learn to speak, learn etiquette

Chapter 11 Learning to speak sophistry (1)
Language is an important tool for social activities. In real life, when it is necessary to adapt to changing circumstances, a person's knowledge, experience, and wisdom will play a prominent role.Since many events are disordered, non-programmed, and limited by time, people have special requirements for quick-witted responses and responses, that is, they must learn to sophistry on corresponding occasions.A person with profound knowledge can easily understand and analyze the events in front of him from different sides and angles, and grasp the basis for dealing with them, so as not to be at a loss and helpless.If you have rich experience, you can easily reason by analogy and answer calmly when encountering unexpected events.If you are smart enough, you can respond quickly and sensitively.

The techniques of sophistry are ever-changing, and the methods of refuting sophistry are also varied. This requires us to analyze specific topics in practice and adopt flexible rebuttal tactics to defeat sophistry.

1.parody
The basic method of parody is: to imitate the sophistry to construct a similar metaphor, and then use the metaphor to set up difficulties for the sophist, resulting in the effect of using his own way to deal with his own body.Here are three basic types:
(1) Definite type.The gist of this approach is:
① Pursue humor, so that people can understand with a smile;
② The metaphors chosen based on sophistry must be obviously absurd and interesting;
③ The metaphor must be expressed in a decisive tone.example:

A: You will have less contact with C in the future.

B: C is a nice person, why do you say that?
A: He often hums pop songs with his "guitar".

B: So what?
A．People with a low taste, like a street kid, only like "guitars, pop songs" and other nonsense things. C also likes such things. Do you think he can have an elegant taste?
B: Do you remember what Wu Song beat to death on Jingyang Ridge?

A: Tiger.

B: No, it's an old cat.

A: How can it be a cat?
B: Tigers like to eat meat, and cats also like to eat meat. In this regard, of course a tiger is an old cat.

In the example, B uses the affirmative metaphorical technique.The "strength" of this technique has two sources: one is its humor, which can make the audience laugh, thereby conquering the audience with laughter and forming a favorable atmosphere in the debate; the other is the metaphor This kind of fallacy can leave an aftertaste, so that the audience can think in laughter, experience the absurdity of sophistry, and thus become their own supporters.

(2) Sub-question type.The gist of this approach is:
①Pay attention to the sarcasm of words, and give people the feeling of showing their sharpness;

② The metaphors chosen according to the sophistry must have strong fallacies;
③ The metaphor must be expressed in a rhetorical questioning tone.example:

A: You are late three times in a row, the leader will naturally criticize you, isn't it right to criticize you?
B: Of course not!
A: How to do it right?

B: He should praise me!
A: As the saying goes, "Once again, twice, never again." If you are late one after another, you will never change after repeated admonitions. Why do you still have to praise you?

B: For example, you have a hundred shortcomings, can you overcome them all at once?As the saying goes, "Illness disappears like a thread". I was 15 minutes late for the first time, 10 minutes late for the second time, and 5 minutes late for the third time. This means that I am gradually correcting my mistakes. Isn't this making progress?So he should praise me and not criticize me!
A: Suppose there is such a person who stole 10 wallets a day and vowed to correct himself after he was caught.So he only stole 9 for the second time, and reduced to 8 for the third time. Should we praise his "progress"?If he cuts down to stealing one a day, should he be lavished on his "rapid" progress?
In the example, A uses the imitation technique of questioning type.The characteristic of this technique is sharpness. Therefore, to master this technique, we must first strive to make the metaphor have a strong sense of absurdity, so as to ensure the sharpness of the rebuttal in the basic content; directivity.Sarcasm is different from humor. The latter uses a paintbrush to dress up sophistry as a clown, while the former uses a knife to peel off the sophistry's painted skin.When these two aspects are used, the questioning style will be truly aggressive.

(3) Lianzhu type.The gist of this approach is:
① Pursue the coherent momentum of the language, giving people the feeling of debate;
③ Choose and use more than two metaphors with obvious fallacies;

③ The expressions of metaphors should be concise, and they should be expressed in well-formed parallel sentences as much as possible.example:

A: You said just now that "a gentleman loves money"?
B: I'm talking about "a gentleman loves money and gets it in a proper way".

