General skills of court debate
The general skills commonly used by both sides of the debate in judicial practice are as follows:
1 Be good at using first-hand materials. The debater should be good at clearly, clearly and concretely stating the facts and evidence he saw with his own eyes, heard with his own ears and repeatedly verified, including important details. Because the material is conclusive and has great potential, it is convincing and especially conducive to winning the debate.
Good at finding "goals". Listen carefully to the other party's speech, be good at grasping the main idea of the other party's speech, grasp the loopholes in this speech, and grasp the contradiction between this speech and what he said before, what the witness said and what the victim said. Only in this way can we find the "target" and use the child's spear and the attack shield to make the other side lose the spirit and initiative of the debate and receive the ideal debate result.
Good at quoting legal provisions. The debater is required not only to state the legal order of each article, but also to recite the paragraphs and items in each article, to master its internal text and essence, as well as its internal relationship with relevant provisions, so as to clarify the accurate relationship between these provisions and the facts of the case. By doing this, you can have a well-thought-out plan in the debate, and it is easier to turn a crisis into a victory.
4 be good at relaxing. Experienced debaters are good at controlling their emotions with reason and always keep a relaxed mood, while nervousness is extremely unfavorable to debate. How to relax? First of all, you must not be angered by the other party's words, and your emotions should be relaxed from beginning to end; Secondly, we should insist on using moderate speech speed to suppress excitement. Thirdly, it is necessary to make clear the sequence number in the speech and create appropriate gaps between paragraphs, which can not only make things clear, but also control emotions.
Be good at taking the initiative. Taking the initiative is the key to winning the debate. There are two skills: first, be good at setting questions before the debate, that is, imagine possible topics for the other side. Generally speaking, we should consider the establishment from six aspects: facts, evidence, characterization, sentencing, applicable legal provisions and procedures. If you are good at setting questions, you will take the initiative first. Second, he is good at attacking, that is, while clarifying his own point of view, he keenly discovers the loopholes and mistakes of the other party, grasps the crux of the attack, and puts the other party in a passive position.
6 be good at saying the beginning well. There are three common methods: one is to use the words of others, such as judges and defendants, to start the debate with a plot investigated by the court, and then start the debate. The second is to ask a key question for the other party to answer, so that the other party's mistakes and omissions are exposed, and then debate with this as the goal. The third is to start with the crux of the argument, that is, directly refute the other party's basic views.
7. Be good at using speed and tone. The oral expression in the debate should be moderate, but it should also be changed. You can make a conclusion with a slightly slower speech speed and a slightly higher tone, so as to achieve a decisive expression effect; When you cross-examine the other party continuously, you can gradually speed up your speech, so that the other party can show flaws or make mistakes in the quick answer, so as to get a chance to fight back. The tone should be clear and loud, pay attention to cadence, but you can't shout loudly, and you can't "forget yourself into the role" like acting.
Be good at rejecting redundant arguments. In the debate, if the other party insists on minor issues or refuses to admit them, you can take the practice of refusing to debate: if the issues entangled with the other party have been clarified, just point out that they have been said before and will not be repeated; If the other party insists on minor issues, it can solemnly point out that "the questions raised do not affect the qualitative and sentencing of this case at all"; If the defendant refuses to plead guilty when the facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive, the lawyer can stop defending him at an appropriate time, and the prosecutor can announce the end of the public prosecution speech, so that the debate will come to an abrupt end and be crisp and powerful.
Be good at taking care of this and that. When the other party asks more questions at one time and each question is related to qualitative sentencing, the debater only answers the key points of each question, so as to leave room for thinking; If the other party asks one or two more questions, then answer these two questions specifically; If the other person asks a lot of questions, only one or two are crucial, you can only answer these two questions and declare that other questions are "not answered for the time being", so it is not appropriate to tell the story to death; If it is a group criminal case, several defendants have their own defenders. In the defense speech of one defender, the blame should not be shifted to the defendant of another defender, and there should be no disputes between defenders in court. The defense should closely focus on the facts of the defendant.
10 is good at correcting mistakes. The court debate is serious, and it is required to try not to say anything inappropriate or wrong. However, it is impossible to completely avoid the phenomenon of slip of the tongue and saying the wrong thing. In this case, the following measures can be taken to remedy it: first, a more comprehensive statement can be made in the next round of speeches or an explanation can be given to the other party when the court is adjourned; Second, if I made a mistake that directly affected conviction and sentencing, I must correct it immediately. I can say: "presiding judge, please allow me to explain what I just said more completely and accurately ..." This is a euphemism for the court to admit its mistake, and the other party need not pester it; Third, you should say something you shouldn't. If you insult the other person's personality, you should change your tone as soon as possible, try to make up for it, and apologize to the other party after the trial.
Court debate strategy and its concrete application
Escape from reality, and you will be empty. In the trial debate, the weakness of the other party is often the place that the other party tries to avoid, and even the other party will try to divert his attention and disturb his audio-visual purpose by changing the topic, changing the concept and answering irrelevant questions. Therefore, to apply this method, we must first be good at grasping each other's "emptiness" and choose its weak links to attack repeatedly until the issue is clearly debated.
Second, the method of uncovering the false and covering up the true. This legal system refers to giving factual evidence irrelevant to this case, using language skills to cover up the truth or original intention, forming the illusion of the other party, and then making a sudden attack to take out the real and favorable evidence or opinions of the other party, resulting in the other party being in a passive and unprepared state in the trial. Nowadays, the trial mode of "giving evidence in court and cross-examining in court" undoubtedly provides a wide range of application space for this argument.
