Debate skills to refute other people's sophistry
First, the basic method of refuting sophistry
(A) Annotation methods
Conceptually, playing games is the usual means of sophists. As long as the concept is clarified, correctly explained and its connotation and extension are clear, it is enough to block the sophist's mouth.
For example, when Kunov beautified imperialism, what was the conclusion? Imperialism is modern capitalism, and the development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive, so we should kneel down to imperialism and sing praises! ? In this regard, Lenin hit the nail on the head with a clear concept method to refute Kunov's trick of stealing concepts, which Kunov used? Capitalism? The concept of development has been stolen? Modern capitalism? These two concepts are completely different and have different connotations. By clarifying these two concepts, Kunov's intention to defend imperialism is obvious.
Annotations can be used to refute the concept and topic of stealing.
(2) Respect the law of refuting absurdity.
Once upon a time, there was a liar who claimed to be an astrologer, saying that people's fate could be calculated according to the stars in the sky.
Once, the king summoned the astrologer and asked him how long he would live.
The astrologer thought for a moment and said, You still have one year to live. ?
Hearing this, the king collapsed to the ground and was bedridden. The wise prime minister was determined to expose the astrologer's deception, so he asked him: how long can you live?
The astrologer pretended to calculate for a while and said, Twenty years. ?
The prime minister ordered that the astrologer's head be cut off at once. ?
As soon as the astrologer died, the king recovered immediately.
The astrologer's king still has a year to live? The conclusion is obviously based on false arguments, but it is easy to confuse people because there is no textual research at the moment. When astrologers put forward another argument. You can live 20 years. At that time, the prime minister let him not live for a year, and the deception was self-defeating. Grasping the flaw of the contradiction between the sophist and the facts, taking out the facts and forcing him to respect his own views in front of the facts can expose the absurdity of his views. This method is called "cash rebuttal", which takes objective facts as a weapon, so it has strong logical force.
Enumerate counterexamples
In the debate, when the opponent makes some false full-name propositions rashly, he can refute the opponent by enumerating specific counterexamples.
In ancient China, there was no photographic technology, so in order to avoid impersonation in the imperial examination, candidates must fill in their own appearance features clearly, so that the examiner can check them correctly in the examination room. Legend has it that in the Ming Dynasty, when candidates filled in their five senses, one of them wrote? Micro beard? . When the examiner visited the hall, he saw a little beard on the examinee's face, and he nu way:
? You are an impostor, and it is clearly written on the test sheet that there is no beard! ?
The examinee was very surprised and pleaded: I clearly wrote that I have a little beard, why not?
The examiner said: Micro? Just no, what is Fan Zhongyan's Yueyang Tower? Wes, who are we going home with? That is, the worry of lawlessness is the joy of the world. Who am I with?
Candidates retort:? The ancient book says? Confucius visited the Song Dynasty incognito? Here, anonymity is a kind of clothing that does not expose the identity of officials. What if? Micro? That's it? No? Come on, did Confucius take off his clothes and go to Song State?
Facts speak plainer than words. For those general sophistry, we can give a concrete example to refute it. Because the B judgment and A judgment of the same material cannot be true. Using counterexamples equals b true. B is so true that a (that is, the generalized conclusion) certainly cannot be established. The examiner rashly came all the way just because of a phenomenon in Yueyang Tower. Micro? Both? No? The counterexample cited by the candidate made this conclusion speechless.
To make good use of the method of enumerating counterexamples, we must be good at finding such a counterexample that is sharply opposed to the other party's argument from various things. Only this will make the other side's point of view untenable.
combat poison with poison
There is a saying in Tao's Record of Dropping Farms in Ming Dynasty:? The bones are full of rhinoceros, and the snake horn is also poisonous, but it can detoxify and cover the poison. ? In Chinese medicine, fighting poison with poison is a wonderful prescription. When used in argumentation, fighting poison with poison is also an effective means to subdue sophistry such as mechanical analogy, generalizing by partiality, and irrelevant inference.
A little boy bought a loaf of bread in a bakery and found it much smaller than usual, so he said to his boss. Why is this bread so small?
? Oh, it's convenient for you to take it. ? Obviously, the boss is quibbling.
The little boy didn't argue any more, leaving a little money to leave, so the boss quickly stopped him loudly: hi! You didn't give enough money to buy bread! ?
? Oh! It doesn't matter. The child said,? In this way, it is convenient for you to put your money away. ?
This rebuttal is wonderful.
