave. This is a pun sarcasm that explicitly says this, implicitly says the other, and refers to Sang scolding Huai.

The use of puns is imitative, analogous, and humorous, so when using this technique in practice, the following issues should be noted:

1. Elegant and pure

In using this technique, it is necessary to adhere to the principle of civilized expression and convincing people with reason. The style is noble and elegant, the content is pure and decent, and it is necessary to win people with virtue and convince people with reason, and avoid vulgarity and low-level. Although it is possible to gain the upper hand by virtue of the momentary advantage of the ugly and unbearable, the so-called "double entendre" of the shrewd scolding street style is despicable and very undesirable.

2. Hide humor

It's the first life of the pun trick. Subtlety and humor are the basic requirements for the use of this technique, and if we ignore this most important point, we will lose the power of humor, sarcasm and debate. Humor is like a soft whip, whipped on the body, leaving no traces on the skin, but it can hurt the flesh and bones, sting the other party's psychology, making his speech disordered, exhausted to cope, and may even make the other party fall into an embarrassing situation of self-contradiction and inextrication. Therefore, humor in puns and refuting in laughter is one of the secrets of the success of pun techniques.

3. Cut bad associations

In the course of debate, we should not only be good at grasping the other side's hidden intentions and intentions, but also be good at discovering the other side's flaws and contradictions, grasping the key points, striking at the evils, and putting them in a chaotic place, so that they will be speechless and speechless. At the same time, it is all the more necessary to give full play to the role of association and simulation, and intensify debate.

4. Be calm and calm

There is a good saying, "Don't quarrel with a madman, or people won't be able to tell who is crazy." That is to say, the reason is not loud and the momentum is violent, and it may not be reasonable. We must neither be intimidated by the provocative rhetoric or aggressive attitude of the other party, nor can we put on a confrontational posture with the same momentum. We must always maintain good manners, be polite but not give an inch, and be gentle but hurt people invisibly. Therefore, when using this technique, you should also skillfully contain your own reasoning, so that it can be more convincing and combative.

● "Point point" wins, perfect fire

On the street, a middle-aged man was riding a bicycle and pulled over slowly, but was unexpectedly knocked down by an oncoming young man. It stands to reason that the young man should hurry up and pick up the fallen person, make amends, and if he is injured, take him to the hospital and bandage it to be forgiven; But he blamed the middle-aged man for not paying attention to his bicycle and didn't let him. This led to an argument and a large crowd of onlookers. The young man didn't let people talk, and when he heard a few people coaxing, he actually provoked: "What's so great about you!" The middle-aged man was still not angry, but replied: "You hit me because I am not a big deal?" According to you, would it be great if I were as young as you, and thicker than you, and knocked you down and didn't apologize to you? The two sentences made the young man's face red, and he couldn't speak. The young man pushed the cart, got out of the crowd, stepped into the car and ran away.

The young man was vigorous and imposing, but he couldn't stand the pressure of these two sentences. "Trees are afraid of digging roots, people are afraid of revealing the bottom", what aspects can we start from to carry out "point points" in the tongue war?

1. Analyze its heart and point to the acupoints

The main tool of verbal warfare is language. And language "conveys people's thoughts at all times", and anyone's thoughts are contained in language and appear in front of people. Observe words and deeds, words are the voice of the heart, and the psychological situation of the speaker can be known through language. Therefore, in the process of verbal warfare, if you can judge your deeds according to your words, peel off the table and grasp the truth, and "put a needle in your heart", it will definitely work.

2. Summarize the key points and point points

"Summary" refers to finding and grasping key topics that can lead to the defeat of the enemy in a war of words. However, there are large and small topics that play a key role.

The so-called big key topic refers to the focus of the debate. There is a tipping point in any war of words, such as disagreement over an issue. And as long as there is an argument, both sides will use the material to prove that the reason is on their side. However, there will always be people who can't straighten their own reasoning due to reasons such as thinking, logic, language, etc.; Or sometimes it seems to be "straightened", but from another angle, it is very fragile. Shooting at such a "critical part" can often receive a bit of a "dead hole" effect.

3. Intercept his words and point to the point

It's a light and straightforward way to win. Most of the sudden arguments are carried out back and forth between one sentence and another. In continuous arguments, once one party finds that the other party "does not close the door" because of the lack of thoroughness, it can be intercepted everywhere and "exited" in time, and the results will be achieved immediately.

Of course, the method of "pointing" is not limited to these few. In any case, as long as you can rely on your strength to remove thousands of catties of obstacles and quickly defeat the enemy, it is a good "point" method. In the war of words, in order to give full play to the power of the "point point" method, we must also pay attention to the following aspects.

First, stay calm and be able to control anger.

When people are calm, their thinking can be concentrated, clear, agile and logical, and all kinds of mental functions can be completely free and undisturbed to play their greatest functions in a lively state. And once you are agitated or even angry by the other person's words, you will say irreparable words and put yourself in a passive position. It is important to remember that "peace of mind" can be "reasonable".

Second, listen carefully.

Debates are verbal. If you can't hear a sentence clearly, you will lose a chance to fight back; Fighting back before a sentence is clear will become a "key point" and the enemy. It is all the more necessary to listen carefully to long arguments in order to catch loopholes in the logic or reasoning. Even if you show a leisurely, cold, and disdainful demeanor in order to provoke the enemy, your ears and brains still need to be "serious".

Third, the language should be concise and clear.

In the debate, the "point" should be "resigned, and the achievement is just done". If it is "hanging over the river" and talking endlessly, it is likely to hurt yourself because of "inappropriate words". The language is concise and clear, and if you concentrate your strength in one point, you will receive the effect of a spear and dagger.

Feng Menglong of the Ming Dynasty said: "When the two tongues fight, the rational person will stretch out; The two theories are mutually reinforcing, and the debater sells first. Whether or not the power of the "point point" can be maximized in the war of words depends first on whether it is reasonable, and of course it depends on the user's courage, perceptual change, agility and ability to "speak in pieces" and other aspects. The use of the "point point" method is proficient, and the big aspect can be "heavier than Jiuding in a word, or stronger than 100,000 divisions"; The small aspects can be "small in conversation, enough to resolve disputes", which is beneficial to others and themselves. It is for this reason that it is necessary to learn how to use the "point" method in debate.