Three methods of indirect negation. It means that you don't directly point the finger at the other party in the debate, but casually put aside your opponent's wrong views in the debate, seriously put forward your own unique views from the front and fully demonstrate them. There are two points to note when applying this method: 1. One side's view should be inconsistent with the other's. 2. Self-views should be well-founded and must not be far-fetched and grandstanding.
Fourth, retreat is the way forward. It is the application of reduction to absurdity of formal logic in court debate. The ego first assumes that the proposition or viewpoint put forward by the other party is true, and then deduces one or a series of absurd conclusions from the proposition with this assumption as true, thus obtaining the argument method that the original topic is false. This method is a highly arguable and refutable court debate method, so the inevitable conclusion derived from it is easy to be accepted, thus achieving better debate effect.
Five-voice method Under this legal system, one side of the court debate avoids talking about the questions that the other side may raise, while the questions that are extremely beneficial to itself are fully displayed in the debate speech first, so as to achieve preconceptions and strive for positive court defense tactics. In practice, the application of this method must be fully prepared before the trial, and the facts and evidence that are beneficial to one's own side should be identified one by one in the investigation stage of the trial. Then, according to the facts and evidence, take the initiative to refute the other party's incorrect views, so as to take the initiative in the debate, occupy the commanding heights and push the other party into a passive position.
6. The initiative rule after the attack. War and war of words have many similar laws. Strategies and tactics in war can also be used as countermeasures for debate. Pre-emptive strike can produce advantages; Post-production can turn passive into active. Because of its backwardness, we can know each other's basic views, find contradictions and weaknesses, and then refute them with our own materials, which sometimes leads to the other side being caught off guard and full of danger. Master: 1 when using. Stay out of the spirit for a while, and don't fight in a hurry. 2. Listen carefully and wait for the opportunity. 3. Seize the flaw and fight back with all your strength.
7. Negative questioning methods. Also known as the war of words smuggling law, the key to applying this law is that lawyers should hide the purpose of debate when asking questions, and never let the other side know the true intention of asking questions. Especially the first question, you must let the other person answer it before you know the intention of asking questions. As long as you answer the first question, you can't help but answer the next one. When the other person finds it difficult to justify himself, it is too late to regret it. This tactic of letting the other side be passive everywhere and hitting their own mouths is an extremely effective means of debate. The result can only be that the other party unconsciously accepts the views of lawyers or questioners and wins by surprise.
The main characteristics of court debate language
① Preventive. Before participating in the legal debate, both sides of the debate must make full preparations ideologically, materially and verbally. Prosecutors and debaters, in particular, should consult the file, interrogate or meet with the defendant and make necessary investigations before the debate, write the indictment and defense, and generally prepare the answers to questions that the other party may raise after collective discussion in their own departments. The so-called "nine preparations and one statement" means that nine points are prepared in advance, and the straightforward language in court is only one point.
② Appear temporarily. Under the auspices of the presiding judge, on special occasions, facing special objects and in a special atmosphere, the two sides of the debate expounded, debated and refuted face to face, and put forward their own demands and opinions to the trial court face to face.
3 responsibilities. Both sides of the debate have clear legal responsibilities. For example, the prosecutor's duty is to expose and prove the defendant's crime and request punishment according to law, while the defender's duty is to refute and defend; The public prosecutor shall not defend the defendant, and the defender shall not sue the defendant instead of the public prosecutor. Due diligence, due diligence, insurmountable.
4 equality. According to the law, both sides of the debate have equal opportunities for oral expression. The prosecution is allowed to speak once and the defense is allowed to speak once. When one party is talking, the other party must not interrupt.
⑤ Agile. Both sides of the debate should be prepared to refute each other's views in advance, and also use the realistic words reflected in the court to debate. The latter requires more flexibility. Agility is mainly reflected in listening to the other party's rebuttal clearly, thinking can accurately grasp the crux, responding quickly, and the words are pertinent, smooth and loud. As a party to the court debate, if you are not mentally prepared to "kill a journey halfway" and can make a corresponding rebuttal, you will often lose in the debate.
6. Attack and defense. Both sides of the socialist court debate are aimed at assisting the judicial organs to accurately convict and sentence the defendant, and the fundamental purpose is the same. Both sides are on the defensive and offensive. On the one hand, the prosecution is on the defensive and the defense is on the offensive, on the other hand, the opposite is true. If the facts of the case are clear and the evidence is conclusive, the indictment of the public prosecution agency and the indictment are impeccable, and the defense cannot attack, it has to take the defensive and request the presiding judge to dispose of it according to law. If the facts identified by the prosecution are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, the nature is wrong, the applicable laws and regulations are improper, and the legal procedures are not met, the defense will have more opportunities to attack. Both sides have equal opportunities for attack and defense, and the ultimate goal of attack and defense is the same-based on facts and taking the law as the criterion, the defendant is accurately convicted and sentenced.
⑦ fluency. Fluency, first of all, is logic, that is, arguments, arguments and argumentation methods must be complete, arguments lead arguments, arguments support arguments, and argumentation methods are appropriate and logical. Fluency is also reflected in the use of popular and clear legal vocabulary, clear articulation and coherent language.
People who have finished watching ""
1. Classic skills of court debate
2. What are the basic skills of court debate?
3. Classic court debate skills
4. On the skills of court debate
5. General skills of lawyer's court debate
6. Civil case court debate skills