Zhou Xuanyi constellation _ What constellation in Zhou Xuanyi?

Debate —— The Art of Persuasion —— On the arrangement of open classes in Wuhan University

Debate —— The Art of Persuasion —— The open class of Mr. Zhou Xuanyi of Wuhan University.

Lesson one

Myth: pay too much attention to expressing yourself; Pay too much attention to conquering each other

Why learn to argue: conflicts of opinion are everywhere; Debate is the only positive way to solve disputes; A good debate is extremely rare; Persuasion is the best embodiment of comprehensive quality.

What is debate: quarreling is not debate; The difference between confusion, emotion, quarrel and argument; Judge and demonstrate the difference between people and non-things.

The more the truth is argued, the clearer it becomes.

Debate: critical thinking; Be reasonable.

Debate is a rational activity that uses critical thinking to advocate specific positions: holding clear opposing views; Support arguments with arguments at any time; For a neutral third party; Aim at persuasion and consensus.

Basic theory: definition, attitude, ability and organization.

Demonstration, inquiry, refutation and summary.

Type analysis: debate on facts, debate on values, debate on policies and debate on philosophy.

Lesson 3: Basic Ability of Debate: Thinking and Feeling

All kinds of experts, such as searching for professional information in a certain field, should learn search skills and have usual reserves, such as knowing where to find these data, analysis and documents.

The correct way to learn to argue: think eloquently

Think it over before you say it.

A clear head and insight into things are as important as understanding and understanding people's hearts.

Perception: understanding of sympathy, individualization, situation and intuition.

Read more good things and good literature, and you can cultivate something that you feel.

The ability to slice and analyze needs practice.

Lesson 4 Organization of Debate

Organization method: debate, process, evaluation rules, order and evaluation criteria.

Classification of debates: courts, policies, sports, academics and debates.

How to set the topic of debate: define it accurately, avoid complication and be really antagonistic.

Four types of debates: facts, policies, values and philosophy.

Points of debate on facts and policies;

Fact: check the data, measure the data, and evaluate the theory (for example, whether moderate drinking is good for health)

Policy: necessity, root cause attribute, resolution, profit-loss ratio. (For example, should taxes be increased to limit the sale of alcoholic beverages)

How to understand different competition systems;

Practical: Orrigan competition system in which pros and cons alternately apply for arguments, questions, arguments and (protest) comments (compulsory confrontation+data review).

Pay attention to appreciation: Singapore competition system 1-3 alternates between positive and negative debates and free debates. Anyway, 4 debates are summarized and the judges comment.

Different evaluation criteria:

Evaluation debate and evaluation position:

Whiteboard principle (the listener has no position and is ignorant) VS free evaluation of evidence (persuasion)

Scoring system versus voting system

Professional referee VS mass referee

Lesson 5 Strategy and Tactics

Link disassembly: put forward arguments, ask questions, refute, and summarize the reasons why we are right and the reasons why the other party is wrong.

Argument: strategy and tactics

Fact problem: review data, measurement data, evaluation theory.

Policy issues: necessity, root cause attribute, resolving power, profit-loss ratio.

Value problem: follow common sense, pursue resonance and provide guidance.

The strategic direction of the argument: (I think I understand it, but I don't know it; Whether sophistry and sophistry are arguments; )

Pay attention to the confrontation environment;

Pay attention to demonstrate that the shortest cost can achieve the best benefit;

Focus on the audience, what you need and what you pay attention to.

Tactical Principles of Argumentation —— Six Formulas

It is emotionally beneficial for you to cut off the views that may be questioned, eliminate the obviously wrong views, cut aside without being disturbed, tie up your own advantages, tie up the shortcomings of the other side, and tie up your own views with those that everyone has accepted. He cuts, you hit, he hits, you cut. , scene horizon fusion, can be close to analogy.

Explore new angles, new materials, new methods, consistently sort out and classify, and seek common problems to see the truth of both sides from one side.

Lesson 6 Questioning and Controlled Confrontation: Listening is more important than speaking.

Inquiry-cross-examination-attack-inquiry

The problem is to make the viewpoint fully present-confirm-overthrow/weaken.

Question way: clear the question+listen carefully.

The basic idea of inquiry: understanding cattle (finding the gap)

Find the problem, conclusion and reason

Pay attention to vague words

Mining Implicit Information and Reconstructing Reasoning Process

Find out the contradictions or inconsistencies.

Looking for inappropriate analogies and controversial facts

Evaluation and measurement standards, auditing and statistical methods

Put forward the competition hypothesis

Lesson 7: Refutation-The Secret of Not Being Fooled

Counter fallacy

The rebuttal is because there is a problem. What are the common problems?

1, irregular verb

2. Three kinds of fallacies

3. Landslide demonstration and reduction to absurdity

4. Attack and defense of dilemma reasoning

Irregular verbs: construct rebuttals/avoid unnecessary arguments-different expressions of the same meaning, for example, you are hesitating, and you say you just think twice before you act.

Irregular verbs can be practiced in daily life, such as brave-reckless, passionate-naive, etc. )

1, ambiguity fallacy (decomposition, synthesis, full-court rereading, pun, ambiguity),

2. Presupposition fallacy (Accidental/Inverse Accidental Do Northeasters Drink? Beggars can't find the answer from the question itself. If everyone is rational, then ask, "Are you still human without rationality?" Have you turned over a new leaf? Why I turned over a new leaf. . . )、

3. The fallacy of consistency is simple and the most common. When refuting the fallacy of coherence, don't digress (irrelevant conclusion, resorting to threats, resorting to emotions, personal attacks, resorting to improper authority, resorting to ignorance).

