Which is more important, the correctness of the argument or the skill of debating?

First of all, there is no statement of correctness in the argument, the direction of the is basically based on the energy provided by all parties, with a little randomness, secondly, the argument and skill are like a beautiful woman in clothes, and the argument without skill is like a naked woman, completely dependent on the figure, and the skill of not enriching the argument is like putting clothes on the puppet, again, the argument is the core, and this core is given different connotations by different people, which is the essence, and the argument I said earlier refers to the argument that contains the connotation, not just half a sentence on the debateIn the end, the perfect debate is, of course, both perfect and perfectly matched, and most of the time the debate we see is no different from the woman we see casually on the street.

At the beginning, all are important, lack of views, your expression must be empty, can not convince people, lack of skills, your arguments must be shriveled, can not attract people, basically, between the two who is more important, lies in seeing which one is more lacking, which one is missing, which one is missing, which one is made up, and must not be wasted, at this time, what is sought is "skill", the focus is on "me".

An argument is not a simple point of view, it needs to be demonstrated. The earth revolves around the sun, this is just a point of view, as for why it revolves around the sun, what is the principle of it, and what can be corroborated by it, this is called an argument. On the one hand, debating the opposite side is also to help you build a more rigorous argument and how to increase the persuasiveness of your argument.

As your debating skills improve, your ability to make your arguments correct also improves, and vice versa, when you delve into what is right, your thinking horizons improve, your logic increases, and your ability to fight hand-to-hand on the debate field also improves.

If the argument is insufficient, it needs to be made up with greater skill; If the argument is good, it doesn't have to be so skillful. But if you have to think that it is good to have arguments or to have skills, then I would advise you not to debate. To borrow an analogy from a certain senior:

The argument is like **, of course you have a pistol than a dagger (in general), but if you don't have accurate marksmanship, you can't hit it accurately after several shots, and you end up being stabbed to death by your opponent with a dagger, who do you think you can blame.

Skill, because the two sides may have different definitions of this argument, at this time you need to have a lot of excellent skills to convince the judges to believe in your argument, although the argument is good, it is helpful to you, but in fact, in the case of the two sides of the argument may be completely inconsistent, skill is the life-saving thing.

Isn't it all like a joke without a correct argument for mere skill as acting? But the argument is probably not so simple, and an argument should be a comprehensive consideration rather than a simple point of view.

1. Fallacy If the other party says an example that seems to be very correct, but just doesn't know that ** is wrong, how to refute it? Grasp the fallacies of its logic, rather than dwelling on the examples themselves. For example, if someone takes a bus and smashes the glass, the bus is public property, and there is my share in it, so why not give up my share?

When I refuted it, I found that his logic was: because common property = common property, common property = property in my possession, then it is enough to seize this logic and attack. You can say that the bus is public but not shared, or you can say that you only have the right to use but not the right to destroy, otherwise can you drive the bus home?

2. Once the other party shows a flaw, grab and hit hard, regardless of the other party's change of topic, hit hard (this doesn't need to be an example).

3 own slip of the tongue or the realization is not ready to be caught by the tail to bypass For example, safety is more important than development, if the opposite side ignores the premise role of security when discussing the development of the lifeblood of the enterprise, it is caught, you can bypass, for example, we do not deny the importance of security, but we emphasize that development is more important, for the following reasons... In this way, catastrophe can be avoided.

4. Set a trap This is very difficult and not easy to give an example, but roughly speaking, on the premise of fully analyzing the arguments of both sides, set up an example that seems to be in line with the logic of the other party, but can be perfectly broken by our logic, as a trap, and let the other party step on it. The difficulty is extremely high.

1.Bilaterality of debaters: Debates are bilateral activities, with at least two participants, and a single aspect can only be discussions.

2.The opposition of the argumentative viewpoint: the two sides have opposing views, or they are not, so that there is the possibility of debate, otherwise it is negotiation.

3.Rigor of argumentation: Only a debate that is logical can win, otherwise it can only be sophistry.

4.Purpose of the pursuit of truth: The purpose of debate is to pursue truth and reach consensus.

1. Bidirectionality, 2 confrontation, 3 speculative, 4 popular.

Content from user: My 966966

Methods and techniques of debate.

Principles of debate.

There is no winner or loser in a debate, because the topic of the debate itself often does not have an absolutely correct result, and the so-called decision of the outcome of the debate is not who on both sides has mastered or adhered to the truth, but who can justify himself theoretically, and can show superb debate skills, humorous language, respectable personal charm, and more popularity.

When debating, everyone should always keep in mind the purpose: "release the pressure of life, express personal feelings, make friends all over the world, and enjoy a relaxed life", therefore, there is no need to carry out malicious attacks and abuse, this is the true meaning of debate. In the end, it is everyone who will win.

2. Respect the personality of the opponent.

If the outcome of the debate is clearly unfavorable to you, you should use all kinds of sophistry to debate. However, if you don't have a good sense of proportion, it often turns into abuse and attacks from both sides, and even contempt or even denial of the other party's personality. If you don't respect the other person's personality, you will naturally be attacked by the other person's personality.

In order for one's personality to be respected, one must first respect the personality of others.

3 Sophistry is not the same as rambling.

Since both sides of the debate are arguing for the truth they "believe" in, they often know that their views are wrong and are unwilling to admit defeat, and it is normal to engage in some kind of sophistry in the debate, but sophistry is not the same as stirring up nonsense. The so-called nonsense is that when the other party explains the problem clearly, he does not read the other party's article, analyzes the other party's point of view, and continues to make his own opinion.

3. Debate skills: You should also be good at generalizing in debates. Use concise language to explain your own opinions, don't say a big set and don't get the point, only in this way can you occupy a favorable position in the debate; In the same way, be able to summarize the other person's views in concise and concise terms.

Be thorough before the debate.

Re-prepare. System.

Targeted collection of information: Targeted collection of materials. Collect materials that can prove your own point of view, as well as materials that can refute the other person's point of view.

The chosen examples should be convincing, quoting famous quotes.

Sort out and summarize the material according to the viewpoint, and if there is a lot of material, you can write down the main points on the card.

When debating, you have to prove yourself and refute others.

When we make a statement, we need to make the most of the time to express our views clearly.

Listen carefully when the other party makes a statement and catch the other party's loopholes.

In a free debate, we further emphasize our own views and effectively refute the opposing side's views.

Pay attention to the civilized use of language) (*