Debate skills that lawyers need to master
(1) Writing skills
It is a basic skill that lawyers must do well before appearing in court to synthesize the case, straighten out the debate ideas, write a good defense statement and make a good defense record. Organizational materials must be: 1. Choose words carefully and use words accurately; 2. Statement deployment and reasonable layout; 3. Chapter cohesion, interlocking; 4. Rigorous structure and clear organization; Focused and detailed properly.
(2) Language expression ability
Throughout, every successful lawyer has the ability to control and lead the debate situation in court debate and agency. The reform of the trial system provides a broad space for every lawyer's ability in this respect. In the trial debate, lawyers should do: 1. Take off the manuscript and be good at paving the way. The effects that must be achieved in designing tone and words are: immediately grasping the attention of the audience; (2) convey the seriousness of the case or show sincerity to the case; ③ Show confidence in the case. 2. Control the speed of speech and articulate clearly. With good debate content, there must be good expression. Lawyers should enunciate clearly, pronounce accurately, have a harmonious tone and be moderate in speed in court debate. Strive to be eloquent, so as to enhance the appeal of the debate. 3. Be good at being sensible. Language can hurt or touch people. Debate language hurts people, which is immoral for lawyers' duties. However, the lawyer's debate language has feelings and is desirable. In using this emotional language, we must pay attention to the following issues: the emotional language of the debate on specific cases should have a tone suitable for the case. Never have the emotional color of the parties. The emotion operated by lawyers is the emotion of debate and legal language handled through rational language. (3) Emotional wording should be neutral language that is expressed but not revealed, expressed but not vertical, euphemistic and tortuous, and implicit.
(3) Image skills
Besides writing skills and language skills, lawyers should also have good body language skills. The integration of sound and silence, language and body can reflect the lawyer's exquisite expression ability.
1. Be gentle and graceful. Lawyers should be graceful, courageous, neither supercilious nor condescending in court debates. When the debate is in full swing, don't get carried away and belittle each other; When losing, don't panic and be in a hurry. You must weigh your speech, and don't rashly make unprepared and unqualified remarks. In any case, you should be generous, calm and orderly, and well-founded. Lawyers should have this image of being firm with softness, braking with quietness and winning with stability.
second, strategy and specific application
(1) the voice method
this method refers to the strategy of avoiding talking about the questions that may be raised by the other party in court debate, and taking the voice in the debate speech when it is very beneficial to the questions raised by one's own side, so as to take the lead in winning the initiative in court defense. In practice, the application of this law should be fully prepared before the trial, and the facts and evidence that are beneficial to you should be investigated one by one during the trial investigation stage. Then, according to the facts and evidence, take the initiative to refute the incorrect views of the other party, so as to grasp the initiative of the debate, occupy the commanding heights together, and urge the other party to fall into a passive position.
(2) Avoidance method
In court debates, the weakness of the other party is often the place that the other party tries to avoid, and even the other party will use methods such as changing the subject, stealing concepts, answering irrelevant questions, etc., in an attempt to divert his own attention and disrupt the hearing. Therefore, to use this method, we must first be good at grasping the other party's reality and choosing its weak links to attack in succession until the problem is clearly debated.
(3) Setting up the negative method
Setting up the negative method, also known as the tongue smuggling method, is the key to using this method. The lawyer should hide the purpose of the debate when asking questions, and never let the other side perceive the true intention of asking questions. Especially the first question, you must let the other person answer it before you understand the intention of asking questions. As long as you answer the first question, it is impossible not to answer the next question. When the other person realizes that it is difficult to justify himself, it is too late to regret it. This tactic of making the other side passive and self-defeating everywhere is not a very effective means of debate. The result can only make the other party unconsciously accept the lawyer's (or doubter's) point of view, win the debate by surprise.
(4) indirect negation
refers to not directly pointing the finger at the other party in the debate, but casually putting aside the wrong views of the other party in the debate, seriously putting forward their own unique opinions from the front and fully demonstrating them. When using this method, we should pay attention to two points: 1. Viewed from the side, the views held by the other side should be incompatible. 2. The opinions put forward from the positive side should be reasonable and well-founded, and must not be far-fetched and grandstanding.
(5) The method of showing the false and hiding the true
This method refers to first citing factual evidence unrelated to the case, using language skills to cover up the truth or intention, forming the illusion of the other party, and then taking a surprise attack, taking out really favorable evidence or opinions, and giving the other party a passive and unprepared trial dialectics. Nowadays, when the court gives evidence and hears the case, it undoubtedly provides a broad application space for this excuse.
(6) Take retreat as progress method
This is the application of formal logic fallacy in court debate. Since the other party's thesis (or viewpoint) is assumed to be true first, then one or a series of absurd conclusions are derived from this assumed true proposition, so that the original thesis is false. This method is a very arguable and refutable court debate method, so the conclusion derived must be correct and easy to accept, thus achieving better debate effect.
(7) post-France
There are many * * * * between the war of war and the war of words, and their laws are the same. Strategies and tactics in war can also be used as countermeasures for debate. Pre-emptive strike can produce advantages; If you strike after the enemy, you can turn passive into active. As a latecomer, since our own side can understand each other's basic viewpoints, find contradictions and weaknesses, and then make targeted refutations focusing on the materials we have, sometimes it can lead to the other side being caught off guard and dangerous. When using it, you should master: 1. Avoid its sharp edge and don't rush to fight. 2. Listen carefully and wait for the opportunity. 3. Seize the flaw and fight back with all your strength.
Third, make the best use of the final debate time
Court debate time is very valuable. When the mutual debate draws to a close, the lawyer, as a party to the debate, must have the ability to control the ending. The usual practice is:
1. Make a request. When the other party has been influenced by the debate in the whole process, it is easy for the other party to accept and get the court's approval to make reasonable demands, which is conducive to the settlement of the case.
2. Conclude by asking questions, further deepen the theme of your own debate, and let the judges identify and think.
3. Summarize the theme. Summarize all the contents of your own debate into a few sentences in a concise and clear tone, so as to deepen the impression of the judges on the views of the positive debate.
Of course, in the final stage of the court debate, if the other party is found to be entangled, stalking and beating, the lawyer, as a debater, should also master the skills of refusing boring arguments. The so-called rejection of tasteless debate, one is not to repeat; Second, when the other party sticks to some minor issues that do not hinder the handling of the case, it should adopt the method of not arguing or talking to the end. This kind of silence-like way not only has a great shock in a certain time and in court, but also comes to a sudden stop in debating skills and is full of energy. It sounds like a step back, but it is actually two steps forward.
Court debating skills are not only an essential debating art for talents, but also one of the basic skills for lawyers to participate in litigation activities. People expect to hire a clever lawyer as their agent in litigation activities, and lawyers' debating skills should be an important embodiment of their cleverness.