A: You are sure that "a gentleman loves money" is enough.What kind of people are those who love money?Some stare at other people's pockets and take away the money while people are not paying attention. We call them thieves; Smiling in exchange for other people's trust, and then taking away their money, we call it a liar.These people who are obsessed with money always like to call themselves "gentlemen" and claim to be "righteous". In fact, they are just "gentlemen on the beams" and they are doing "wrong ways" that's all! "A gentleman loves money and gets it in a proper way" is pure nonsense.

B: Bad people love money, so people who love money are bad people, right?Excuse me, pigs are sleepy, and humans are also sleepy. Are humans pigs?Monkeys like to eat peaches, and people also like to eat peaches. Are people monkeys?Weasels like to eat chicken blood, and you also like to eat chicken blood. Do you consider yourself a weasel?
In the example, B uses the renju-type metaphorical technique.The advantage of this technique is that there are many metaphors. On the one hand, they confirm each other, and on the other hand, they can suit the tastes of different audiences, so that the theme can be better contrasted.The main points of this technique are: when choosing metaphors, we should pay attention to making them both "synchronous" and "complementary"; when expressing metaphors, we should pay attention to making them both clear in level and coherent in tone.

2.Forecasting
The basic method of forward deduction is: based on the premise of the core arguments of the sophistry, deductive inferences are made, and conclusions with obvious fallacies are drawn, resulting in the anti-sophistry effect of pushing the boat along the water.There are three basic types of this approach:

(1) Direct push type.The gist of this approach is:
① Presuppose sophistical conclusions;

② Make deductive inferences based on the premise;

③ Draw a conclusion and this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the sophistry.example:

A: Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, you guys don't have to fuck, and help me sort out the "housekeeping".

B: Company commander, is this... okay?
A: Are you a soldier?Obeying orders is a soldier's bounden duty, understand?

B: Company commander, what should we do if the battalion commander orders us to steal things or rob a bank?
In the example, B is using the direct-push forward-push technique. The sentence "obedience to orders is the bounden duty of a soldier" is A's core argument. He canceled the premise of this sentence and made it "whether you are asked to do good or bad things, you must do them." B is from This premise leads to inference, which makes the "must do" of the premise and the "can't do" of the conclusion form a contradiction, and the inherent absurdity of sophistry is displayed.The characteristic of this technique is the pursuit of simple and quick, one-hit fatal debate effect.Therefore, this method is suitable only when the absurdity of the opponent's core argument is obvious and easy to point out.

(2) Two-way type.The gist of this form is:
① The premise is a sophistry that contains inherent contradictions;

② Demonstrate the two contradictory aspects;

③ The two conclusions drawn cannot be true at the same time.example:

A: How do you view God?
B: God saves mankind from perdition, so it is merciful; God makes the world harmonious, so it is omnipotent.It is benevolent and all-powerful, so I believe in it with all my heart.

A: If God is omnipotent, he must know that there are so many ugly and unfair things in the world; if he is kind, he will not allow these ugly and unfortunate things to happen.But what are the facts?Isn't there a lot of ugliness and injustice in our world?Does God not know, or does he not destroy them?

In the example, A uses the two-way forward push technique.The two attributes of benevolence and omnipotence are inherently contradictory, but not immediately apparent.It must be "magnified" to make it clear at a glance.How to "zoom in"?First of all, it is necessary to accurately extract two contradictory points from the core arguments of the sophistry; secondly, it is necessary to make inferences based on these two points respectively to obtain comparable conclusions; thirdly, it is necessary to make the listener as far as possible Common sense admits that both inferences are correct.In this way, when the conclusions admitted by two people are compared and contradictions arise, the inherent fallacy is strongly displayed.This is the internal mechanism of the "magnification" characteristic of this technique.

(3) Progressive type.The gist of this approach is:
① Make inferences based on the premise of sophistical conclusions;

②Deduce a new premise from the conclusion of the first inference, and then make a second inference;

③The conclusion of each inference should be absurd, and strive to make the absurdity more and more obvious;

④ Make at least two levels of inference.example:

A: Water can drown people, so the water in the teacup is also water, right?Therefore, the water in the teacup can also drown people.

