learn to speak, learn etiquette

Chapter 13 Learning to speak sophistry (3)
Confidence in words means that what you say counts, and credibility means that the debater speaks based on faith, saying one is one and saying two is two, so as to be true to his word, believe without deceit, and convince Opponent, to achieve the purpose of the argument.

31．repeated emphasis
The method of repeated emphasis refers to a method of emphasizing a certain problem from different sides and different angles, intentionally repeating an important concept, so as to leave a comprehensive and deep impression on the other party's mind.

32．psychological tactics
Psychological tactics is a method that requires the debater to be good at observing people's hearts, understanding the needs of the other party, and using appropriate methods to stimulate them and achieve their goals in the process of debate or the development of things.

The method of extreme seduction is that the debater seizes the opponent's stubbornness based on psychological factors, and instead of refuting it positively, pretends to follow the opponent's meaning, borrows the opponent's topic, and leads his words and deeds to extremes, making the opponent fall into a trap.Understand the mistakes of one's own words and deeds, and thus naturally give up one's wrong views and change one's words and deeds.

33．emergency self-protection law
In a hasty defensive situation, our side should take some emergency measures to withstand the wave of attacks from the enemy and save the crisis.

(1) Universal answer.In the face of the other party's tricky questions, you can take out the "universal card" prepared in advance to respond.The content of the universal card is often some indisputable facts, or contradictions that the other party cannot explain.In this way, you can get a temporary respite and turn the crisis into safety.For example: In the competition debate of "advocating the purchase of domestic products is beneficial to economic development", there is such a paragraph:
Square: "What we are indeed seeing now is that many developed countries are pulling their salaries from the bottom of our country and jumping on the 'fucking horse'. At this time, can we still be 'pawns' in front of us?"

The opponent’s powerful attack was difficult to deal with. Seeing that the situation was not good, the opponent conveniently threw out an emergency measure, took out a pre-prepared "universal card" and said to the card: "Then there is one problem that I don't understand. We Many domestic products have been advocated for decades, but these industries have reached the age of [-], and they are still lying in the arms of their mothers and counting stars!"

It doesn't feel far-fetched to listen to this response. In fact, this passage can be followed by any question from the other party.Therefore, before you can't find a suitable and powerful response material, you might as well use the omnipotent language to help you in an emergency, which is a great way to liberate yourself.

(2) Retreat as advance.When one's own weakness is caught by the other side, one's own side can also truthfully admit that the other party's part is justified, but at the same time point out that there is a more important side, and this side is beneficial to oneself, so that the topic can be turned around to oneself. Within the favorable range, you can get out of the predicament.For example, when arguing that "Confucianism can resist the unhealthy trend of the West," the South Team responded to the opponent's offensive by saying: "We respect Confucianism very much. Confucianism has a positive effect on coordinating interpersonal relationships, but it cannot promote economic growth. This is like Tieguai Li’s precious gourd can cure many diseases, but it can’t cure his own crutches! (Laughter) Today, the opponent’s debater insists on linking Confucius with Brother Kong Fang. Isn’t this a big blow to Confucianism? Disrespectful?"

Here, the opponent's tactics of retreating into advance have produced a very good defensive effect.

(3) Misleading.Sometimes, knowing that the other party speaks very clearly and very forcefully, but he cannot answer, in order to get rid of the embarrassment, he can also adopt the method of confusing the audience and confusing the water so as to divert his attention.For example, in the debate on "human nature is inherently good," the affirmative said: "We are very worried that if human nature is inherently evil, if it is established, then it is just following the nature, so what needs to be punished?"

The counter said: "The other party has finally blurred..."

Originally, Zhengfang's thinking was clear and very aggressive.The opposing side deliberately said this, the purpose is to put a clear question into vague words, so imposed on others, it seems that the other party is really blurred, but in fact it is intended to guide the audience's views and help oneself out of the predicament.

(4) Change the subject.When in a passive state, you can also wait for the opportunity to create opportunities for rhetorical questions, change the subject, and lead the war to the opponent's position.For example, when debating that "AIDS is a medical problem, not a social problem", the affirmative party asked: "The other party has explained that we should strengthen education, but I want to ask the other party, what kind of education is used for education? Should we use medical methods to educate?" ?”

The opposing party replied: "Know what you know, and what you don't know is what you don't know. May I ask the other party, what is your standard for judging whether it is a medical problem or a social problem?"

Here, the opposing side first uses vague answers to avoid difficult questions, and then changes the topic and asks a new question to divert the flames of war and give themselves a chance to breathe.

34．Righteousness and Strict Law
Righteousness and strict speech refer to correct reasoning and serious language.It is used in debates to refer to the debaters who face power, uphold justice, do not bow to evil forces, and dare to stand up and fight for the truth.It is a kind of argumentation strategy to reason from positive narratives and subdue opponents with serious and severe words.

35．tacit understanding
Tacit understanding means that each other understands each other without saying it.It is often used as a metaphor for a kind of understanding between friends who know themselves and the enemy.

36．Argument on the same point
Arguing on the same point refers to emphasizing the similarities and common points between the two sides in the debate, so that the other party feels that the debater is "a family" and "one of our own", so that he is willing to accept the debater's point of view.

37．alternate screen
In competitive debates, when one side is in an unfavorable situation, the defenders of one's own side should cooperate closely and carry out mutual rescue.Especially when a player of the team makes a mistake and is targeted by the opponent, other team members of the team should step forward and cover alternately to prevent the opponent from attacking and prevent the defense line of the team from being broken through in a weak link.At this time, the field commander has a more important responsibility.He must quickly identify the opponent's intentions, actively coordinate, and take measures; other team members should understand, quickly follow, provide first aid, plug the gap, and get out of the crisis.

38．Swapping concept method
This is a sophistry that deliberately violates the requirements of the law of identity.The specific method of sneaking is often to use polysemy to mix words with the same form but not expressing the same concept as the same concept.For example: A young passenger on the bus smashed a window pane while trying to get off the bus.The conductor said to the young man very kindly: "Comrade, you broke the glass and you have to pay for it." The young man actually asked, "Why should I pay?" "The young man said: "I am a member of the people, and I have a share of the people's property. There is no need to pay for it, and I don't want my share!" Logically speaking, "people's property" is a collective concept and is indivisible. But this young man is deliberately sophistrying it as a method of non-collective concepts. 39．Swapping the topic
O'Bried once made a sophistical argument that "a man does not know his father".He first asked the man: Do you know your father?The man replied: "Of course I know", and then Obrid asked the man's father to hide behind the curtain, and then asked him: Do you know this man?Since the man didn't know who was behind the curtain, he answered "I don't know." Obrid proved that this man didn't know his father.Here, Obrid is using the method of subverting the topic to engage in sophistry.This is a deliberate violation of the law of identity, because the topic is not always consistent throughout the proof process, but is secretly replaced midway, so the proof is invalid.

40．fabricated argument law
People should present facts and reason in debates, but false arguments violate the rules of argumentation.However, deliberate fabrication of arguments to deceive people with false evidence is a common trick used by sophists.Ah Q's sophistry when stealing carrots can be said to be a typical example of fabricating arguments.Once Ah Q was caught stealing a carrot, and he was reprimanded.Ah Q quibbled and said: "This carrot is not yours." The argument was "You can't make it agree to you."Obviously, this argument is extremely absurd, and the nature thesis does not hold water.

41．circular argument
Evidence is used to prove a thesis.If the argument has not been proved, it is tantamount to using the topic itself to prove the topic, and the topic itself cannot prove itself.Therefore, the truth of the argument cannot be relied upon to prove the thesis.Otherwise, you will make a logical error of circular argumentation.But sophists often consciously create circular arguments in justifying their fallacies.Lu Xun's "The Soul of the Debate" is devoted to exposing the sophistry of the reactionaries. There is a passage in the article: "...A traitor is a talker, so you are a traitor. I scold a traitor, so I am a patriot. The words of a patriot Is the most valuable, so my words are right, since my words are right, you are a traitor without a doubt!" In this passage, "You are a traitor" is the topic, "I am a patriot" is the argument, and "I am a patriot" is the argument, and "I The authenticity of "is a patriot" is proved by "you are a traitor".The sophistry method exposed by Lu Xun is just a circular argument.

42．common sense
Common sense refers to the general mood or reason.People's psychological state and code of conduct are usually restricted by social norms, moral ethics and other factors, forming a moral code that suits the psychological state of most people and consciously follows it.Going beyond this moral standard is regarded as a "rebellious" behavior that goes against common sense.

Common sense reasoning method is based on the above-mentioned psychological factors, a method of reasoning and debating those phenomena that violate common sense and common sense with "human nature".

43．Side-by-side
The side-knocking method is a side-attack argumentation technique, that is, to catch the opponent's mistakes from the side and shake them out, so that the opponent can lose sight of the other and fall into a very passive situation.

When the premise disagrees.When you make a premise that your opponent expresses doubts about, and you insist on it, you are sure to create a stalemate.From the side, use an equivalent statement to make the premise concrete, dilute the opponent's stubbornness, and thus move the debate forward.