Similarly, this method can also be used for pseudo dialectics. In the previous example of borrowing money and not paying it back, the borrower argued: how can I pay you back? I am not what I used to be, because everything in the world is changing. You'd better ask me for money ? Sophists deny the regularity and relative stability of things, and after being beaten up by debt collectors, they have to accept the accusation that I am not what I used to be, because everything in the world is changing. You'd better get even with the man who hit you in the past. ?
(5) the method of clarifying causality
A asks B:? Only by going deep into life can you write good works, right?
B answer:? That's right. ?
So a makes a judgment:? Then you go deep into life all day, and the works you write must be good works. ?
Party B realized that Party A was being sarcastic.
Here, A uses a hypothetical reasoning of false necessary conditions. Because going deep into life is only one of the important conditions for writing good works, only with this condition can we not judge whether we can write good works.
In order to refute this sophistry effectively, we must master two rules of hypothetical reasoning: first, denying the former can deny the latter, and affirming the latter can affirm the former; Second, affirming the former cannot affirm the latter, and denying the latter cannot deny the former. As far as the above example is concerned, you can't write a good work without going deep into life. If you can write good works, you must go deep into life. Going deep into life may not necessarily lead to a good work, and failing to write a good work may not necessarily lead to a failure to go deep into life. Anyway. In the face of such sophistry, we can use these two rules to test first, and then refute them layer by layer.
For the sophistry of adding cause and effect, it is enough to refute yourself as long as it is delayed and explained clearly.
For vague sophists, you can explain and clarify your own point of view, clarify the other party's point of view and argument, and in turn ask the other party if it is correct. For those propositions taken out of context, using rights and paradoxes as evidence, it is necessary to analyze the situation and make different refutations according to different situations.
Second, the basic quality of refuting sophistry
The five basic skills of refuting sophistry are introduced above, and there are many ways to refute sophistry. For an oral speaker, it is important to master the basic qualities needed to refute sophistry, so as to master and apply skills flexibly in argument and draw inferences from others to block the sophist's mouth.
(A) to master the basic principles and laws of argument and logic
This is a powerful weapon against sophistry. For example, the principles of seeking truth from facts, equality, identity and sufficient reasons in argumentation are not only the basic principles of correct argumentation, but also the mirror to expose sophistry. Because any sophistry is an illogical argument and always violates one of these four principles. Therefore, using these four principles to measure each other's arguments, sophistry will be revealed.
As an argument, sophistry, like a correct argument, is also composed of topics, arguments and ways of argument. Therefore, when refuting sophistry, we can start from three aspects: topic, argument and demonstration mode. According to the specific situation of sophistry, either point out its thesis error, or point out its argument error, or point out its argument method is incorrect. As long as one of these three aspects is pointed out, the sophist's argument cannot be established.
(B) looking for contradictions in sophistry
First of all, from the point of view, sophistry is often to defend fallacies. This fallacy is absurd because it contradicts the theory that objective facts are correct. Since fallacy is said to be truth, if we grasp the contradiction with facts and correct theories from sophistry and expose it, the conspiracy of sophistry will be declared bankrupt. Secondly, in terms of arguments and arguments, sophistry is either wrong or illogical. As long as we find out our own contradictions, sophistry will be self-defeating.
(C) cultivate abnormal thinking
The well-known story of Columbus laying eggs is itself a process of using sophistry to counter sophistry.
One of the biggest obstacles to innovative thinking is to follow the rules. People's psychological set refers to people's reaction to things, which is often influenced by past experience, views, motives and needs. If the concept of many years has been fixed, it will be used to understand and deal with new phenomena. This is the stereotype. Stereotypes can be used to improve work efficiency and master effective norms and methods. This habitual thing will help people handle problems with ease, saving time and trouble.
However, stereotypes have duality, and sophistry and anti-sophistry are the most taboo psychological stereotypes. If an idea is fixed and becomes a habit, the possibility of taking effective ideas will become less and less. When we think about problems, we often adopt a fixed way of thinking and become a habitual normal thinking. This kind of thinking process is linear and one-way, and the cognitive subject can only adapt to one perspective and one side to recognize the object, which hinders the thinking under special and abnormal conditions and hinders the agility of thinking. The training of abnormal thinking can soften people's brains, greatly break through the fixed thinking mode in the process of thinking activities from an extraordinary perspective, incorporate familiar concepts and images into new relationships, examine objects from a new perspective, and make correct conclusions, thus enhancing the alertness of thinking. The first condition for cultivating abnormal thinking is to overcome the psychological stereotype and consider the problem from a new angle.
?
Related articles:
? Argumentation skills of reducing to absurdity: making opponents stretched.
Argumentation skills to deal with other people's difficulties
Argumentation skills of winding path leading to a secluded place
Demonstrative skills of circuitous attack
Cai Ze's debating wisdom and skills.