辩论中常用的反驳方式（A commonly used Refutation in a debate）

1、辩论中常用的反驳方式（A commonly used Refutation in a debate）The most challenging thing in the debate is the retort, and the most exciting one on the court is the retort and the retort. The first China college computer contest TV debate will be changed to refute two or three debate statement remarks, time 1.5

2、minutes, when the finals will refute the arguments time up to 2 minutes, for a time became a focus on refute and wits war opened the curtain.A positive, reasoning, argue that this is the most commonly used technique to refute. It uses the simplest language and the simplest logical reasoning to prove

3、 the other persons point of view. This method applies to the point where ones own preparation is sufficient and the other party fails to adequately prove it. Positive reasoning refuted due to repeat, in the debate on the field should be used only for the most closely related to the motion of the arg

4、ument, see example:Topic: computer referees should be introduced in sports competitions.Stage: retort.The two debate:. When the computer referee confidently enters the court, excessive emphasis on accuracy will seriously weaken the appreciation and participation of sports competitions.Square two deb

5、ate:. Whats the attraction? It is a kind of sports beauty. What is the basis of beauty? Thats true. Justice is a guarantee of truth. If justice is not guaranteed, where does the appreciation come from?.Affirmative two debate with two simple questions and a question is the relationship between the au

6、thenticity of sports appreciation and sports speak clearly and make the other side view into the water without a source, the successful completion of the mission counter. It is important to note that.,Brevity is the key to positive reasoning and refutation of success.Two, tit for tat, tit for tat de

7、bate, if the other argument sparkling discourse do not panic. Tit for tat idea is to let the audience pay back the applause of the opponents friends. The method is very simple, in other words is a wonderful guide, immediately find a similar but on favorable facts, in return, is to give people a sens

8、e of jigaoyichou. Take a look at the following paragraph, and youll see how it works.Topic: information warfare can take the place of traditional military warfare.Stage: retort.The two debate:. I ask the other side of the debate friends: after obtaining information superiority, will be able to win v

9、ictory in war? Dont say that, in order to information warfare will not force the traditional piercing eye, and stick it? (applause).Affirmative three debates: jingubang of course terrible, but can not stop the three inhibition of information flow. (warm applause).The answer is not to show the logica

10、l relation between things, but to show the wit of the debater. If we want to do this, on the one hand, the debater should pay attention to increase his knowledge reserve, and on the other hand, he should strengthen his psychological quality and keep calm and optimistic when he is against himself. Of

11、 course, such a contest round too much is not good, so give the impression of a stray, and curry favour by claptrap too.Three, it will move like this before the move, the other is by its own force attack. The difference is that the front of the eye is to borrow the charm of the other language,But th

12、is trick is to borrow the power of logic make each other. To put it plainly, it is to prove our point with the arguments of the other side. Lets look at an example.Topic: information warfare can replace the traditional military war.Stage: free debate.Debate on the square:. The software logic bomb bo

13、mb, in the face of Putian comes, my dear fellow opponents is also facing the enemy said: Dear Enemy ah, we do not let us play the variable laws handed down from forefathers, a traditional war force! Do you know where the enemy is?The three debate: argue each other that powerful software bombs, logic

14、 bombs that showed the information network is not reliable, so we can not put the national security department to information warfare this rope? (applause)A debate Affirmative wanted to say with the information warfare, the traditional force war hero and useless; the three side argue that there is n

15、o information network security, can not simply rely on the conclusion. Make square, temporarily speechless.So how can this effect be achieved? The key lies in thorough logical analysis. If we can design a two hard problem, also can push. The three is the actual debate with a two difficult problem: i

16、f the information war not what power, then choose from the war the most effective means of traditional force war is clearly not be eliminated; if information warfare is powerful, and it is a network of the dispute, then from the defense point of view, relying solely on the network itself is dangerou

17、s, the traditional force war or cannot be eliminated. After such a logical design,Of course the issue.Four, by analogy, sharply in many cases, simple reasoning and lengthy or refute the positive dull as ditch water. And the use of analogy can not only enliven the atmosphere, but also make the retort

18、 vivid and easy to understand. Lets enjoy an example together:Topic: information warfare can replace the traditional military war.Stage: free debate.Square two debate, ask the future war system high dimension is what?.The four argument: information.Square three debate:. The high position dominates t

19、he low position, the high level decides the low level, and the opposing defense friend has already admitted that the future war system is the information, that is to say, the opposing party friend admits: the information is the leading of the future war.The two debate: the other argument logic is to

20、 build a house as long as the top, not the foundation. (applause)The two debate just a phrase, the Affirmative trap designed to crack, this is not a credit analogy. Analogy retort is simple and easy to use, but we should pay attention to: 1, the analogy of the two objects should be similar, so that

21、the audience, the judges in a very short period of time can not respond. 2, the analogy style should be high, avoid thinking of what than what, so as not to play a counter effect. 3, the analogy must be familiar to everyone, otherwise there is no effect.Five, a rainy day, preemptive, in general circ

22、umstances, after rebuttal, this seems to be taken for granted. But here, I would like to introduce a move is to refute earlier. I knew your argument, before you speak,Ill put the argument you made when you go out injured all over the body, this argument, like to eat meal like flat and uninteresting.

23、In the finals of the computer contest, the TV debate finals, one or four debates were supported by multimedia images so that the audience could listen to the speech and look at the prepared image data. The final topic is: simple intelligent computer can cause the brain. We (Huazhong University of sc

24、ience and technology team) as Affirmative that the opponent will lose the simple definition of human brain structure and function degradation. While we define the human brain as the unity of consciousness and matter, that is, the inner universe, which defines the human brain as simplicity of thinkin

25、g, apathy of emotion, nihility of belief, and so on. In order to avoid the concept of the debate, we risk using pre emptive tactics, in the multimedia CD-ROM, we had made such a pattern: it is a line of bold words: the human brain is this? The following picture shows the structure of the human brain

26、. When we end the debate, we are pleased to see the other side of the debate in the course of the image, as expected, the human brain is. The following is a human brain structure. For the image to the other side of a debate, also dare not repeated arguments. In this way, the other party from the soc

27、ial nature of the human brain, talking about the human brain fatal weakness, in its debate has been exposed, we have mastered the initiative, and everywhere initiative.On the above, I introduced our teams example of rebuttal first, which can be regarded as a successful example. The reason is: 1 befo

28、re we thoroughly analyzed the motion,Do the enemy. 2, four decided to format a debate cannot modify the arguments, seemingly dead things we use. 3, our argument is satisfactory, and everyone will accept it easily. Otherwise it would be self defeating, let the other striking. Attention to these three

29、, we can also be assured that the use of rebuttal first of the trick.Six, circuitous attack, seize the main line, debate on the court always pay attention to initiative, if only for rebuttal and retort, it will appear passive, everywhere follow the opponent run, even if the rebuttal is very exciting

30、, also not superior. How can we effectively refute each other and unwittingly lead each other to the field in our favor? Realizing what the other side is saying, what we say is the best thing to do is what should be done first, and the sober and responsive debater will do well at the moment.Topic: h

31、ieroglyphics is more applicable than the alphabet in computer.Stage: free debate.There are four sides to the debate: what can not be done and what is done cannot be done. Carrying Taishan beyond Beihai is neither possible nor necessary. Broken branches for the elderly is not it, cannot also; pictogr

32、aph is more suitable for the computer, on the other argument, is not it, cannot also! Why not? Ask your opponent for a positive answer!The three debate: the other argument beautiful words, if let it go on to get the computer word, how it can also, as well?First of all, we should see that in this deb

33、ate, Affirmative is clearly dominant in feeling, so Affirmative to play the sensational war generally speaking; but the advantage in technology in the,So the hope to discuss technical details. According to this method, the three argument to find a very special perspective riposte to each other, and

34、returned to the specific technical field of word segmentation, killing two birds with one stone.Seven, broadside salvo, of great momentum debate on a common phenomenon is that the party put out of time. So how does the other side seize this opportunity? This time, experienced the whole free debate,

35、can speak the truth has long been clear, the audience has been exhausted. Therefore, the important thing is the momentum, not the reason. This is not appropriate barge; should be parallel sentences, is cumbersome to reason. Please look at the following is how to carry out the trial by default:Topic:

36、 information warfare to replace the traditional military war.Stage: free debate, trial by default.The three debate: the other argument simply look at war, but different political reasons to adopt different ways of fighting.The four debate: the other argument at war that only wishful thinking, you hit me, I do not hit you.The three debate: War friends still, but different war process also has a different way of war!The two debate: argue each other a one-sided view of war, can not see the information war is fragile!The four argument: the other argument from conditions at war, that