What ten methods of proof are commonly used in debating speeches?

As the carrier of debate, language must accurately express the debater's rigorous thinking activities, and must accurately express the debater's views, opinions, opinions and intentions, so it must be logical. First of all, the difference between debate and general speech is that it is a kind of. The first principle of Sun Tzu's art of war is "tit-for-tat" and "engagement" and "know yourself and know yourself, and win every battle", and the "war of words" in this debate is no exception. Confidant refers to self-questioning, repeatedly scrutinizing one's own arguments in order to be rigorous and foolproof. Cross-examination and debate are divided into three aspects: first, the examination of arguments. Argument is the "battle flag" in the debate. A debater must be confident in his argument, just like holding a flag on the battlefield. However, self-confidence is not blind self-appreciation, but the result of scientific analysis. The examination of arguments mainly includes two aspects: one is the examination of refining process, and the other is the examination of language expression. Extracting an argument from the original materials has complicated thinking processes such as analysis, synthesis, comparison and abstraction. Self-questioning and repeated scrutiny of the formation process of an argument is an important measure to ensure the correctness of the argument. In thinking activities, the gradual transformation of the language form of argumentation expression is also an important content of argumentation examination. The clarity, logic and expressiveness of language expression should be scrutinized item by item and tested repeatedly. The second is the examination of the arguments. Arguments are ammunition in the debate. If the debater does not have sufficient ammunition, it is impossible to gain an advantage in the "confrontation". Therefore, the preparation of the argument is a solid material preparation. The examination of the argument can also be divided into two aspects: one is the authenticity of the argument, and the other is the logic of the argument. Truth can be *, which is the first principle of argument selection. We must resolutely abandon those ambiguous and specious arguments. Strict deduction is another important principle in argument selection, and those arguments that are far-fetched and poorly proved should also be deleted decisively. The third is the examination of argumentation methods. The method of debate is the "tactical design" in the debate. The debater must carefully design a "tactical plan" according to the needs, characteristics and conditions of argument, that is, the selection and organization of argument methods. Only by reviewing arguments, arguments and argumentation methods repeatedly, and making sure that your "battle flag" is clear, your "ammunition" is sufficient and your "tactics" are exquisite, can you be full of confidence in the debate. This is a bosom friend. Knowing each other is knowing each other. In addition to understanding the other party's views, materials and debate characteristics through various channels in advance, observing words and feelings at the debate site is a shortcut to understanding the other party. That is to say, with the help of observation, we can find out each other's strengths, weaknesses, emotional changes and tactical use, so as to take corresponding countermeasures, which is one of the objective basis for the use of debating skills. Observation in the debate, in the final analysis, is that both sides of the debate capture and judge the subtle changes and meanings of each other's behavior and expressions. Generally, there are three ways: one is "throwing stones to ask for directions". The so-called "throwing stones to ask the way" means asking one or two questions first as a test. Only by finding out the actual situation can we choose the main attack direction and often use it when the situation is unknown. Of course, the choice of "stone" is very important, that is, whether the choice and expression as a test question are appropriate and ingenious is the key to the application of "stone-throwing". Too straight, too revealing, too shallow "asking for directions", the result is to expose your shallowness and clumsiness. Second, capture the fighters. Psychological research has proved that the stimulation of external things to the human brain often causes the function of some corresponding tissues in the human body to be abnormal in a short time. In other words, people often reveal their inner activities through their manners and habitual actions. For example, the action of rubbing hands shows nervous thinking; Trembling language, showing panic ... In the debate, we should be good at accurately judging each other's emotions, catching fighters, or paralyzing each other, or disturbing each other's thoughts, or exerting pressure over and over again. This is another use of observation. Third, ease the atmosphere. The debate should have a good atmosphere. Debate is by no means a quarrel, let alone a bickering. Therefore, both sides of the debate have the responsibility to adjust the atmosphere so that the debate can be conducted in a calm situation. When observing each other's emotional excitement, try to adjust it with words to make the atmosphere tend to be gentle; When we find each other angry, we should consider adjusting with a smile to ease the atmosphere. Second, facts speak louder than words. Putting facts and reasoning are the most basic and commonly used logical skills in debate. You can use facts to prove your argument, or you can use facts to refute the argument of the cube. For example, after the "Cultural Revolution", China began a new period of socialist construction, and a nationwide discussion was held about practice as the sole criterion for testing truth. On May 1978, Guangming Daily published a special commentator's article on the topic "Practice is the first criterion for testing truth". In proving the argument that "it is practice and only practice can complete the task of testing truth", the article lists a large number of facts, such as Mendeleev's periodic table of elements, Copernicus's solar system theory, Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought, all of which were explored in practice. This 2006-8- 12 14:39 reply to the sword of justice