B: This teacup belongs to you. You are human too, right?Therefore, the water in your teacup can drown you; the teacup that drowns you is 15 centimeters high, so you are less than 15 centimeters tall; a person who is less than 15 centimeters tall is a dwarf.So you are a dwarf.

In the example B is using the progressive forward push technique.The salient features of this technique are coherence and argumentative momentum.It doesn't just prove the absurdity of the sophistry and get the job done, but deliberately pursues the most vivid effect.This feature makes it difficult to use this technique.First of all, in terms of conception, we must strive to make one layer deeper than one layer, and the influence on the sophists should be from small to large, from small to large, so as to show the characteristics of progress and easily form momentum.Secondly, in the way of expression, the form of parallel sentences should generally be used, and the sentences should echo each other, so that they are catchy and well-proportioned.Can't be short and long, it sounds uneven.In addition, the tone of voice should be gradually pushed to a climax.Again, this method must start from the conclusion of the sophistry.Only by taking the "baton" handed by the sophists and running down can we show a coherent and natural posture.

Two points should be paid attention to when using the forward anti-sophistry technique: First, it must take the core arguments of the sophistry as the starting point.Only in this way can the purpose of refuting sophistry be better achieved; only in this way can the continuity of this method be displayed.Second, the conclusion of this method must highlight the obvious absurdity.The reason is that the purpose of inference is mainly to vilify the premise of the inference through the conclusion. The more unacceptable the conclusion is, the less acceptable the premise it is based on.

3.law of contradiction
The basic method of the contradictory style is to find implicit or explicit contradictory points from the sophistry, and then clarify them in a concise manner, resulting in a sharp debate effect.Here are three common paradoxical anti-sophistry techniques.

(1) Paradoxical type.The gist of this approach is:
① Targeting sophistry with implicit contradictions;

②Construct a case, and use the analysis of the case to show the implicit contradiction of the sophistry.example:

A: I am a soft-hearted person, and I will listen to whoever treats me well, otherwise, I will not listen to the words of the heavenly king and Lao Tzu!
B: I don't believe it.

A: What do you not believe?I do it all the time!
B: Which of your parents treated you badly?
A: They are just as good to me.

B: If you go for a haircut, your mother tells you to grow long hair, and your father tells you to shave your head, who do you listen to?

In the example, B uses the paradoxical technique of paradox.The conclusion of the sophistry in the example is "I will listen to whoever treats me well." This sentence sounds a bit wrong, but it can't tell anything on the surface, because the contradiction it contains is implicit. B constructed the case of "shaving the head", and through analysis, it showed its internal contradictions, and confirmed that "I will listen to whoever treats me well" is essentially impossible to completely achieve.Paradoxical technique is characterized by constructing examples to show the paradox of sophistry.Pay attention when using: First, the examples it uses can be fictitious, but it is not allowed to use perceptual exaggeration, but should focus on rational analysis of it.Second, it is not allowed to use non-objective rhetorical means to express examples, but should use concise and clear language for objective description and analysis.

(2) Paradoxical type.The gist of this approach is:
① Target sophistry and fallacies with implicit contradictions;

② Emphasize the other side of the contradiction that the sophistry has concealed in the form of questions;

③ There can be various forms of questioning, but the structure is only one question, without any development or explanation.example:

A: You said "If I lose, I'll crawl home from the road", now that you lose, please crawl and show us!
B: I did, but I never tell the truth, so I don't climb.

A: Did you really not tell the truth?
B: Of course.I'm notorious for telling lies, if you can prove that I've told the truth, I'll show you right away!

A: You just said "I never tell the truth", is this sentence true or false?

In the example, A uses the paradoxical contradictory technique. The basis of B's ​​sophistry is "I never tell the truth".If this sentence is stated affirmatively, it has an inescapable implicit contradiction, because it does not take itself into account. A seizes this neglected aspect and emphasizes it, so that the sophist can neither admit its truth nor its falsehood, and finally has to agree to tell the truth.The paradoxical technique is characterized by using only simple questions to reveal the inherent contradictions of the sophistry.When using this technique, we should pay attention to: first, finding out the hidden contradiction is the first key; second, before asking the paradox, we can do some foreshadowing work, the purpose is to make the sophist confirm something by himself, so as to prevent him from repeating the question. do sophistry.