Attacking from the side not only solves the problem, but also gives the opponent a ladder to go downstairs. This defense method is effective.

When encountering a strong offensive.

Debates are sometimes at a disadvantage, and the opponent takes the opportunity to attack violently. If you face head-to-head, you may be wiped out. At this time, you must choose an appropriate attack route.

The opponent gives a seemingly solid proposition, but you change the angle of analysis and analyze it from the side, making it difficult for him to justify himself, then he will give up this theory, his position is chaotic, but you control the situation.

When the argument is ambiguous, and the other party attacks with a real proposition, you use tit-for-tat conclusions and strike from the corresponding angle, which will make him give up the previous argument and find the basis of the debate again. At that time, you can preemptively seize Favorable fighter.

When the opponent transfers the truth.

Sometimes the opponent deliberately ignores the real side, presents untrue arguments, and lays a smoke screen for you. If you can use exaggerated quotations through the smoke screen, you will knock out his true face.

There are many forms of side-talking, such as the use of irony and side-talking, etc., which will not be discussed in detail here, because their essence is similar.

The biggest feature of side attack is that it is not easy to attack directly and choose a roundabout route of side attack, but it is not enough to grasp this point, and the following two points should also be paid attention to.

First of all, we should grasp the essence of the problem, so as to be able to strike accurately; secondly, side knocking is usually pressed first and then knocked. After knocking, the momentum will continue, just like sufficient confidence will make the singing more vigorous.

The side attack method is different from the retreat method. The latter is to lure the enemy deep and then counter-defense. The former adopts a roundabout form because of the difficulty of attacking in a straight line, that is, the side attack method only changes the attack route, but does not change the attack direction. situation, the attack was not interrupted.Therefore, we must pay attention to maintaining a strong fighting spirit when using the insinuating method, and not let the opponent overwhelm our own in momentum. This is also a problem that must be paid attention to in winning the debate.

44．turn defense into offense
The method of turning defense into offense is reflected in the debate process, in the face of the opponent's erroneous remarks and unreasonable demands, in order to avoid confrontation, make a gesture of agreeing to compromise on the surface, and then seize the loopholes of the opponent to turn defense into offense. kind of trick.

45．brain teaser

Brain teaser method, use divergent thinking to cleverly answer intellectual questions; use quick wit to get rid of difficulties or corners.

When the debate reaches a heated point, the debater will feel the desire to refute every sentence. This is the best state.But in the best state, it is easy for two or even four debaters to speak together, which not only destroys the integrity, but also gives people a feeling of "hasty roar" and affects the demeanor.Just once or twice, if you do this many times, you have to make a "sharp turn".

During the debate, some debaters are prone to stage fright, and they will say a word or two or not at all during the free debate.The savvy opponent debater may have seen this and stepped up the offensive - call the weaker debater to answer.This trick is very powerful, if you can't answer it, won't you show weakness?The best handling was like this: the other party clicked on the first debate to answer, and at this time the second debater stood up and waved his hand: "I can answer this question without a single debate..." The threat of the other party was "turned sharply" in this way. "Turn around.

46．deception
The so-called ingenious deception method means that the words are here and the intention is there. First, one or several questions are asked to induce the other party to agree with the point of view that is similar to the point of view that you have not yet stated and are ready to insist on, and then wait for the opportunity to use analogy, Dilemma reasoning and other methods point out the opponent's behavior and point of view, the contradiction between the foreword and the afterword, and the debate skills that make the opponent fall into a trap and cannot be argued.

47．adversity escape method

In the course of the debate, the two sides exchanged their swords with each other, which was not only a battle of speculation, but also a contest of wisdom.In the confrontation of swords and swords, we often encounter some unexpected adversities. One party seems to be cornered by the opponent when the situation is not good for him. "Kick" the adversity back to the opponent with one kick, take advantage of the opponent's difficulty in coping, and skillfully get out of the adversity.

48．mechanical analogy
The so-called mechanical analogy is to draw an absurd or irrelevant conclusion by comparing two types of objects that are accidentally identical or similar but substantially different.Sophists often play with mechanical analogies to confuse and justify fallacies.Some people use the universe and clocks to prove the existence of God. The universe and clocks are neither of the same kind nor have any essential similarities.

49．Please enter the urn
In the debate, when you find that the other party asks a question that cannot be answered at all, you can simulate the same unreasonable question as a premise of promising to answer it. As long as the other party can answer it, you will definitely be able to answer it.This kind of speaking skill is called "please enter the urn" method.

50．reductive fallacy
(End of this chapter)