forever 120 fans. The method of reasoning by listing the facts that have been recognized by the world is really convincing. Another example is Comrade Mao Zedong's article "The Bankruptcy of Idealism", which sets an example for us to refute Acheson's fallacy that "the revolution is because there are too many people". He pointed out: Is the revolution because there are too many people? There have been many revolutions at all times, at home and abroad. Is it all because of the large population? Before 174, the anti-British revolution in the United States was also due to the large population. Acheson's knowledge of history is zero. He hasn't even read the American Declaration of Independence. Jefferson people in Washington held an anti-British revolution because the British oppressed and exploited Americans, not because the United States was overpopulated. The people of China have been overthrowing their feudal courts because they oppressed and exploited the people, not because of overpopulation. The reason why the Russians held the February Revolution and the October Revolution was because of the oppression and exploitation of the Russian emperor and the Russian bourgeoisie, not because of overpopulation. Russia still has more land than population. Mongolia is vast and sparsely populated. According to Acheson's theory, it is impossible to imagine a revolution, but it has already happened. Comrade Mao Zedong listed the revolutionary facts of China, the United States, Russia, Mongolia and many other countries here, which strongly refuted Acheson's idealistic view of history. The facts are conclusive, irrefutable and convincing. When using the logical skills of quoting facts, we should pay attention to two points: First, the more typical the facts are, the more convincing they are. Because whether it is a historical case or a real case, the more representative it is, the more it can reflect the essence and laws of objective things, and the more profound the truth it shows. Second, it is necessary to deeply analyze the cited cases, reveal and expound the inevitable relationship between cases and the truth, organically combine cited cases with reasoning, and give full play to the role of putting facts and reasoning. Thirdly, in the debate about implied judgment, sometimes the clever use of implied judgment is more powerful than the use of sentences that directly express judgment. For example, there was once a fat capitalist who wanted to laugh that he was thinner than Bernard Shaw. The big capitalist said, "As soon as I saw you, I knew you were short of sails." Bernard Shaw went back and said, "As soon as I saw you, I knew the cause of the famine. In this conversation, both of them used implicit judgment. The implicit judgment of big capitalists is nothing more than "Bernard Shaw is as thin as a beggar", and the implicit judgment in Bernard Shaw's answer reveals the evil nature of capitalists exploiting the poor very cleverly and humorously. This implied judgment can be analyzed. From the above analysis, it can be seen that implied judgment has many functions, and proper use of implied judgment can make the debate have logical power and artistic charm. 6. Answer blows with blows is to deal with a man as he deals with you in an argument. This method is generally applicable to the absurd and unreasonable situation of the other party. A conceited man divorced from the masses argued that "only sheep and pigs live in groups, while lions and tigers live alone." Writer Ma Tieding asked him, "Of course lions and tigers are lonely, but aren't hedgehogs, toads and spiders also lonely?" "This is to fight back at people with fallacies and heresies, so that those arrogant people who compare themselves to the king of beasts, such as hedgehogs, toads and spiders. Mayakovski, a Soviet poet, is very good at refuting some scoundrels in this way. He is full of witty remarks, and the language of debate contains irrefutable power. Once, just after Mayakovski's speech, a fat man crowded onto the podium and shouted: I want to remind you, Comrade Mayakovski, that Napoleon has a famous saying:' There is only one step from greatness to absurdity.' "Yes," Mayakovski said, pointing to himself and the fat man. "This is just a step from great to absurd. "Fat man, it means that Mayakovski's speech is ridiculous or almost ridiculous. In the face of this rude man who packed the rostrum, Mayakovski hit him back with his words very cleverly: Ironically, you are only one step away from me! This is to use the other side's language to fight back. 7. Refuting Hypothetical Argument In the debate, it is very logical to use hypothetical reasoning to refute. For example, 1984, Shanghai public security organs cracked a major counter-revolutionary case, with eight defendants. After trial by the court, 7 of them were sentenced to death, 1 person's death sentence was suspended, 1 person was sentenced to life imprisonment and 3 people were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment, but the sixth defendant was acquitted and released in court. Lawyer Zheng Chuanben, deputy director of Shanghai No.2 Law Firm, as the defender of Xu, the sixth defendant in this case, defended Xu Jin in court debate according to facts and laws after careful investigation and comprehensive analysis. 2006-8- 12 14:39 reply to the sword of justice forever 120 fans. On the third floor, please read out lawyer Zheng Chuanben's court defense: the defendant Xu has no intention of committing a crime subjectively. According to Article 11 of China's Criminal Law, "I hope knowing that my actions will have harmful consequences to society. According to the principles of criminal law and judicial practice, counter-revolutionary crime can only be constituted by direct intention. The defendant Xu didn't mean it. Lawyer Zheng Chuanben's defense in court contains a necessary condition: the negative antecedent of hypothetical reasoning: only direct intention can constitute a counter-revolutionary crime; The defendant may have no intention to commit a joint crime (no direct intention); Therefore ... the defendant Xu did not constitute a counter-revolutionary crime. The above reasoning meets the necessary conditions, and the formula of negative antecedent of false educational reasoning is correct in form. In addition, the correct form of reasoning is based on laws and facts, so it is plausible and