Demonstration and reduction of landslides

Lie now, steal later, go to jail. .

Zhou Wang is like chopsticks, and Ji Zi is afraid.

The key to landslide demonstration is "whether the slope is slippery enough" and whether its reasoning is established.

Reduction to absurdity (sorting out logic) (deductive absurdity) is the core of all refutation, and the essence of reduction to absurdity is the comparability of principles.

Difficult reasoning attack and defense

The paradox of knowing: what you know is self-evident, and what you don't know can't be understood.

Paradox of reasoning: reasoning beyond the premise is invalid, and it is boring without exceeding the premise.

Morton's fork: extravagant people spend more money to pay heavy taxes, and thrifty people save more money to pay heavy taxes.

1. Bypass the dead corner: No one understands or doesn't understand this extreme.

2. Hit one end directly: it can still make sense without exceeding the premise.

3. Inverse dilemma reasoning: luxury people save less, and thrifty people consume less.

4. the premise of getting out of trouble: a half-fee lawsuit.

Lesson 8 Summary and Conclusion: Sublimation of Views

Common problems: starting a new stove (divorced from the actual situation on the field), making a mountain out of a molehill (unable to grasp the key points), and failing to protect the evening festival (unable to deepen).

Clear thinking, division and analysis

A profound insight into the way of the world

What kind of psychology and values is it to catch the audience?

Teacher Zhou took out the video of Huang Zhizhong's debate as an example, which was a bit like the feeling of mutual appreciation. I don't understand other aspects, such as some public opinions discussed recently, but they are worth learning.

Lesson 9 Debate about Facts

The "fact" itself cannot explain the problem.

Two children argue about Japan: the opposite theory is supported by facts.

Being is being perceived: the world outlook cannot be refuted by facts.

40% of people who have been bitten by cats have depression: the complexity of cause and effect is very complicated, how can it be treated simply?

There is no question of who is better in fact and eloquence.

What is the truth, can not be separated from your theory (eggs are food, for chickens, they are children)

The so-called debate on facts is actually a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical systems.

The essence of fact debate

1. Observing the epistemology of infiltration theory has your own theoretical and value basis. There are no pure facts, and many arguments about facts are essentially games of different theories.

2, isolated evidence is not established, statistics are prone to statistical methods and statistical samples. The essence of many factual arguments is the argument about statistical results.

3. Even if there is a consensus in the scientific community, the public still feels that the public's own understanding is different. The essence of many factual arguments is the conflict of values.

What is a good theory?

Empirical: not oriented by the relationship between concepts.

Correlation: the traceability of cause and effect is moderate, because it is not cause.

Universality: Opposing "Ad Hoc Hypothesis"

Exploratory: If the prediction with the possibility of falsification is completely correct-nonsense.

Simple: Occam's razor explains as many facts as possible, or the economic principle of thinking.

Coordination: Be as compatible as possible with the existing knowledge/value system.

Observing the infiltration theory, facts are based on assumptions.

Misleading assumptions: If you like any hypothesis, you will see the truth.

Guidance of Hypothesis: Hypothesis may become a reality.

Self-verification: Editing complex events into clear fact constellations and superstitions.

Biased sampling: intentionally or unintentionally changing the respondents.

Precursor: Correlation is not equal to causality.

Lesson 10 Debate on Value

Value conflict is a grass snake gray line in the debate.

The conflict of values stems from the survival experience of both sides of the argument.

The essence of the dispute over values is not refutation, but exploration.

Values self-test:

A fair premise/result

Procedural justice/substantive justice

Which is more important, order or freedom?

Which is more important, morality or law?

Is human nature good or evil?

Disputes: rhetoric disputes, standard/concept disputes, and substantive disputes (values, facts).

Why is value the ultimate core of debatability?

Thinking is carried out through concepts, and concepts are obtained through definitions, but definitions are not described and conclusions are always drawn.

Definition: normative and descriptive

Values: benevolence and wisdom

Benevolence: sentiment, warmth, equality, fair result, government, morality, populism, welfare, kindness. ...

Wisdom: rationality, ruthlessness and freedom.

, premise fairness, opportunity, market, law, elite ...

A wise man must see wisdom in benevolence, and a benevolent man must see benevolence in wisdom.

Lesson 1 1 Policy Debate

Why should we?

The Core of Policy Debate: Should it?

Content of Policy Debate: Fact+Value

The Direction of Policy Debate: the Blending of Emotion (Value Emotion) and Reason (Case Data)

Basic framework of policy debate

Changing the status quo requires sufficient reasons to convince the other party before it can be (positive) vs. maintaining the status quo is reasonable and has presumed interests, and more things are better than less things (negative)

The pros and cons need to meet the following four points to change the policy:

Need (illness): urgent matter

Root attribute (etiology): the right medicine

Solvability (efficacy): policy benefits

Profit-loss ratio (trade-off): variable cost

Policy debate-human lives can be counted.

Lesson 12 Philosophical Debate

Philosophical debate is the real core of debate.

The core of philosophical debate is the world outlook and outlook on life.

For example, human nature is good/evil.

With your argument, has the truth become clearer and clearer?

Is beauty a subjective feeling or an objective existence?

etc

The Debate between Zhuangzi and Hui Shi on Good Quantity

Debate on young birds (principle (wise man) and response (benevolent man))

Yang Zhu-a believer in the free market.

Mencius: Principle and Chance

Look at the problem can not be compared in extreme cases, the principle has universal significance, in some cases really need to respond.

Mencius: Debate on Good Nature

Xunzi: Debate on Evil Nature

Analogy is just rhetoric, and it has no persuasive significance.

Class summary

The debate is based on theory.

The debate is to clarify the dispute.