(3) Connection type.The gist of this approach is:
①Take sophistical inferences with explicit contradictions as objects;
③The two contradictory points are refined and connected together, and through comparison, the fallacy of sophistry is clearly shown.example:

A: Zhuangzi is right, there is no winner in a debate.

B: Debate can tell the winner.

A: Who will judge the outcome?You judge that I disagree, and I judge that you disagree, so let a third party judge?How do you know if his judgment is right or wrong?It can be seen that his judgment still needs other people's judgment.In this way, in essence, no final judging criteria can be found.Therefore, the debate is inconclusive.

B: I think the debate can tell the winner.

A: You only talk empty words without making any sense. It can be seen that you have run out of excuses, so let's admit defeat!

B: Didn't you say that there is no winner in the debate?Why do you say that the debate between the two of us is that you win and I lose?
In the example, B uses the connection-type contradictory technique. In his statement, A first concludes that "the debate cannot tell the winner", and then concludes that B lost the debate between him and B. In this way, the process of his judgment has an explicit contradiction. B points out and connects its contradictory points, and achieves the purpose of refuting the sophistry.Simple method and remarkable effect are the outstanding features of this technique.However, this simplicity is only in terms of form. In fact, it requires a higher discernment ability of the user.Everyone may have encountered such a situation. When there are two obvious contradictions in the other party's language, we often cannot detect them sensitively. We don't realize it until someone else points it out.This technique can only be used effectively if you can discover something new in what everyone has seen.

4.Interrogation
The basic method of the challenge style is: find out the core point of the sophist's intention or gimmick, and intercept the sophistry with concise and direct criticism, so that it cannot realize its intention or complete its sophistry.Here are three common hesitant anti-sophistry techniques.

(1) Refutation and questioning type.The gist of this approach is:
① The object of sophistry is to hide tricks and play tricks;
②Use concise questions and sentences to reveal the tricks that the sophists are going to use, so that they cannot be further developed.example:

A: Do you still have what you have never lost?

B: You have never lost a hoof. May I ask: Do you have any hooves?

The question of A in the example is a complex question with tricks hidden in it.If the answer is affirmative, the sophist will say: "You have never lost your horn, so you have a horn"; if you give a negative answer, the sophist will say: "You have never lost your head, so you have no head".The characteristic of this kind of sophistry is to attract people first and then use them to their advantage.The questioning technique is to intercept this kind of sophistry when it throws out the bait, and point out its premeditation.Pay attention when using this technique: rebuttal questioning is to condense the tricks that the sophist will perform, and then express it in the form of questioning. It would defeat the virtue of the simplicity of this trick.

(2) Doubt-seeking type.The gist of this approach is:
① Targeting sophistry that contains some unreasonable demands;

②According to the fallacy of sophistry, design a difficult question, and seek answers from the sophistry with this difficult question.example:

A: It’s almost time to shoot, why aren’t you ready yet?
B: For drunken scenes, if you don't give us some real banquets, we won't be able to get into the role.

A: Can't you shoot drunk scenes without drinking alcohol?
B: Of course!
A: What will you do when you shoot the scene of taking poison in the next scene?
In the example, A uses the question-seeking questioning technique.This technique is characterized by intercepting sophistry from sophistry's excuses.There are two points to pay attention to in use: first, after finding an excuse for sophistry, try to make the sophistry affirm it himself, so that the foundation can be established so that the sophistry has nothing to say.In the example A, the question "Can't you shoot a drunk scene without drinking?" is for this purpose.Second, the problem of design is drawn from the sophistry's excuse, and it must be inferably related to the sophist's excuse.If there is no deducible relationship, there will be no "difficulty" in the problem, and of course it will not be able to achieve the effect of making the sophist speechless.

(3) Certification type.The gist of this approach is:
① Targeting sophistry with insufficient or false arguments;
②Find out the flaws in the sophistry's arguments as a breakthrough, and ask the sophists to answer the flaws in the arguments.example:

A: You bought a child ticket, so you cannot enter the venue.

B: I should buy half the ticket.

A: Why?
B: Because I only have one eye to see.

A: How about one eye?

B: People with two eyes buy full tickets, and people with one eye should naturally buy half tickets!

A: Can't see all in one eye?
(End of this chapter)