convincing. Because of this, Zheng Chuanben's lawyer Xu's plea of innocence was adopted by the court. In some court interrogations and debates, if the judge has strong logical thinking ability, using hypothetical reasoning can catch some wrong inferences of the defendant, thus opening the gap and finding criminal evidence. Deductive debate deduction is a logical method to deduce individual conclusions from general premises. Because its premise must contain a conclusion, as long as its premise is true, its conclusion must be true. Deduction, as a reasoning process from known to unknown, is of great help to enrich knowledge, increase experience and strengthen debate ability. In the process of debate, correctly mastering and applying deductive reasoning will not only help us to demonstrate carefully, express our views perfectly, and prevent opponents from taking advantage of it, but also seize the opponent's handle in time and expose his sophistry. Therefore, deductive reasoning is also one of the logical methods often used by speakers. In deductive reasoning, the common deductive type is "syllogism", which consists of two outspoken judgments and leads to a conclusion with major premise and minor premise. Because syllogism is an inevitable reasoning, that is, its conclusion comes from the premise, syllogism is a very powerful method of debate. We know that people often have to judge individual things. The most convenient, effective and convincing way to judge individual things is to cite general principles as the basis of argument, and this deductive method of citing general principles to demonstrate individual problems is syllogism. For example, Comrade Deng Xiaoping said in "Answering the question of Italian journalist Orina farage": "Of course, I was anxious to do something. How can revolutionaries do nothing? " Is to use syllogism to answer: all revolutionaries contribute to the revolution; I am a revolutionary; Therefore, I also contributed to the revolution. In view of the above, this sentence was asked by Comrade Deng Xiaoping to farage, "Why didn't you mention your name?" . Before this sentence, there is another sentence "I am nothing". Here, Comrade Deng Xiaoping does not call himself a "revolutionary", but only a "revolutionary". He didn't say that he had contributed to Mao Zedong Thought, but that he had done something. In fact, it is well known at home and abroad that Comrade Deng Xiaoping is a great revolutionary who has made great contributions to Mao Zedong Thought. His answers here not only show the modesty and great personality of a great revolutionary, but also fully reflect his unique artistic style of conversation. When we read the full text of this conversation, we will realize this more clearly. Syllogism is not only a powerful argument method, but also a powerful refutation method. 9. Directly, this is a way to directly refute the antithesis and summation in the debate. That is, it directly reveals the errors, falsity or logical confusion of cubic argument. There are many ways to directly refute the argument of a cube: you can cite facts to refute it, you can also refute it through analysis, and you can also clarify the concept to refute it At the end of the article, Mr. Lu Xun quoted Shenbao Nanjing Radio Station to refute the charges of "destroying organs, blocking traffic, beating the central authorities, carjacking, attacking passers-by and public servants, arresting people by torture, and knowingly disrupting social order": "Zhang Yikuan, a member of the Examination Institute, was rumored to be a student the day before yesterday. A secretary of the Executive Yuan was dragged to CUHK and came out at that time. Nothing happened. " In the column of "Education News", a few schools in Hong Kong went to Nanjing to petition for the death and injury of students. Then he said, "Two civil servants in China were killed, 30 were injured, two in Fudan, one in Fudan High School 10, and one in East Asia (female) was missing 1 person. One person was missing, three people were injured, one was killed by Vincent, and five people were injured ... "It can be seen that the students did not" disrupt social order "as the government said, and the government not only suppressed it, but also framed and killed it. From now on, "friendly people" don't have to be "surprised and inexplicable". Please feel free to share. Here, Lu Xun first listed the conclusive facts, directly refuting the fallacy of the Kuomintang government, which was extremely powerful. This is the effectiveness of the direct example method. Ten, two difficult to advance "two difficult to advance" is the application of two difficult reasoning in the debate. Dilemma reasoning is a kind of reasoning based on hypothesis judgment and choice judgment. It is called "dilemma" because it can put people in a dilemma. Because it can clearly show the sharpness and strength of the debater's attack, people also call it the "two knives theory". "Dilemma reasoning" is a powerful debating tool. People who make good use of it can make the other party unable to escape his conclusion and fall into a dilemma. No matter ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign eloquent masters are very good at using "dilemma", and vivid examples of using "dilemma reasoning" to put each other in a dilemma can be seen everywhere in life. For example, on a diplomatic occasion, the hegemonist of the former Soviet Union once said, "China is opposed to easing the world situation." Premier Zhou Enlai retorted, "If you want to ease the world situation so much, why not do one or two things, such as withdrawing troops from Czechoslovakia or Mongolia and returning them to the four northern Japanese islands to prove your sincerity?"? ..... "Premier Zhou Enlai's refutation is eloquent on the grounds that the hegemonists of the former Soviet Union should withdraw their troops from Czechoslovakia or Mongolia if they really want to ease the world situation; If the hegemonists of the former Soviet Union really want to ease the world situation, they should return the four northern islands of Japan. As the hegemonists of the former Soviet Union refused to withdraw their troops from Czechoslovakia or Mongolia and return the four northern islands of Japan, it can be seen that the hegemonists of the former Soviet Union did not really want to ease the world situation, but were creating world tension.