Question and answer skills; Edward, the most popular lawyer in American law? Williams (Edwa asking questions is an art; For readers who have participated in the debate on the Oregon competition system, Williams' statement is nothing; Oregon rules basically stipulate the rights and obligations of inquiry and defense; Because the respondent can only answer, not ask the questioner; Because copying the inquiries of the British and American courts is an important stage of the Oregon competition system, there is no; (1) problem preparation; Excellent questioning depends on the on-the-spot reaction to a considerable extent, but this does not mean; Reverse thinking; When analyzing the position.
Interrogation and defense skills
Edward, the most popular lawyer in American law? In an interview with Time magazine (1959.6.22), Edward Bennett Williams talked about the skills of asking questions (opposing questions). He said:
Asking questions is an art, just like putting a rope on a witness who is summoned to hurt you, letting him be controlled by you and helping you in turn. This situation is like being in a dark room with a witness. He has a dagger and wants to stab you at any time. At this time, you must follow him carefully. Never do experiments in asking questions, and never ask yourself questions that you don't know the answer to. If you know the answer and the witness doesn't answer like that, you can kill him at once, or you will be killed.
For readers who have participated in the Oregon debate, Williams' statement is not an exaggeration. Many debaters were hit hard by asking inappropriate questions. Among all kinds of speech stages, the questioning stage is usually the most difficult for inexperienced debaters.
The Oregon Rules basically stipulate the rights and obligations of questioning and defending. According to the rules, the questioner has the "leading power" to ask questions, that is, the question and answer is controlled by him. The rule says: the questioner can control the time, ask any reasonable and clear questions related to the topic, or stop answering questions at any time. (Rule 9) However, the questioner cannot abuse this dominant position. As a questioner, he can only ask questions, but can't use the time of asking questions to explain himself, nor can he extend himself according to the answers of the respondents. Once this happens, the respondent can usurp the role of the host and stop it by saying "Don't make your own decisions", "Please don't comment" or "Please ask me questions". Respondents can only answer. Unless the question is obviously unreasonable (such as involving privacy unrelated to the debate),
Otherwise you can't refuse to answer. Although he can ask the questioner to ask again when he doesn't understand the question, he can't "maliciously" do so, otherwise he may be considered by the judges as deliberately interfering with the question.
Because the respondent can only answer, not ask the questioner. "Counter-questioning" is illegal in the Oregon competition system. The questioner not only doesn't have to answer, but also has the right to stop. However, respondents can only answer, which does not mean that they can only be slaughtered. When the questioner exposes flaws in the question, he can still stab at any time and gain benefits from the inquiry.
Because it is an important stage of Oregon's competition system to copy the queries from Anglo-American courts, it is difficult to make good use of queries and defenses, and it is difficult to stand out in this debate competition. The key questioning and answering skills are introduced later.
Preparation of questions
Excellent questions depend largely on on-the-spot reaction, but this does not mean that questions cannot be prepared. Through "reverse thinking" and "laying the foundation", most questions can be prepared before going to the stage.
Reverse thinking
In the process of analyzing the position, the debater should have a basic concept of which controversial issues have the opportunity to develop into "possible issues", and the preparation of the issues should focus on these possible issues. For example, in the debate on the advantages and disadvantages of college students' entrepreneurship, the debate team should design questions for our main topic "College students' entrepreneurship will enhance their ability to resist setbacks even if they fail" and the other party's possible main topic "College students' entrepreneurship will cause academic distraction". If these two questions do appear as expected, you can answer them with questions prepared in advance.
In other words, the more prepared you are and the more questions you guess, the more you can rely on the situation prepared in advance, not just improvise. Therefore, when preparing questions, debaters should not start with the "question design" of "how should I ask and what should I ask", but should first think about "what should I ask", that is, think about the results first and then think about the questions. This way of preparing questions from the results is the so-called "reverse thinking".
Generally speaking, the more important topic of attack and defense, that is, the more important topic of asking questions, is an important tool for the debate team to attack opponents and defend their arguments when asking questions. bottom
Next, the debater should figure out how to ask the questions he wants to ask. As mentioned above, the basic process of debate or argument is to let the other side admit what they disagree with through what both sides agree with (from "first knowledge" to "second knowledge"). Therefore, the best argument has three elements: 1, an undeniable basis; 2, there is no way to overthrow the "inference", so there are 3, unavoidable claims. Simply put, the "architecture" advocated must be built on a solid "foundation" that emphasizes foundation and inference. And questioning is an effective means to build ground buildings. For example, if "college students' entrepreneurship will cause distraction to their studies, so the disadvantages outweigh the advantages" is unified as "many things will cause distraction to college students, so distraction does not constitute a reason why the disadvantages outweigh the advantages". This is the building that we are trying to build. And how to get the other side to accept this idea? Analogy is a possible method. If we take boyfriend and girlfriend, playing ball and joining a club as an analogy, emphasizing these things will also distract college students, but it is not considered that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The debater can ask-
Q: Another debater, do you have a girlfriend?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you take the time to have a girlfriend?
I know how to allocate time. (Respondents intend to escape)
Q: Will there be any college students who have girlfriends and can't take care of their studies? (The questioner is unmoved and continues to ask questions from other college students. )
A: Not the same ... (Respondents avoid questions)
Q: Please answer my question. Are there any college students who will delay their studies because they have boyfriends and girlfriends? (The questioner was unmoved and asked the same question again)
Well, it's possible, but ...
Q: Thank you, I got the answer I wanted.
When establishing the foundation, the most commonly used problem is "analogical argument". If the other party can't deny the analogy and prove that the two can't be compared, he can't avoid the proposition that the advantages of making male and female friends outweigh the disadvantages. If boyfriend and girlfriend, ball games and joining a club, which most people don't think do more harm than good, do more harm than good according to each other's logic, then the external coherence of their debates will be seriously damaged.
The so-called "never ask yourself a question that you don't know the answer to" often refers to the fact that the other party can't deny as the basis for asking. "Are there any college students who will delay their studies because of making boyfriend and girlfriend" is obviously "yes" in the "known" answer of the average person, so the other party cannot deny it. Besides what most people know, it will be difficult to deny what the other party said, which can also be used as a basis for questioning. For example: